Derec
Contributor
Why should the State of Texas be forced to do business with a contractor who is an antisemitic "kauft nicht bei Juden" type?
-
Features
School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
Why should the State of Texas be forced to do business with a contractor who is an antisemitic "kauft nicht bei Juden" type?
ruby sparks
Contributor
That seems to be about it.
ruby sparks
Contributor
It's not that simple.
Academia4equality (Israel)
Arbeter Ring/Workmen’s Circle, Southern California
Boycott from Within (Israeli citizens for BDS)
Coalition of Women for Peace (Israel)
Collectif Judéo Arabe et Citoyen pour la Palestine (France)
Dayenu: New Zealand Jews Against Occupation (New Zealand)
Een Ander Joods Geluid (A Different Jewish Voice) (The Netherlands)
Een Andere Joodse Stem – Another Jewish Voice (Flanders, Belgium)
European Jews for a Just Peace
Free Speech on Israel (UK)
Gate48 – critical Israelis in the Netherlands
Independent Jewish Voices (Canada)
Independent Jewish Voices (UK)
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
Italian Network of Jews Against the Occupation
Jewish Anti-Fascist Action Berlin (Germany)
Jewish Socialists’ Group (UK)
Jewish Voice for Democracy and Justice in Israel/Palestine (Switzerland)
Jewish Voice For Labour (UK)
Jewish Voice for Peace (USA)
Jewish Voice for Peace members in London (UK)
Jews Against Fascism (Australia)
Jews against the Occupation (Australia)
Jews for Justice for Palestinians (UK)
Jews for Palestinian Right of Return (USA)
Jews of Color & Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews in Solidarity w/ Palestine (USA)
Jews Say No! (USA)
JIPF – Judar för Israelisk Palestinsk Fred (Sweden)
Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden im Nahost e.V. (Germany)
Junts, Associació Catalana de Jueus i Palestins (Catalonia, Spain)
Los Otros Judíos (Argentina)
Manchester Jewish Action for Palestine (UK)
Quebrando Muros – Judeus Brasileiros Pela Descolonização da Palestina (Brazil)
Scottish Jews Against Zionism
SEDQ Network- A Global Jewish Network for Justice
South African Jewish Voices for a Just Peace (South Africa)
South African Jews for a Free Palestine (South Africa)
Union des progressistes juifs de Belgique (Saint-Gilles, Belgium)
United Jewish People’s Order (Canada)
Union Juive Française pour la Paix (France)
Boston Workmen’s Circle, Center for Jewish Culture and Social Justice
40+ International Jewish organisations who oppose conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel and all either support or are neutral regarding BDS, apparently:
https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/fir...uating-antisemitism-with-criticism-of-israel/
From the UK specifically:
JJP (Jews for Justice for Palestinians) opposes Israeli policies that are destroying the human, civil, political and economic rights of the Palestinian people.
https://jfjfp.com/who-we-are/
laughing dog
Contributor
Since the contract did not specify Nazi behavior as objectionable, what on earth are you talking about?
Derec
Contributor
What's the difference between BDS and "kauft nicht bei Juden"?
Derec
Contributor
For one, I am not conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel. But when Israel is criticized in a way no other country is, to the extent that Israel is denied the right to defend itself against Islamofascist terrorists, then it becomes antisemitic.
I have no respect for groups like "Jewish Voice for Peace". They are nothing but a bunch of far-left self-haters that want to see Israel destroyed.
untermensche
Contributor
Being against decades of brutal oppression and theft has nothing to do with antisemitism.
Not dealing with criminal states is a moral stance.
This oppression of Palestinians has nothing to do with Israel protecting itself.
We know what the oppression is all about. The continual theft and occupation of land tells us what it is about.
And too bad that decades of brutality and denial of rights AND THEFT makes many people hate Israel.
Derec
Contributor
I have answered everything.
I deny your baseless claims.
Islamofascist ideology created Hamas. Hamas is an offshoot from the Muslim Brotherhood, that has existed since the 1920s. Muslim Brotherhood participated in the Arab war to annihilate Israel in 1948.
Wrong. I deny that the UN partition plan belongs in that graphic, as it was never implemented (Arabs chose to go to war against Israel instead) and thus it can't be used to illustrate shifting borders.
