BDS is an attempt to rein in Israel's genocide against the Palestinians.

Genocide is a strong term, please back with evidence if you wish to convince me or similar readers (i.e. people with no direct vested interest but who wish to form an impartial view).

Yes Phillip, BDS really stands for:

Belligerent
Demonization and
Sophistry

Phil,

In regards to the Palestinian refugee issue, here is UN General Assembly Resolution 194:

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a?OpenDocument

Point no. 11 in the Resolution is "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

"Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;"

So it seems to be that as long as they did not attack the people who would live near them, they should be allowed to return home.

Also, where is your evidence that the return of Palestinian refugees would lead to civil war?

In regards to what caused the refugee exodus in the first place, it is clear that the Zionist terrorist groups such as Irgun Tsvai Leumi, the Stern Gang and Haganah had a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing, and as part of it their members committed massacres and rapes.

In regards to the two-state versus one-state solution, I support the one-state solution. Firstly, because of the situation of Palestinian refugees. Secondly, because of the systematic discrimination against Gentiles in Israel. Approximately twenty per cent of Israel's population within the 1967 Green Line are Palestinian Arab Israelis, and they face a multitude of laws that discriminate against them simply on the grounds that they are not Jews. I fear that the two-state solution will leave the situations of Palestinian refugees and non-Jewish Israelis unaddressed, when they are both serious civil rights issues.

Phillip sounds like a fairly reasonable person. However, he claims that BDS is purely to demonise Jews rather than an attempt to pressure Israel into ending the conflict.
This is clearly not the case. While I'm sure that you can point to some racist fanatics out there, the vast majority of people simply wish to see a just end to this conflict. As someone who has been observing this conflict for a number of years it has become very clear to me that the Israeli's have no intention of reaching a just settlement. They are simply stringing things out, all the while transferring more and more of their population to the Palestinian territories, stealing the prime land and water resources.
Your comment that "Palestinian peace advocates know that they will have to reject violence per se whether initiated by Hamas or Fatah" shows your bias on this issue. There has been very little violence toward Israelis over the past ten or so years, despite an ongoing military occupation and the Gaza siege which would justify a certain amount of violent resistance. In contrast, the Israelis frequently use devastating violence against the Palestinians. Do you accept that the Israeli will have to "reject violence" too? Or is it a case of one rule for Israelis and one for Palestinians?
I think that without strong international pressure, the Israeli will not allow a two state solution. Seeing as our government and that of the US are unwilling to apply this pressure, then a BDS campaign is probably the best option.

The writer stated “Associate Professor Jake Lynch,” saying “that a BDS would be more successful than the various failed international peace initiatives in promoting a viable two-state solution”.

A simple statement and which has now been borne out by events. Note the environment for the last US-inspired Israeli ‘peace’ charade by having the US as a “friendly broker” being just pure farce, middle east theatre, laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

There we saw Mubarak, US stooge, corrupt dictator, US rendition provider, hand in hand with the evil Netanyahu and as a ‘friendly broker’, Hilary Clinton, ex-US Senator for New York. Can anyone imagine a more devious collection of individuals all facing off Mahmoud Abbas for Palestine, so naive as to think that there was any intention to negotiate anything at any time. And so it has always been and will always be as the name of the game is the total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the stealing of all the land, well under way with a US veto.

The only Israeli objective since day one, now known by the whole world

Now, one would expect that this would be seen by most fair-minded Australians, with the exception of the compromised Gillard to be somewhat unfair, so when the BDS is then amplified by any discussion or action, successful or otherwise, it adds a level of understanding to many thousands of Australians, who through the Jewish ownership of the movie industry may have thought that Jews were funny little fellows who talked strangely but were loveable and quaint.

No. Some Jews perhaps, but a Zionist, never.

That’s the real value of such BDS actions and in other parts of the globe, seen as necessary to bring a disgraceful regime to task for murder, mayhem, apartheid and ethnic cleansing.on a scale that makes Hitler and Stalin seem like bumbling amateurs.

This is an undisputed fact everywhere but in the Murdoch press.

So the BDS was most successful in the role it was able to play in the education of the sleepy Australian public to the evils of Zionism, everywhere.

