I like that phrase. It has a nice ring to it. And Sarid uses it, davke, the day before the Knesset is due to pass its anti-boycott legislation which would criminalize references to BDS in the Israeli media, to affirm his intent to boycott the settlements and to support all those throughout the world who do as well. He explicitly invites the state prosecutor to question him for violating the forthcoming law.
Interestingly, Sarid notes that the first prosecution that should come from the new law is that of government of Israel itself, which agreed to a demand from the EU to mark products originating in the Territories and so distinguish them from regular Israeli merchandise so that Europeans can (are you ready) boycott settlement goods.
In a nice turning of the traditional Biblical quotation, “If I forget thee O Jerusalem,” on its head, Sarid proclaims his refusal to partake of the joys of settlement:
May my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I take a slice or a sip; may my right hand lose its cunning if it lends itself to their cheesemakers and vintners, whom we herein recommend boycotting.
This is good news for the people behind CodePink’s Boycott Ahava international campaign, which seeks to target a beauty products company based in the West Bank.
The problem, of course, is that Sarid, as a liberal Zionist, doesn’t go far enough. We should boycott or divest from not just settlements, but companies that benefit from settlements and Occupation in general. And this should not just be Israeli companies, but international ones as well, such as the French company building Jerusalem’s light rail line through occupied East Jerusalem. We should boycott and divest from U.S. companies that provide cluster bombs, white phosphorus or similar heinous, illegal weapons to the IDF which kill civilians indiscriminately. But make no mistake, I am not advocating indiscriminate boycott or divestment. This is targeted BDS. BDS with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Others may have a more far-reaching or draconian approach, but this is mine.
“anti-boycott legislation which would criminalize references to BDS in the Israeli media”.
Instead of misleading your readers, I suggest you read the proposed law.
First of all, you appear to be suggesting that the proposed law would make it a crime even to REPORT BDS activities in the Israeli media – which is, of course, nonsense. There is no such suggestion in the proposed law.
Secondly, the law does not “criminalise” anything.
The law makes it possible for a person or a company injured by a person or legal entity calling for an economic, cultural or academic boycott to bring a CIVIL ACTION against the person or legal entity calling for the boycott – in much the same way that one can sue someone for slander or libel. You do understand the difference between a crime and a tort, don’t you, Richard?
It also makes it possible for the Minister of Finance to limit the participation in Israeli government tenders, of a company or individual who has undertaken an obligation to participate in boycott actions against Israel, . One assumes, in any case, that such a company or individual, would not wish to participate in Israeli government tenders – since that would violate the boycott which they themselves are promoting.
What does this mean? Instead of using vague language like this show where I actually said what you claim I said. The law makes it a crime to advocate boycott of Israel. And certainly an argument can be made (though I haven’t made it yet) that any publication which publishes any report faintly positive toward BDS would be breaking the law.
Pardon me but suing newspapers, reporters and their publishers for reporting the news and doing their jobs comes awfully close to making the pursuit of journalism a criminal act. First they’ll sue them under the new law, then Knesset will upgrade the law w. criminal penalties. Only a matter of time w. this bunch you advocate for.
You do understand the difference between a crime and a tort
Yes but this legislation attempts to create a new civil offense which sounds more like a criminal misdemeanor to me. This statute allows applicants to be awarded judgments without having to prove any damages at all. They only have to show the respondent supported a boycott, sanction, or divestment – or that a company or organization “complied” with a boycott and must therefore be barred from doing business with the government. A tort is a breach of a civil duty “owed” to another party. But a business that chooses to only buy products with a point of origin mark or label from somewhere outside of the territories is not necessarily violating any “civil duty”.
FYI you can’t really tell just by looking at the boycott bill itself because the Penal Law 5737-1977 allows both criminal and so-called “civil imprisonment”, e.g. imprisonment to compel compliance with a Court order or to compel proper conduct, compel payment of any civil debt, & etc. It also allows “enabling regulations” written by the responsible Ministry staff to establish punishments and fines. Only the approval of a Knesset Committee is required for that sort of thing, not the whole Knesset.
The statute applies to “the territory of Israel including Judea and Samaria”. The Palestinian Authority is currently boycotting settlement goods, but surely the Knesset doesn’t think it can create a “civil duty” for Palestinians to purchase those items or from exercising its own am personam jurisdiction to prohibit the employment of Palestinians in the settlements or Israeli industrial zones.
Now that’s a great response Haver. I’m not sure I agree with everything you wrote but you certainly brought up points that are relevant. The possibility of implementing Penal Law 5737-1977 certainly adds criminal-like elements to this law. What I don’t understand is how a court can assess damages without the aggrieved party having to prove or quantify said damages. I’m going to have to research that…
What I don’t understand is how a court can assess damages without the aggrieved party having to prove or quantify said damages.
The implementing regulation from the ministries involved could provide a schedule for payment of damages or fines instead of actual damages. An analogy of sorts would be something like the copyright acts around the globe which give the plaintiff the option of asking for statutory or regulatory agency fixed damages instead of actual damages and profits. In most cases the country has a regulator who decides what is or isn’t protected and what may be considered innocent vs criminal infringement.
The boycott bill does not require the plaintiffs to establish that any actual damages have occurred, so it is likely that some per-offense schedule for plaintiff awards would be used to keep from over-burdening the courts. Of course, the people who have principled objections to supporting the settlements are not going to pay anything and will end up being civilly or criminally imprisoned for engaging in prohibited conduct and failing to pay the resulting judgment. I don’t think this would pass muster with the High Court of Justice, but they’ve held their noses and permitted extra-judicial killings, retaliatory home demolitions against third parties, & other draconian practices in the past. Let’s face it, the use of Palestinian state land for Jews-only settlements and Jewish industrial zones has been green-lighted all along by the HCJ.