Because "the Palestinians" have not. Only Fatah did, and that reluctantly. Hamas (most popular party among Palestinians, esp. in Gaza) rejects any recognition of Israel. Same goes for Islamic Jihad and the Marxist-Leninist PFLP (splitters!). Those are the four biggest factions among Palestinians.
I have shown that Israel is very much willing to trade land for peace. They did it with Sinai and Egypt for example. They tried to do it with Gaza, but only got 100s of rockets in response. Given the experience in Gaza, it would be foolish to leave West Bank.
I do not deny that West Bank is very much fractured. Both sides need to sit down and hammer out a deal both parties can live with. Alas, the problem Palestinian negotiators have is that if they offer too much, Hamas/Islamic Jihad and other parties who do not want to recognize Israel in the first place will respond with increased terrorist attacks, scuttling the talks.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Oh I think that's exactly what you did. And what's more you did it by invoking Godwin's Law.
I'm sure you've looked into that and are well informed on it.
And the other 40? They're all Jewish organisations you know.
Do you think, possibly, there's an issue here that is not about being or not being Jewish, or pro or antisemitic?
untermensche
Contributor
You are deluded. You have expressed anti-Palestinian bigotry and ignorance. Nothing else.
No you don't as we see.
In 1948 some terrorist minded Jews intruded and used violence to take something they did not own but something they wanted.
It was criminal activity.
Being against terrorists taking land is called morality. Fighting against terrorists intruding into lands they don't own is called defense.
Wanting to throw intruders off land they took by force is called hoping for justice.
After some terrorist Jews intruded and used violence to take what was not their property the UN of course stepped in.
The UN felt sorry for the Jews that suffered incredibly during WWII. The nations that did nothing to help the Jews in WWII were trying to save face.
So as a gift, not because it was their property the UN drew up a map to outline a Jewish homeland respecting the people that were already there, the Palestinians.
That map shows what was thought to be a fair distribution of land at the time. Absolutely nothing has changed since that first map in terms of fairness.
Whether it was accepted or not accepted has nothing to do with what it was. A fair distribution of land.
And of course it was leaders of nations who went to war against Israel, not "Arabs". It was a tiny percentage of Arabs. To say "Arabs" gives away the bigotry.
And there is nothing unusual about people trying to throw a violent intruder out.
Hamas gained popularity through public service, not by threat.
The Palestinians in Israeli controlled lands have good reason to hate the double oppressor Israel.
The oppression first denies the Palestinians the means to defend themselves and the means to create a modern state.
And the oppression also creates groups like Hamas that oppress their own.
That is some Trumpish slight of hand.
Israel says one thing and constantly does another.
What we know for a fact is Israel has slowly taken control of more and more land as this oppression has gone on.
They got rockets because they are stealing land and oppressing people.
No port on the Gaza strip. No airport.
The Palestinians are not permitted this by their oppressor.
Boats cannot go in and out as they please.
The oppressor will not permit it.
The Palestinians are not allowed to have the means to defend themselves. A basic human right.
The oppressor will not allow it.
Yes. We know what the oppression is all for.
Derec
Contributor
What evidence do you have for the claim that Palestinians are descendants of ancient Israelites? As far as I know, they are genetically indistinguishable from other Arabs. There was also a lot of Arab immigration into "historic Palestine" during the early 20th century, same time there was a lot of Jewish immigration too.
That's a claim backed up by nothing. Even UNRWA requires only a two year residence before creation of Israel to call people "Palestinian refugees".
BS. Are you subscribing to the antisemitic theories that deny that modern Jews have any connection with the Land of Israel?
And besides: before the 1948, there were also Jews who had to flee their homes in places like Gaza (zero Jews live there now). Unlike Palestinians, they have not been kept in refugee camps for 70 years but are fully integrated into Israeli society. Same should happen to so-called "Palestinian refugees".
If an Arab family moved to Jerusalem or Jaffa or Bethsheeba from Cairo or Baghdad or Damascus on May 31st 1946, their descendants in perpetuity are counted as "Palestinian refugees" that now demand "right of return". No 1000 years required.
You are incorrect.
It only became popular after the Arab lands were divided into different countries based on World War I powers carving out protectorates from previously Ottoman territory.
Before than, there was no need for the concept really. And how do you explain PLO leaders stating that they invented Palestinian identity?
