PaulL,

Your argument follows the well rehearsed Israel First tactic of disemble, obfuscate and when all else fails start name calling. Your reply to Stan falls neatly into the first two categories. But I can feel some name calling coming on.

As for your disembling: You argue that Israel is a democracy and that it is racist to equate it with the actions of states like Syria and Lybia. You say how come only Israel is held up to such 'high' moral standards and we don't focus on other states that abuse human rights. Yet Lybia and Syria are recognised around the world aqs violating human rights and are treated as such. They have US and UN sanctions imposed on them at present. They don't claim to be democracies.

Israel does. And the billions in aid Israel receives each year hardly counts as sanctions. That's why Israel is signalled out for special treatment. If Israel is happy to be treated asa terrorist state and have sanctions imposted then we would not be complaining about double standards.

Let me sum up. You complain about double standards when Israel is compared to states which violate human rights. Yet we all know the only reason Israel doesn't suffer the same fate is because of the US veto. This pretense allows you to convince yourself that you are a liberal western democracy and are being treated unfairly. Hence, the 'moral equalivence' stuff.

See what I mean about obfuscation? People turn off. They can't be bothered with all the duplicity. It's good stuff. But Israel has the best PR firms money can buy so we expect that.

You can have your rant about Hamas but we know Jews have said similar things. I think even Netanyahu has talked about 'forcible transfers' before. It's frightening stuff. The Arabs are corrupt but when you look at the corruption inviestigations of former Israeli PMs and Presidents (one of whom is in jail isn't he?), you realise the Israeli's are no better.

dane

I didn’t immediately recognise that paulL was dissembling and obfuscating. I thought it was just confused and muddled thinking. But you are right. I seem to remember having been confronted with it before in these arguments. I heard recently that Israel has just budgeted $6 m US in training sympathisers how to how to argue the Zionist cause and obfuscate in the media. I can’t give a source for this but if true I wonder if there is a handbook.

paulL

I didn’t know that the one-Israel policy was what the BDS proponents favour. Could you give me a source? Or where you just wanting to introduce the argument and obfuscate? Did you come across the quote by Ariel Sharon (1973)
“We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlement in between the Palestinians, and then another Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years time neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.”
That strategy has been achieved which makes a two state solution very unlikely.

Dane,

You claim I dissemble, and obfuscate? Yet you haven’t managed to address any of my points. You keep changing the subject when it gets difficult. Its very easy to throw accusations, but it seems you are entirely incapable of demonstrating any of these supposed offences. Its a typical defence for someone who is out of their depth.

You talk about human rights, but you fail to address your attention to countries where conditions are worst. You talk about nuclear weapons, but global disarmament is not a goal of a BDS or the one Israel policy. You talk about foreign support and funding, but fail to acknowledge the support and funding that the Palestinians receive, including the unwavering support of the Islamic conference, which are THE dominant voting bloc in the UN general assembly.

You say ... “: You argue that Israel is a democracy and that it is racist to equate it with the actions of states like Syria and Lybia”

What you’ve just claimed is demonstrably false. In fact it is laughable to pretend that I’m the one dissembling when you can’t even accurately summarise what I’ve said? What I actually suggested was that it was racist to support a policy that you yourself happily informed us would lead to mass forced migration of Jews.

All this suggests that you have a problem with Israel specifically. HOW do you reconcile 1) your view that the results of a ‘one-Israel’ policy would lead to ethnic cleansing of Jews with 2) your alleged non-racism?

You say ....“This pretence allows you to convince yourself that you are a liberal western democracy and are being treated unfairly” ...

I’ll say it again because you’re clearly having difficulty with this. I’m not a Jew, I’m not an Israeli, I’m not born to one or married to one, either. So it’s not ‘me’ who thinks I’m being treated unfairly.

You say ...“ You can have your rant about Hamas but we know Jews have said similar things" ...

Yes, we know because you tell us so, Right?

cont'

PaulL,

I'll say it again. I haven't been addressing your points because they are designed to muddy the waters.