P.S. I keep reading that the intent expressed during the Knesset debates is to create a new “offense” and adopt a law that would penalize anyone calling for a boycott of Israel or the settlements. This sounds more and more like a criminal misdemeanor with a victim’s compensation fund over which the Courts would play the role of gate keepers.
The Palestinian Authority is an organization that calls for the boycott of the settlements and this law would require the government to stop conducting business with it. Israel collects millions in shekels that would then be available to so-called victims. But if the Palestinians can’t demand that settlements like Ariel be removed (that’s a sanction), WTF is there left to negotiate about? Judea and Samaria have been annexed ipso jure by the Knesset via this legislation and the military commander is irrelevant as far as I can see.
Yes, it seems to me that this is a lawsuit just waiting for Shurat HaDin to file. It would take the PA to court inside Israel on the charge of advocating a boycott & demand Israel stop reimbursing the VAT taxes it collects on behalf of the PA as a financial penalty.
It would take the PA to court inside Israel on the charge of advocating a boycott & demand Israel stop reimbursing the VAT taxes it collects on behalf of the PA as a financial penalty.
The Oslo Accords expired in 2000 and should only be viewed as an interim five year agreement to bring a belligerent occupation to an end and implement Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The Palestinian Declaration of Statehood predated that agreement and its permanence and legality had been recognized by half of the world’s states.
Israel nonetheless has viewed it as a permanent entitlement to violate international law. The ICJ performed an analysis of the Oslo Accords and didn’t find that they had altered the status of the occupied territory. The Jerusalem Post has carried articles (e.g. here) with complaints from the Israeli manufacturers association about the state remitting revenues to Fayyad’s government that are then used for the National Honor Fund. It compensates workers who used to be employed by Israeli businesses prior to the adoption of the legal ban on employment in the settlements or Israeli industrial zones.
The bdsmovement.net has an article that cites evidence from the Washington Post which says that Fayyad’s boycott had closed 17 business in one settlement alone and impacted hundreds of others.
So, these business could be awarded PA assets in default judgements under the boycott bill.
Fayyad has stated that the PA wants to end the occupation that began in 1967 and that it wants a real state, not another unilateral declaration. Al Ahram reported that during a recent appearance at the demonstration in Bilin, Fayyad said:
If the UN General Assembly adopts a resolution recognizing Palestine as an observer state, then the Secretary General will be required to accept the deposit an accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court from Palestine. That would provide for the prosecution of the Israeli and parastatal Zionist organization officials responsible for the settlement enterprise. If not, then the PLO has stated it will consider dissolving the PA and demanding citizenship in the de facto apartheid state. It’s very doubtful that the AHLC donors will be willing to assist the Netanyahu regime with the costs associated with its 5 million new wards.
Silverstein said: “Instead of using vague language like this show where I actually said what you claim I said.”
I was quoting your own words: “anti-boycott legislation which would criminalize references to BDS in the Israeli media”
Silverstein says:
“Pardon me but suing newspapers, reporters and their publishers for reporting the news and doing their jobs comes awfully close to making the pursuit of journalism a criminal act”
I thought I made it clear that the proposed law makes the reporting of BDS activities, neither a civil tort nor a criminal act. It doesn’t even make the public advocacy of a boycott a criminal act. I said so in as many words. What is not clear about that?
lOnce again, Richard, if you don’t understand the difference betwen a civil tort and a criminal offence, I suggest you go and look it up. I haven’t the time to give you a course in basic law.
Silverstein says:
“certainly an argument can be made (though I haven’t made it yet) that any publication which publishes any report faintly positive toward BDS would be breaking the law.”
I gather you have not, in fact, read the proposed law. You claim to be able to read Hebrew, so there’s really no excuse for that. The proposed law states clearly that the intended subject of the law is one “who knowingly publishes a public call for a boycott against the State of Israel.” As for the argument that you claim can be made, but which, interestingly, you haven’t made (possibly because you can’t) – you are using precisely the same vague language of which you are accusing me.
Silverstein says:
“First they’ll sue them under the new law, then Knesset will upgrade the law w. criminal penalties.”
Are we talking about the law which the Knesset is about to approve and which has already passed its first reading, or about some imaginary law which you think they might pass at some future date. Because, if it’s the latter, then you really should be more accurate in your language and not claim, in your very first paragraph, that this is the anti-boycott legislation which “the Knesset is due to pass”.
Silverstein says: “Only a matter of time w. this bunch you advocate for.”
Pardon me, I have not, in fact, advocated for anyone, nor have I stated whether or not I approve of the proposed law. You have merely made that assumption, because I pointed out that your report is inaccurate. I fear this is a fault you are rather prone to, dear Richard.
You have it exactly right Simone. I’m not a fan of legislating discourse, but the Knesset isn’t criminalizing anything. Even then, I’m not sure the law is going to pass judicial review. I don’t know where Richard got the idea that the Knesset was passing criminal legislation.
I didn’t say it was passing “criminal legislation.” I said it was criminalizing positive references to boycott in political discourse, thereby degrading democratic values.
“Criminalize” is described as “making an activity illegal.”. There is a very fine line between criminal prosecution and levying huge fines on someone for advocating ideas that would be entirely acceptable in any other truly democratic nation. Such punitive treatment comes awfully close to turning activists into criminals, something that already happens to many of them for their activities.
As for whether the law will pass muster, the idea of relying on the current Israeli Supreme Court to protect democracy is pathetic. You’ve in effect given up on Knesset as anything more than a proto fascist body and said that’s OK because the Court will save you from Knesset’s worst excesses. All I can say is God help you because you sure won’t if left to your own devices.