That, by the way, is in my opinion the chief obstacle to solving this problem. Since Palestinian identity was invented by the PLO terrorists for the express purpose to facilitate their fight against Israel, "resistance" has become an indispensable aspect of the Palestinian identity. Palestinians do not want to give up hatred against Israel, because, without it, what do they have that makes them "Palestinian"?
Funny, given that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian.
What racism? Palestinians are hardly an ethnicity, much less a race. Did you know there are ginger Palestinians?
The issue is culture, not race.
So what indeed. I am not talking about before the 20th century. Of course technology was different. But Israel found a desert and pretty quickly built a modern state there. Even today, you see Hamas not invest in how to better Gaza, but in terror tunnels, rockets from Iran and other means to inflict terror on Israel.
Relatively secular.
Israel is founded as a homeland for Jewish people, justified by the long history of oppression. Why is it that Arabs can have over dozen Arab states, but Jews can't have one Jewish state?
Arctish
Centimillionaire
It's the difference between Israel and Jews.
Not every Jew is Israeli, and not every Israeli is a Jew.
Not every Jew is a Zionist, and not every Zionist is a Jew.
Opposing the Zionist expansion in Palestine is not the same as opposing Judaism.
Refusing to support the violation of human rights in Palestine is not the same thing as refusing to support your local Jewish deli.
lpetrich
Contributor
You did in the post just before that one. "Kauft nicht bei Jüden" is German for "Don't buy from Jews".
Anti-Semitism would be saying that Israel is bad because it is ruled by Jews.
So if one criticizes imperialist behavior by some of one's group, one is a "self-hater"? During the Nazi years, were anti-Nazi Germans "self-haters"?
No, Israel resisted theft. Every time the Arabs have tried it the Palestinians end up worse off. That makes the Arabs the true oppressors.
We have been over this before--why is there almost no violence associated with the true oppression in the world? We only see violence when Muslims get the short end of the stick, never mind why they got it (usually it's because they used violence in the first place.)
Repeating this ad nauseum doesn't change the fact that the wall basically fixed the borders, where's the ongoing theft??
Are you a bot? Two of us have just explained what's really going on with those maps.
The first map marks all government areas as Palestinian. Big lie.
The second map shows the UN borders before there was any violence, it's the third that shows the results of the Arab attack--but if it were drawn truthfully there would be no green on this map at all as those areas were annexed to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.
Thus the fourth map shows the creation of Palestinian land, not the taking of it.
It's a reaction to Arab nations requiring companies to boycott Israel. The US is basically saying you can't go along with Arab-mandated boycotts, thus giving them a legal way not to comply.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
The historical record of Nablus, Jenin, Jericho, and Jerusalem being continuously occupied by an indigenous population for the past 3,000-6,000 years or so, and the records of the various religious communities within them growing, shrinking, and changing over time are evidence. There's also the DNA evidence of close family connections between Palestinian Jews and their Christian and Muslim neighbors, and the families own oral histories of Jewish ancestors.
I have posted links to multiple genetic studies over the years. I don't have time right now to dig them all up again but you can find them if you look. Here's a sample:
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples includes a definition of 'indigenous peoples'. That is the definition I'm using.
Not at all. The DNA evidence and historical records are clear on that point. European Jews are descended from the Semitic people of Palestine, although most have European ancestors, too.
I have consistently argued against their having an exclusive ancestral claim, and against the absurd proposition that Jerusalem means more to Jews in the diaspora than it does to the people who actually live there.
Only if they want it to. But if they want to go back to the homes they were driven out of at gunpoint, then that's what should happen. Same for the Jews driven from their homes, and the Rohingya driven from theirs, and the Bosnian Muslims and the Albanians and the Yazidis and the Tutsi and every other ethnic/religious/racial group that suffered that same violation of human rights.
Interesting.
Do Europeans who illegally immigrated to Jerusalem on May 31st 1946 count as Israelis? Because if so, I wonder what point you're trying to make.
True, that whole 'united we stand, divided we fall' philosophy was popular in North Africa and the Middle East as it was quite obvious European nations were conspiring to screw them out of wealth, power, and resources. But it was not universally accepted, and it certainly didn't erase the religious, ethnic, and cultural differences. The Druze of Lebanon didn't see themselves as the same as the Sunni and Shiite Lebanese, much less the Egyptian Coptics and North African Berbers.