Take for example your paranoia about one Israel. You claim it would be ethnic cleansing of Jews if they decided to leave. Yet Jews (Irgun) have been ethnically cleansing Israel since before it was declared Israel. There is no state in the world today more actively pursuing a policy of ethnic cleansing than Israel. Yet you claim I'm not addressing your points. Are you serious?

I think a one Israel policy would lead to peace and stability in the region. The Arabs will end up forming a majority but i suspect Jews would continue to hold considerable financial and political power.

Israel at peace with its neighbours would become an economic powerhouse and a regional leader.

I'm always suspicious of Jews and their supporters' fearmongering about one Israel. Why do Jews want to keep Israel ethnically pure? Most Jews in Australia are big supporters of immigration and multiculturalism. Why is ok for Australia but not ok for Israel?

And then you have the audacity to insinuate I'm racist ('alleged non-racist'). I thought I could feel some name calling coming on. But then, I guess you don't have to be Nostradamus to predict that Israel supporters will start name calling.

Let me be clear. Even though Israel pursues a national policy of ethnic cleansing, I would never support Jews being forced to leave Israel.

cont,

Hamas. A group that weans its children on martyrdom. A group which doesn’t need wallpaper because of the volume of printed material deifying suicide bombers it produces. These people, whose goals you champion, have just recently launched an anti-tank missile at a school bus. Not by accident, while they were fighting Israeli soldiers, but so they could kill as many jewish children as possible. These are the people you would like to transfer power to, and, it is claimed, would be controlled under such an eventuality, through international monitoring. SERIOUSLY?

You allege "Nethanyahu’s talk of forcible transfers" is frightening stuff, yet you seem to embrace the possibility of widespread forced Israeli evictions without any trepidation at all.

You claim that Israel subverts the will of the UN. But the UN has no moral high ground on this issue. This is amply demonstrated by the saga of the UNCHR, which was so signifcantly and obviously biased that it had to be scrapped. “In the words of then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan “.. the selectivity and politicizing of its [UNCHR] activities [were] in danger of bringing the entire UN system into disrepute”. http://www.iheu.org/node/2546

The Israelis tried a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Not only did this NOT encourage the Palestinians to move towards peace, it did not make Israel more secure either. In fact, it actually resulted in setbacks to both ambitions. It should be clear to everyone that until the violence stops, there is no solution to the problem. Those who think the answer is to elevate the Palestinians, and punish the Israelis, simply give more power to the hardliners on both sides. The real answer is to get the violence to stop, so moderate voices on both sides have room to be heard. The political support to give up the occupied territories does exist in the Israeli public. But whilst ever they are being attacked, sometimes in the most cowardly of ways, their voices will be drowned out..

tbc

Dane

... you say “I haven't been addressing your points because they are designed to muddy the waters.”..

YOU ARE SURELY KIDDING ME. You believe you can take part in a debate and not discuss the issues you yourself have brought up. Politicians make a living avoiding the issues. OLO is a site for real discussion; we have enough evasion in the political sphere. If you will kindly note, I have taken significant trouble to respond to almost everything you have said. I have quoted you verbatim regularly, and I have found and presented evidence directly supporting my arguments.

You, however, seem content to simply declare that my points are not the point. And instead focus on introducing new issues every post rather than supporting any of your prevous claims, or adressing mine regarding same. This kind of avoidance is typical of the proponents of a BDS because a BDS itself doesn’t bear any scrutiny.

You yourself have told us that you expect a one Israel policy (note to stan1 - this is a policy Dane supports - which is why we're discussing it) to lead to significant migration of Jews. It should be instructive to all that there is damn near universal agreement on this fact, including in Hamas and their brothers in terror.

You go out of your way to take offence instead of pointing out why I'm wrong, which is another tactic designed to avoid the issues. The fact is you are incapable of defending your position, you know it, and all along you have sought to ignore that fact in favour of standing on your preferred ground of attacking Israel. You seem to think it should only go one way. That you should be able to promote a public policy attacking Israel and its legitimacy, but you shouldn’t be forced to defend it. I struggle to see how you can maintain such a clearly hypocritical stance with a straight face.

So,

Please do tell us, what are the allowed arguments AGAINST a BDS? Which arguments AGAINST the one Israel policy you will respond to