If you want to get snarky you’ll do it elsewhere. Don’t you dare try to score points here about the difference bet tort and civil action. I don’t take kindly to it.
You contradict yourself:
My understanding of the legislation is that it certainly does prohibit public support of BDS. If you have proof that isn’t so from a reliable source offer it. It appears that the legalism on which you’re hoisting your flag is the word “criminal.” But really, the difference between bankrupting someone with fines for advocating BDS and throwing him in jail is very fine. Many totalitarian or near totalitarian countries use severe economic disincentives to enforce strict adherence to laws to the detriment of freedom of speech and democracy. Among them are Iran, China, Chechnya, Russia, & Belarus. Whether you call this criminalizing speech or some other fig leaf legalism matters little to me. We (that is, the rest of us who haven’t bitten the fruit of the Tree of Hasbara as you have) know better.
If you want to argue that Israel isn’t yet a totalitarian (or near so) system like those others be my guest. But the fact that it behaves in ways that are similar in its abuse of the application of economic crimes is certainly no recommendation for Israel.
I could give a crap what you say. Your views are crystal clear here. Either you’re a hasbarist sent to argue here for argument’s sake in which this is some sort of game for you; or else you’re a true believer. You’ve clearly argued that the law Isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be. So either you’re an equivocator or you’re true to yr principles. Frankly, I’d rather have someone here who is forthright instead of someone like you who dances around the truth and absconds fr. it.
Sweetiekins, cut out the bulls(^t or you’ll be sent back to the JPost talkback section pronto.
Of course the law will have a chilling effect on discourse. That’s why I unequivocally oppose it. But mischaracterizing the law doesn’t help the situation. The term “criminal” has a very specific meaning and I don’t understand why you continue to stick to your guns on this one. You’re simply wrong.
An Israeli who advocates on behalf of BDS will not be considered a criminal. He or she will simply open themselves up to the possibility of civil sanctions in a court of law. A company will have to sue the BDS activist in court, prove that they suffered quantifiable damages and prove a direct correlation between those damages and the person’s words/advocacy. Whatever company is going to be fool enough to actually take up such a course of action will expose themselves to an international PR nightmare and significant legal fees. Lawyers will scramble to take up the cause, pro bono, of whatever BDS activist is being sued turning him or her into an instant cause celebre. This is a dumb law. Dumb on every level. But it’s not criminal.
Forgive me my naivete if I believe that it won’t pass judicial review. In Israel, like in the US and Canada, the Supreme Court keeps the legislature in line by overturning laws that cross a certain line. There’s nothing proto-fascist about that at all. The Attorney General himself stated that the law’s “legality” has arguments in its favor. Hardly a confident stance.
Why only a company? I think you’re wrong about this. I believe anyone who can claim damage or injury can sue. If that’s the case there will be myriad lawsuits filed by all sorts of Shurat HaDin/lawfare type groups to harrass anyone saying a kind word about BDS.
The Supreme Court does a piss poor job of defending Israeli democracy. Relying on the Court to save the day is a damn scary notion.
Silverstein says:
“If you want to get snarky you’ll do it elsewhere.”
This from the man who calls me “sweetykins”?
” Don’t you dare try to score points here about the difference bet tort and civil action.”
Kindly stop misrepresenting me. I wrote about the difference between TORT, which is a civil wrong giving rise to a civil action, brought by an individual or legal entity against another individual or legal entity, and CRIME, which is something completely different – not the least of the differences being the fact that being convicted of a crime gives rise to a criminal record.
And BTW – in my world, stating facts is not a “dare”. Maybe in your world it is.
“I don’t take kindly to it.”
I daresay you don’t. In fact, I have yet to find ANY expression of dissent from the official Silverstein Party Platform that you HAVE taken kindly to. Your answers to those who disagree with you follow a path so familiar as to be totally predictable: misrepresentation, accusing the other party of misrepresentation, quibbling, accusing the other party of quibbling, rudeness, accusing the other party of rudeness, banning.
“You contradict yourself:
It doesn’t even make the public advocacy of a boycott a criminal act.
The proposed law states clearly that the intended subject of the law is one ‘who knowingly publishes a public call for a boycott against the State of Israel.’”
This is a clear example of the way in which you have quite deliberately misrepresented what I actually wrote. In the first statement, I was explaining that the proposed law doesn’t make the public advocacy of a boycott a CRIMINAL act and then went on to explain that what it does do, is create a CIVIL TORT. In the second, I was refuting your claim that the law would punish journalists for doing their job by REPORTING on boycott activities. There is no contradiction there – as you know perfectly well.
“My understanding of the legislation is that it certainly does prohibit public support of BDS. If you have proof that isn’t so from a reliable source offer it.”
Firstly, I note that you have moved ever so subtly (and without drawing attention to it) from claiming that the “anti-boycott legislation … would CRIMINALIZE REFERENCES to BDS in the Israeli media” to claiming that it would “prohibit public support” – already something very different.
Secondly, if you want a reliable source, I refer you to the legislation itself. I do not have to quote secondary sources, when the draft bill is itself extant and readily available to those who are interested in what it actually says – as distinct from some one’s ultra-flexible and prejudicial interpretation of what it says.
“It appears that the legalism on which you’re hoisting your flag is the word “criminal.” But really, the difference between bankrupting someone with fines for advocating BDS and throwing him in jail is very fine.”
The difference between bankruptcy and being sent to prison is actually very big (try asking someone who’s been in prison) – and that’s assuming there’s any truth in your suggestion that those who commit the tort will be bankrupted.