That's a good question and the answer is actually pretty interesting.
Traditional Palestinian society was clan based. The Ottoman millet system of rule was very supportive of tribes, clans, and faith based communities. Every tribal, clan and faith community was under it's own rule for everyday matters, and every group had representation in the Ottoman Court with high officials that represented them specifically.
Individuals might own houses, livestock, and other property, but the clans owned the communal resources like wells and pastures. That's the kernel at the base of Loren's claims that the majority of the property Israelis stole was 'government owned'. The grazing land was owned by the clans and managed for the benefit of the entire community.
Individual members of the various clans largely lived peaceably with their neighbors but there were occasional disputes. In the rural areas those disputes would be settled by clan elders. In the cities there was a more formal process involving clan representatives and Ottoman officials. That system of social organization was ill suited to fend off the advances of the European powers who were quite adept at playing one group against another. The Palestinian clans needed a unifying national identity the same way and for the same reason that the Arab tribes in what is now Saudi Arabia did. Yemen would probably be better off today with less tribal autonomy and a stronger central authority, but for better or for worse they held on to the old way of doing things.
It was the same for Jews in Israel, you know. They needed to adopt a unifying national identity in the early 20th century, not remain divided into Mizrahi, Samaritan, and Ashkenazi immigrant communities. That's why Yiddish was suppressed and Israeli civil servants had to adopt Hebrew surnames if they didn't already have one.
The abrupt transition from tribal/clan identity to nationalism in the Middle East at the beginning of the 20th century is a fascinating historic period and I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you're interested. Lawrence of Arabia figures into it, and how cool is that?
They have their roots in Palestine.
They have their olive orchards with trees hundreds of years old that were planted by their great-great-grandfathers. They have their cemeteries near Rachel's Tomb and Joseph's Tomb, the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Bethlehem and Nazareth and the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee, and all that means to them. They have their pastures and farms and houses that have been in the family for centuries. They have oral histories and church records and municipal files and maps and pictures and newspapers that document their lives and that of their ancestors.
It's their homeland. They don't need more of a connection than that.
He was born in Cairo to a Palestinian merchant family of the Gaza branch of the al Husseini clan.
It's an appeal to prejudice, religious bigotry, and racial/ethnic supremacism with a heaping helping of fatuousity. Also, it's anti-Semitic.
Israel did not find a desert. Israel was built upon the existing infrastructure of a Palestinian society that had developed under centuries of largely peaceful Ottoman rule into what was then a modern, if somewhat small and only moderately wealthy region.
Read some history. Read what Ben Gurion, Dayan, Sharett, Weitz, and their contemporaries wrote about seizing land and manufacturing facilities. And get rid of that silly 'magical Jews' thinking. They didn't make the desert bloom, they stole productive agricultural land and seized the ports so they could sell the crops in European markets for the cash they needed to fund their war. It was all very practical.
Secular in some ways, religiously oppressive in others. Religious laws are foundational, and religious bigotry is integral to it's functioning.
Ye gods, not this stupid appeal to emotion again.
Jews can have a Jewish State where everybody wants a Jewish State and everybody agrees what it means to be Jewish and how one's Jewishness is measured or determined or recognized if they want. But they're not allowed to make one by stealing other people's stuff and driving non-Jews out of their homes. And they're not allowed to cry about how mean everyone is for saying they're being assholes when they really are being assholes.
Last edited:
J842P
Veteran Member
The really absurd thing is that this should be obvious to anyone with any understanding of history. The revealing mistake that Derec makes is even thinking that "Arab" is a racial/genetic grouping. Arab is like Hispanic, it is defined by the language. "Arabs" from North Africa are distinct from "Arabs" from Syria and "Arabs" from Palestine and "Arabs" from the actual Arabian Peninsula.
laughing dog
Contributor
Even if BDSers are equivalent to Nazis (which I do not accept), that does not mean that all Nazis are the equivalent of BDSers. Duh.
Derec
Contributor
Obviously they are not equivalent, as Nazis did much more damage, at least for now. However, there are disturbing parallels in their ideology and tactics, pre-Machtergreifung, where they were calling for boycotts of Jewish stores.
Also, real Nazis were much snappier dressers than BDSers.