"murder, mayhem, apartheid and ethnic cleansing on a scale that makes Hitler and Stalin seem like bumbling amateurs."

While I agree with much of what Rexw has to say, the above absurd quote is what gives ammunition Israels apologists when they claim that criticism of Israel is based upon hatred of the Jews.
Whilst the actions of Israel as a nation may be reprehensible, they in no way can be equated those of Hitler. Hitler attempted to exterminate an entire race of people and went a long way toward achieving that goal. Israel merely wishes to drive them from their land. There is an enormous difference between the two.
South Africa under apartheid had similar policies but I don't think anyone equated their behaviour with that of Hitler.

Rhys Jones

For information only.

You wrote:

>>..but I don't think anyone equated their [South African’s] behaviour with that of Hitler>>

People did. Frequently. Among them Robert Mugabe.

Sorry, no links. This was a long time ago. I remember reading about it in the newspapers at the time.

As I endlessly read about BDS etc etc I do wonder why so many Australians can get their knickers in a twist about Israel, which is roughly a third of the size of Tasmania, when they are quite comfortable with occupying a very large continent in which the original owners have ben largely displaced. A case of don't do as I do just do as I say?

I should point out here that Phil Mendes cites Benny Morris's claim that the Palestinian refugee exodus was "born of war, not by design". Chapter two of Norman Finkelstein's book "Image & Reality in the Israel/Palestine Conflict" challenges Morris's "born of war, not by design" thesis, and shows that there definitely was a Zionist intention to rid Palestine of its Arab population. It shows that David Ben-Gurion and Jewish National Fund executive Yosef Weitz supported the the transfer of the Arab population from Palestine from years prior to the 1947/1948 war. In regards to Plan Dalet, Finkelstein writes,

"According to Morris, the Yishuv military leadership forumated in
early March and began implementing in April Plan Dalet to cope with the anticipated Arab offensives. The 'essence' of Plan Dalet

"'was the clearing of hostile and potentially hostile forces out of the interior of the prospective territory of the Jewish state ... As the Arab irregulars were based and quartered in the villages, and as the militias of many villages were participating in the anti-Yishuv hostilities, the Haganah regarded most of the villages as actively or potentially hostile'

"In short, Plan D constituted, and here I am quoting Morris - ' strategic-ideological anchor and basis for expulsions by front, district, brigade and battalion commanders ... and it gave commanders, post factor, a formal, persuasive covering note to explain their actions'

"I do not see how the above admission can be reconciled with Morris's claim that there existed no General Staff 'plan or policy decision' to 'expel the Arabs from the Jewish state areas'.

"One can argue that Plan D was neither discussed, nor would it likely have been approved, by the official Jewish decision-making bodies - the provisional government, teh National Council and teh Jewish Agency Executive. One can also argue, and I will return to this question, that Plan D was 'not a political blueprint for the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs', but rather 'was governed by military considerations and was geared to achieving military ends'. The fact still remains, however, that such an expulsion policy was formulated."

Seneca wrote:

>>As I endlessly read about BDS etc etc I do wonder why so many Australians can get their knickers in a twist about Israel...when they are quite comfortable with occupying a very large continent in which the original owners have ben largely displaced. A case of don't do as I do just do as I say?
Posted by Seneca, Wednesday, 20 April 2011 5:24:37 PM>>

LOL

It's called Israel Obsession Disorder or IOD. It's the latest thing in mental illness except for FOFO.

Seneca, the situation of indigenous Australians needs to be addressed as well as, not instead of, the Palestinians.

Seneca and Stevenmeier, There is a big difference between Australian treatment of Aboriginies and the behaviour of Israel. For starters all aboriginals are Australian Citizens. While there may be plenty of discrimination against them, none of this is official state sanctioned discrimination. All aboriginals have the vote and the right to run for parliament. There are no aboriginal refugees who are being prevented from returning to their homes in Australia. Therefore there is no comparison between the situation of Australian aborigines and Palestinians.
With regard to Australians "obsession" with Israel, this is not surprising. While there are many other countries who commit at least equivalent human rights abuses, none of these are close allies of ours. Our parliamentarians do not honour the Saudi Arabians in our parliament. Nor do we honour Robert Mugabe.
Israel refers to itself as a liberal democracy and the only democracy in the middle east. If you claim to be a liberal democracy then you need to act like one. This means not carrying on a 44 year military occupation and not indulging in the widespread killing of civilians in neighbouring countries.
Imagine if the UK had bombed Catholic neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland during the IRA terrorist campaigns. I'm sure we would have condemned them too if they had done such a thing.