“Whether you call this criminalizing speech or some other fig leaf legalism matters little to me.”
I know, Richard, I know. But it matters to me – because I care about the truth.
“I could give a crap what you say.”
I think you mean “couldn’t”. This is one Americans often get wrong. Like when they say “I could care less” instead of “I couldn’t care less.”
But in any case, this cuts to the heart of the matter. You couldn’t give a crap what I say, so you have no qualms about misrepresenting it. Just as you couldn’t give a crap what the proposed law actually says, so you think it legitimate to misrepresent it as creating a crime and as prohibiting journalistic reporting of the boycott. And then when your position is exposed as false, you duck for cover and try to gloss over what you actually said earlier.
“Your views are crystal clear here. Either you’re a hasbarist sent to argue here for argument’s sake in which this is some sort of game for you; or else you’re a true believer.”
Ah, here we go again – the old hasbarist smokescreen when your arguments have been discredited and your purported facts proven false.
“Frankly, I’d rather have someone here who is forthright instead of someone like you who dances around the truth and absconds fr. it.”
Forthright like you, Richard? The usual definition of “forthright” is: “Direct and outspoken; straightforward and honest”. So, Richard, which of these definitions applies to you? In what way are you, yourself, “forthright”?
Forthright as in claiming that the proposed law creates a crime when it doesn’t? Or forthright as in claiming that anyone who argues over this distinction is using a “fig leaf legalism”? Forthright as in claiming that “anti-boycott legislation … would criminalize references to BDS in the Israeli media”. Or forthright as in covering one’s backside with the revised claim that “First they’ll sue them under the new law, then Knesset will upgrade the law w. criminal penalties.”
You are VERY forthright Mr Silverstein. Unfortunately your forthright accusations seem to be built on the shifting sands of falsehood.
“Sweetiekins, cut out the bulls(^t or you’ll be sent back to the JPost talkback section pronto.”
No doubt you’ll also make me stand in the corner with my face to the wall in disgrace…
LOL, without being particularly well informed about the topics at hand – one thing is clear:
This Richard person is hilarious. He’s a caricature of a raving old man who doesn’t really listen to anyone else and “stops playing” when someone successfully contradicts him. This isn’t very hard to do, since he seems to be living in a world of his own – where he’s the all-knowing messiah.
Simone, you seem like an intelligent person – you shouldn’t have to waste your energy on someone like Richard.
You said it, brother.
Thanks for noting that Simone is wasting her energy as are you. Her “energy” isn’t any more rhetorically or politically persuasive than yours.
Keep comments to the substance of the post. This isn’t a baseball game & you’re not in the rooting section.
It doesn’t require very much energy.
Since when did anyone give you the right to call me “dear Richard?” Don’t engage in fake fawning & I won’t repay the favor.
Yes, & that’s precisely what I DO NOT need lessons in fr. you. I’m just winding up a lawsuit that’s gone on for four years involving this blog and it’s given me quite a lesson in matters of law like this one & I certainly need NONE fr. you.
If you don’t like my editorial style or anything else about me, stop complaining and find yourself more comfortable digs. I have no problems with readers/commenters taking issue with me on substance. Argue politics all you want (as long as you follow the comment rules). But don’t whine about what you don’t like about me or my style. It’s just plain boring.
Sure there is. Yossi Sarid, in the very article about which I wrote the post explcitly said he expected to be investigated (in fact, he invited the prosecutor to question him) as a journalist for writing that he supported a settlement boycott. He’s a journalist. He’s reporting on boycott activities. He’s a perfect example of the type of journalism that will be illegal under the new law.
This is ridiculous pilpul. Prohibiting public support, squelching free speech, etc. is different by a matter of minute degree from “criminalizing reference to BDS.” You’re essentially arguing that a reporter can say BDS exists but can’t report that someone publicly supports it. Which is narischkeit.
Not at all when bankruptcy has the purpose of suppressing free speech. Then bankruptcy is used as a political weapon & it is used by the countries I named with which Israel & you are loathe to be compared.
I’m offended by snark like this. You don’t own the truth. And don’t wrap yrself in the mantle of “the truth” as if you know it & I don’t. If you want to remain here stop posturing like this.
You’re insufferable and you WILL NOT give me lectures about proper English usage. My usage is entirely proper just as American English is entirely proper. Whatever English you were raised on isn’t God’s gift to the language & once again you don’t own my language. So get off yr high horse. And if you think I’m not deadly serious about this, just watch me. No one here needs a pedant.
This is an outright lie. And if you’ll read my comment rules I do not allow anyone to lie about my views. I never said I don’t give a crap about what the law actually says. That once again is yr snarky version of what I said or believe. I simply won’t allow you to reframe my statements or views & if you do it again in a blatantly false way you’ll be gone in a heartbeat.
Of course it creates a crime. Have you forgotten the defintion of the word “crime”:
Seems to be like they’ve made promoting a boycott a crime according to this defintion of the word. But perhaps that’s American English and doesn’t correspond to proper English wherever you were raised.
Indeed. This is most excellent hasbarism and should actually be taught at Hasbara Central. You seek to divert attention from the absolute ghastly mess that the law is by grinding down an argument about whether the law makes promoting boycott a crime or a tort. You really deserve a promotion & if you tell us who’s yr boss we’ll put you in for a promotion.
Returning to the notion of legalism, that is precisely yr goal here. The legislation makes it a crime to promote boycott. Crime, that is, to everyone but you.
Now, you’ve had your say on this subject & you’re DONE. You will not comment further in this thread as you’ve exhausted any possible argument or interest that remains in the subject & what you have to say about it.
This is another big comment no-no. No accusing me of being a liar and this comes achingly close to that. You are now on notice. Study those comment rules if you want to continue. And don’t violate them again.
In comments, brevity is the soul of wit. So keep your comments shorter, please.
Silverstein says:
“Since when did anyone give you the right to call me dear Richard?” Don’t engage in fake fawning & I won’t repay the favor.”
Dear Mr. Silverstein (satisfied?)
I was not fawning. I was merely being courteous. You should try it sometime.
Silverstein says (re. my explanation of the difference between tort and crime):
“Yes, & that’s precisely what I DO NOT need lessons in fr. you.”
I know you don’t. I’m sure you KNOW the difference. That is precisely why your wilful misrepresentation of the new legislation is so reprehensible.
Silverstein says:
“If you don’t like my editorial style or anything else about me, stop complaining and find yourself more comfortable digs.”
I LOVE your editorial style. With enemies like you, Israel doesn’t NEED friends!
Silverstein said:
“Yossi Sarid… invited the prosecutor to question him…”
Yossi Sarid knows perfectly well (as do you) that the “prosecutor” has nothing to do with the matter, because reporting BDS activities isn’t a crime.
Silverstein says:
“Prohibiting public support, squelching free speech, etc. is different by a matter of minute degree from “criminalizing reference to BDS.”
I am prepared to concede that you know more than I about the suppression of free speech. You have had so much practice at doing precisely that on your blog, after all.
Silverstein says:
“You’re essentially arguing that a reporter can say BDS exists but can’t report that someone publicly supports it. Which is narischkeit.”
No, it was you who said that. I stated, from the very start, that the law doesn’t even make it a tort (let alone a crime) for a journalist to report BDS activities. As you should know from personal experience, there is a distinction between reporting and supporting. In many countries, for example, it would not be permissible for a reporter to say “Let’s kill the blacks” (or Jews or Arabs or any other ethnic or religious group). It would, however, be perfectly permissible to report that “so-and-so advocated killing blacks/Jews/Arabs, etc.”
Silverstein says:
“You don’t own the truth.”
I know. That’s why I was endeavouring to share it with you. Apparently my gift was unwelcome.
Silverstein says:
“I simply won’t allow you to reframe my statements or views”
Yet you don’t hesitate blatantly to misrepresent mine.
Silverstein says”
” if you do it again in a blatantly false way you’ll be gone in a heartbeat.”
Now that sounds remarkably like a threat of violence. I think you should tread very carefully here, Richard. Must I remind you of your own comment rule with regard to such threats?
Silverstein says:
“Of course it creates a crime. Have you forgotten the definition of the word “crime”:
An action…that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted…and is punishable by law”
Precisely. And calling for a boycott cannot be prosecuted. It can only give rise to civil litigation.
I won’t argue any further on the criminal v. civil issue, as I cannot add anything to my conclusive, law-based arguments in refutation of your repetitious emotion-based arguments.
Silverstein says:
“Now, you’ve had your say on this subject & you’re DONE. You will not comment further in this thread as you’ve exhausted any possible argument or interest that remains in the subject & what you have to say about it.”
You know, I could almost imagine you stamping your foot there – like a petulant child who can’t win an argument.
Silverstein says:
“You are now on notice. Study those comment rules if you want to continue. And don’t violate them again.”
Mr. Silverstein, I have not only studied them, I have downloaded a copy of them – just in case you do what you so often do and add rules at whim on an ad hoc basis.
However, I am of the opinion that I am, indeed, “done”, as you so charmingly put it. You are beginning to bore me. It’s time I found an opponent more worthy of my steel.
You’ve ignored my firm request that you not publish another comment in this thread. For violating this request you will now be moderated. Further violations may meet with further restrictions of privileges.
Calling me “Richard dear,” or whatever you wrote was affected and false. You clearly disdain me & my views. So don’t pretend otherwise. I don’t treat w. exagerrated courtesy people I don’t respect. So don’t waste yr time w. such fawning courtesies.
Precisely the approach of the Bibistas & hasbarists. And look how well it’s done for Israel which has myriads of friends coming out of the woodwork to support it unfailingly.
You too know perfectly well that Yossi Sarid wasn’t “reporting” about BDS, he was advocating the “B” in BDS, hence he would be guilty of a crime & liable to serious punishment.
You poor, poor girl whose mouth has been taped shut so firmly here. So firmly that you’ve only expended hundreds of words advocating your views. And btw, I don’t go in for point scoring or snark. Snark is boring, which makes YOU boring & yr comment boring.
How touching that you were offering me the “gift of truth.” And imagine I was so ungracious as to spit on it when you did. Do pls. continue w. yr condesenscion. It comes across so well & does yr cause so well as well.
“You’ll be gone” is a “threat of violence??” Apparently, you wouldn’t know a real threat of violence if it jumped up & bit you in the a(^. If you care to read real threats of violence I can send you a few hundred received here fr. “admirers” w. whom you no doubt might share quite a bit politically. And you can study them & compare them to what I wrote, which was not a threat at all but a warning that you were violating my comment rules.
My, oh my. YOu’ve downloaded my comment rules so that you can prove when I add to them that I’ve done so. Lady, you’re wasting yr time here. You should be out saving the world. If you’re bothering to download my comment rules & parsing them for changes I make to them, I can recommend a few sports you should take up to give you a real life.
BTW, I do reserve the right to change my comment rules as new situations arise in which people abuse my hospitality here. My comment rules are not like the 10 Commandments & not engraved in stone.
I half-way expected the last word in that sentence was going to be “bullets.” Perhaps you need a new assignment fr. the Hasbara Ministry. But good luck with it & as I said a number us would be happy to write a recommendation on yr behalf to yr superiors. You really deserve a promotion from fighting in the trenches to a nice comfy office where you can direct all the other most excellent hasbarists who lack yr wit & flair.
Lets see what is really being advocated as part of the BDS
the following is a petition to BDS Israel’s product in Oregon USA.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dontbuyapartheid/
BINYAMINA wines – Made in Binyamina Israel, well within the green lines.
TELMA broth cubes – Telma is located in Haifa Bay
KEDEM tea biscuits –
OSEM falafel mix & Cuscus – Osam is located in Petach Tiqwa and Shoam (both are within the green lines)
and i can go on and on.
The path you guys are taking is dangerous and will lead eventually to dark ages, It’s Extremely hard on people to distinguish between Israel’s made products and settlements products, and BDS is already directed at all Israeli products as a result.
one question, where is this green line as a border notion comes from ? Even resolution 242 doesn’t call for that.
“The path you guys are taking is dangerous”…
Many of us don’t particularly care for smug Israelis telling us where to draw the lines when it comes time for the boycott-payback. All of you have been supporting a joint criminal enterprise in the occupied territories next door for a very long time. Israel is hosting an evil brood of vipers in the Knesset that is just as responsible as the settlers. It was “dangerous” for them all to ignore the continuous protests from the international community that their actions were illegal. You are the ones who brought back the dark ages by creating isolated racial enclaves again. Please go back to the 12th century where those ideas belong.
one question, where is this green line as a border notion comes from ?
Article 2 of UN Security Council resolution 62 cited Article 40 (Chapter 7) of the Charter of the United Nations and sub-paragraph (a) required the establishment of “permanent armistice demarcation lines”.
Article 3 of UN Security Council resolution 73 reaffirmed the order contained in its resolution 54 (1948) to the Governments and authorities concerned, pursuant to Article 40 (Chapter 7) of the Charter of the United Nations and required the parties to the Armistice Agreements to ensure the continued application and observance of the Agreements pending the final peace settlement.
Signing the formal armistice agreements at the Rhodes conference was an act of “belligerent recognition” between the parties. The permanent armistice demarcation lines established under the agreements can’t be altered without the mutual consent of all of the parties concerned. The insurgent governments refused to agree to modifications of the armistice lines at the subsequent conference at Lausanne. Under customary international law, the insurgent governments were allowed to extend their municipal laws to whatever territory they held:
So the effect of the Armistice Agreements was to make the insurgents the “lawful occupants”, not “military occupants” when their mother country was formally dissolved. For example, Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban explained that:
Judge Stephen Schwebel noted that General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) “Declaration On Principles Of International Law Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations” provides that:
Resolution 2625, 24 October 1970 also codified the jus cogens customary law prohibition against any territorial acquisition resulting from war:
In the years following the conclusion of the Lausanne Conference, the Governments of the United Kingdom, France, and the United States formally recognized the permanent armistice demarcation lines as “armistice borders”. See Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders : Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950.
Those governments also recognized the sovereignty of the insurgent governments over the new territories. The United States had extended de jure recognition to Israel and Transjordan on the same day, and it subsequently advised the representative of Jordan that it had recognized the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan and Jordanian sovereignty over the new area. See Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950 in Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921; Jordan and Israel (GOVERNMENT DECISION) HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41; and the Text of de Gaulle’s Answer to Letter From Ben-Gurion, January 10th, 1968.
Security Council Resolution 228 (1966) said that:
Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 reiterated the prohibition against the acquisition of territory by force and required the “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area – that includes belligerent claims against one another’s territory. The ICJ found that only the portions of the Wall constructed in the Palestinian territory were illegal. Judge Higgins explained:
No final settlement can be concluded during a belligerent occupation. Articles 7, 8 and 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention preclude the local officials from entering into any special agreements with the Occupying Power which would renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to the inhabitants by the Convention against deportation, displacement, and transfer. Articles 52 and 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provide that:
The Mitchell Report noted that Israel has to withdraw before the states of belligerency can be terminated and a final settlement can be concluded:
So the Green Line has been established by an international agreement that the Security Council has order the parties to respect; it has been recognized as an armistice border; it cannot be modified without mutual consent or during a belligerent occupation; and the Security Council has ordered the parties to drop their belligerent claims. 112 other countries have recognized the State of Palestine and many of them have recognized it “within the 1967 borders”.
This list does not represent BDS. It represents one particular group’s interpretation. Though I vote for the Democratic party I don’t represent its positions any more than 10 million other Americans who are registered Democrats. The beauty of BDS is that it is flexible. I may even disagree w. Omar Barghouti, the founder of the movement. If so, I will say so just as I will say what portions of BDS I agree with.
No, I’m afraid it is the path Israel is taking in supporting Occupation that is dangerous & will lead eventually to dark ages & self destruction if not stopped. BDS is but one means to do so.
Doncha just love when the hasbarists all of a sudden get legal degrees in international law so they can misquote & mischaracterize UN resolutions?
BTW, if you’re planning to go off on one of yr wild tangents. This isn’t the place to get into a disquisition on the finer pts of the Green Line. So don’t.
It is going to be mission impossible for the BDS movement to distinguish between products made in the West Bank and products made in Israel. As demonstrated by that Oregon group, the outcome would be boy-cut against all Israel Products.
the distance from there to places not carrying anything Jewish related : Matzo, Geffilte FIsh etc, is very short.
and that’s what i see as the danger in BDS.
it will start with the products and will end with other things.
wait and see.
It is going to be mission impossible for the BDS movement to distinguish between products made in the West Bank and products made in Israel.
The BDS Movement has already taken on the mission of boycotting Israeli products and targeting corporations anywhere if they are complicit in the violation of Palestinian rights. Their intro page says There is a global movement for a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against “Israel” until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. — See Introducing the BDS Movement
Whoa, now, wait a second! That’s a HUGE comment rule violation. Go back & read them carefully. And if you inject any insinuations that boycott supporters are anti-Semitic into the debate one more time you’ll be gone pronto.
Excuse me !!!
Where did i said i think the BDS people where Anti-Semite ?
i provided you with an example to what i think would be the logical flow of things.
they will try to cut settlements made products, they will be unable to do so, and will end cutting everything Israeli. along the way they( as a by product) will disrupt the Jewish way of life.
everywhere the Jews are secluded, their right to buy what they want, will be affected by the action of the BDS people.
You said it smacks of the Protocols of the Edlers of Zion, the BIble of International Anti-Semitism. Don’t you even understand yr own words?? If you make such an analogy again you will be moderated.
“But make no mistake, I am not advocating indiscriminate boycott or divestment.”
I don’t care whether Israeli products are made in the illegal settlements or in Israel, all Israeli products should be boycotted, artists should refuse to perform IN ISRAEL and divestment should include ALL Israeli entities. The buck stops with ISRAEL and the apathy that allows for the continuing Occupation afflicts ISRAELIS in general, and all military oppression, checkpoints and every instrument of oppression is authorized IN ISRAEL. Therefore BDS should include ALL OF ISRAEL and not just the settlements which would merely be a slap on the wrist.
Why should Israel enjoy the perks of legitimacy when it’s denying millions of people their human and legal rights???
This needs to go ALL THE WAY. All Israelis should feel a pinch either in their wallet or feel the sting of isolation culturally. We are talking about a pariah state that is promoting and selling APARTHEID to the world as if it were something legitimate.
As a matter of fact, if BD doesn’t work, Sanctions would be more effective, but unfortunately the U.S. Congress is also “occupied territory”.
I can’t imagine how you would think that boycotting only settlement products would be enough, when the settlements are being supported IN EVERY WAY by Israel.
Maybe I misunderstood your statement, but after all the injustices you write about here that mostly originate in Israel and are linked to Israeli policy, I’m baffled and disappointed by this statement.
I don’t support a blanket boycott of everything Israeli. I certainly support divestment from companies investing in or whose products buttress the Occupation, broadly stated. I also support boycott of select institutions within Israel that buttress the Occupation. My views may change on this as time goes on. But that’s where they are right now.
@Kalea,
can’t imagine how you would think that boycotting only settlement products would be enough, when the settlements are being supported IN EVERY WAY by Israel.
as i’ve said before, get your facts straight. you need to talk about boycotting the USA too, that’s were the settlements are funded out of,
U.S. taxpayers are paying for Israel’s West Bank occupation
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/u-s-taxpayers-are-paying-for-israel-s-west-bank-occupation-1.324941
According to a June 2010 fact sheet on the USAID Internet site, last year American taxpayers funded the paving of 63 kilometers of asphalt roads in the West Bank.
By Akiva Eldar
———————————————-
JVP Policy on US-based settlement funders
http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/jvp-policy-us-based-settlement-funders
JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE STATEMENT: U.S. SETTLEMENT FUNDERS
As an organization that focuses on the critical role of the United States in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jewish Voice for Peace is deeply concerned by the ongoing activities of U.S. organizations whose 501c3 (non-profit) status enables them to raise money from American donors to support and maintain settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
————————————————
Activists work to stop tax-exempt donations to Israeli settlements
http://electronicintifada.net/content/activists-work-stop-tax-exempt-donations-israeli-settlements/8955
The groups, mostly Jewish but also Christian-Zionist, often adopt a particular community of settlers and for the most part claim on their tax forms to be contributing to charitable or educational projects.
The non-profit status some of these groups enjoy as designated 501(c)(3) organizations under IRS regulations implies an official US government recognition of their activity.
Some civil rights activists argue that private American funding of the settlements, while not necessarily illegal, does contradict stated US foreign policy as well as the government’s commitment against racial discrimination. But others have started to accuse organizations registered as 501(c)(3)s and supporting settlements of repeatedly violating US tax laws.
Alice SperiThe Electronic Intifada30 July 2010
OF COURSE THESE “NON-PROFIT” ORGANIZATIONS BE THEY JEWISH ZIONIST OR CHRISTIAN ZIONIST SHOULD BE TAXED! AND ALL FUNDING OF ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS SHOULD BE CRIMINALIZED!
But this does not in any way take away from my statement above and I stand by it 100%. Now, I’ll ask you kindly to GET OFF MY CASE and stop with the snark.
I repeat, I apologize if you thought that in a previous comment I was knocking Eastern bloc countries in any way. What I am against is Jewish immigrants from those countries AND New Jersey squatting on Palestinian land and turning on Palestinians and subjecting them to harassment and cruelty.
Now I hope I have made myself clear once and for all. I have nothing against Russia, Germany and any other country in the European Eastern bloc. I hope this will put your antagonism towards me to rest once and for all.
I’d like to add: It’s true that I described the tactics used by those illegal immigrant settlers as fascist and that they may have picked up these fascist tendencies from growing up in their respective countries of origin, although I failed to mention that these illegal immigrants also originate from New Jersey, and no doubt some of them behave like idiots as well.
Obviously fascism has mostly disappeared from the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union is no longer and repression is practically a thing of the past, but many of those immigrants nonetheless behave like fascists against Palestinians, so it’s not a stretch to think that they may have somehow brought something of that environment of their youth to inflict on Palestinians.
And just for the record: I abhor Christian Zionism just as much as Jewish Zionism and I find them equally reprehensible AND I AM IN TOTAL DISAGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN GENERAL. However, we are on a board here discussing the Israeli/Palestinian situation and in my opinion the consequences of the “negative” evolution of Zionism. Not that Zionism would have evolved any other way, since this outcome should have been totally predictable.
Now we may disagree on some issues, but I hope my clarification puts to rest your animosity towards me.
I’m afraid that rampant anti immigrant racism & neo-fascist tendencies are quite alive especially in Russia, but elsewhere in the East (and west) as well.
That is true Richard,
However, the settlers are not all from Russia and the East Europe. They come from West Europe too,
Besides, the Russians and East Europeans who are of tendencies you claim tend to congregate in the secular area’s of Israel, Tel Aviv etc. They tend to look down upon the religious communities as being primitive.
The settlements tend to attract the religous communities.
In a final status peace deal these settlers will probably take up Palestinian nationality and join the new state of Palestine as citizens.
If they were really true to Torah values as is Rabbi Froman, they would. But I think they’re really hypocrites who will return to Israel rather than liviing under Palestinian sovereignty. That would stick in their craw too much.
I would say that a country as Hungaria, one of the most ‘liberal’ during the Communist Era is down a slope approaching fascism. The national discourse on the Roma populations by the Jobbik mouvement, one of the leading political formations, is taken out of some 1930’s program. Roma villages have been burnt down, people been killed without much national furor.
And Poutine’s Russia isn’t too pretty either. The witch-hunt against ‘blacks’ (Caucasians), Central Asians and Muslims is frankly close to fascism. Africans are regularly agressed too.
Indeed, savage violence against immigrants of all kinds but esp. Africans in Russia.
My understanding was that most of the Russian Jewish settlers are there purely for economic reasons. They can get cheap (subsidized) houses in the territories. If they are offered equivalent housing elsewhere or if the subsidies stop, most of them will move.
Except for Avigdor Lieberman, proud resident of Nokdim in the Occupied Territories.
Kalea, but do you support divestments and boycotts against the USA, that was the question,
If it were holding hostage a nation of millions of people depriving them of their human rights and stealing their land, YOU BET!
@ Kalea
If it were holding hostage a nation of millions of people depriving them of their human rights and stealing their land, YOU BET!
What do you think the Iraq war was if not exactly that? Unlike the war in Afghanistan (against Al Qaeda and Taliban) the one in Iraq was based on fabricated evidence by various groups with dubious selfish interests, not least the oil.
Chayma,
Your question was asked and answered in the affirmative. Now you are engaging in old fashioned hasbara somewhere else-ism.
Omar Barghouti supports the international academic boycott of Israel, but he still supports Arab Israelis and Palestinians who have to pursue their education locally.
Many of us did publicly campaign against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continue to do just that. Please boycott your heart out. At the same time, some of us have joined the calls from organizations like J-Street and Jewish Voice for Peace demanding that the Justice Department and IRS investigate US 501(c)(3) organizations that fund illegal settlement activity to see if they have broken any US laws or if they should remain tax-exempt.
Yossi Sarid was a great education minister. A true mensch.
Concerning the Israeli government agreeing to mark goods differently if they came from the settlements, this was not to help boycotters, as Yossi Sarid said (perhaps humourously), but to protect Israel’s privileged trading position in the European Union.
Israel’s goods benefit by reduced tariffs in the EU, but this privilege accorded several countries is supposed to be conditional on human rights observations. Even if this rule is not strictly enforced, the EU does not recognise the occupied territories (including the Golan) as part of Israel. So labelling the products as from Israel so as to enjoy privileges would constitute fraud.
Besides which, boycott campaigners argued that if you could not distinguish settlement products from others, the only safe way was to boycott Israeli goods in general. Some still do.
But it was campaigners such as the European Jews for Just Peace who drew the attention of European legislators to the false labelling issue, and urged them to make sure Israel played by the rules.
CFR 19 § 134.1 states that “Country” means the political entity known as a nation.
The US government treats the West Bank and Gaza as a different country of origin than Israel.
“Department Of The Treasury, Customs Service, [T.D. 97–16], Country of Origin Marking of Products From the West Bank and Gaza”, March 14, 1997 announced that the President had declared the West Bank and Gaza a Free Trade Area.
Customs notified the public in T.D. 95–25 that, unless excepted from marking, goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza Strip shall be marked as ‘‘West Bank,’’ ‘‘Gaza,’’ or ‘‘Gaza Strip.’’ The T.D. further stated that the country of origin markings of such goods shall not contain the words ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘‘Made in Israel,’’ ‘‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’’ or words of similar meaning.
By letter dated January 13, 1997, the Department of State advised the Department of the Treasury that the Palestinian Authority had asked that the U.S. accept the country of origin marking ‘‘West Bank/Gaza’’ so as to reaffirm the territorial unity of the two areas. The Department of State further advised that it considered the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes.
The US and EU both require that products originating in the West Bank and Gaza be labeled differently than those originating on Israel’s side of the Green Line.
There is no criminal conspiracy involved when consumers and other governments demand that Israel’s rules of origin are administered in a consistent, uniform, impartial and reasonable manner in accordance with Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin.
MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union ) is trying to piggyback on the new “civic duty” in the anti-boycott bill. He filed a police complaint against Meretz secretary general Dror Morag and party activists who launched a campaign to label products made in the territories in stores throughout the country as if that constitutes a criminal conspiracy.
This is exactly the thing that was being discussed during deliberations on the boycott bill. It always has been the intent of this group to criminalize people asking for something as simple as country of origin labeling, and also to provide a basis for judgments regarding damages without requiring a shred of evidence that any harm has actually occurred.