CORRECTION

Seneca,

I've just been informed of a typo.

Not FOFO but FOMO

So line of my previous post should read:

>>It's called Israel Obsession Disorder or IOD. It's the latest thing in mental illness except for FOMO.>>

The liberation of Palistine is all about the liberation of humanity.If the Global elites can carry out clandestine marginalisation and extermination of this small population,what will they do when they decide that there are too many of us infringing upon their rights of Global Imperialism?Remember that they see too many humans on the planet destroying their environment and using up their energy and resources.

This is about the freedom of all humanity and not a select few who see their power as some biblical manifest destiny.I include lunatic Christians,Muslims,Zionists, Buddists,Hindus and callithumpians in my definition.Wake up,we are all about to become extinct in the name of ego.

"I include lunatic Christians,Muslims,Zionists, Buddists,Hindus and callithumpians in my definition"

Dear Arjay,

You forgot to include one very important category: ANYONE OVER 25.
They should all be blasted, let the world be liberated of all grey hair, yay!

Just stopped by and saw everyone enjoying a great orgy of hate like there's no tomorrow, so let no facts hinder your celebration, I'll be on my way now...

Mendez seems to be implying that there can be a negotiated peace between the Arabs and the Jews.

Sorry mate, I can’t agree with you at all. What we have is two mutually hostile tribes fighting over the ownership of a microscopic piece of territory that has great symbolic significance for both sides. For the Jews, Israel is their ancestral home which is a refuge for any Jew facing persecution anywhere else in the world. The only way you are going to shift them is to do what the Romans and the Babylonians did previously, and exterminate the lot of them. Of course, the Arabs are very happy to emulate this final solution.

To the Arabs, Israel is the home of a false religion which was conquered by Islam, and it is utterly unacceptable for a defeated religion to rise again on land conquered by Muslim armies. Nothing less than the complete obliteration of Israel is acceptable to the Arabs, and anyone who thinks differently is a quarter-wit.

But here in the west, we have idealistic Socialists who are unable to grasp the unpleasant facts of life. Unable to understand the absolute need for cultural groups to define a territory that are prepared to defend, where their own cultural values are pre eminent, they live in a fantasy land where a country can exist with ethnic groups who have diametrically opposing values.

They see all human conflict in terms of “oppressors” and “victims” and who is what is easy to figure out. The winners are the “oppressors”, and the losers are the “victims”. Once upon a time, the Jews were most definitely the victims who people like Marrackville Council supported to the hilt. But unfortunately for the Israelis, they kept winning, so they lost their victim status and are now the “oppressors”.

There are only two outcomes here. Either the Arabs win, in which case they will murder and rape every Israeli they can before expelling the survivors, or the Jews will keep holding them off until the Muslims run out of oil and revert to total poverty and inconsequence.

LEGO, as distasteful as your perceived outcome is, I agree with your conclusion.

I have Israeli friends and also know some Egyptian arabs and they all agree, the arabs want "their" land back and the Israelis want peace.

Different goals that will never be reconciled.

The usual poisonous hatred is expressed in the posts, no solutions, but it is an outlet for people's emotions. If that's as far as it goes, fine.

The Americans are never going to allow Israel to be overun or demolished by hateful enemies. You wonder if it happened if the UN would step in, I doubt it, the UN are such a picky toothless tiger.

Mind you, I never thought there would be peace in Northern Ireland, but it came when the Americans agreed to stop supplying the IRA with weaponry and financial support, after all, you can't ask everyone to stop funding terrorists, if you are doing it!

If the terrorists/"freedom fighters" in Gaza and the West Bank were deprived of weaponry and financial support, would they find a way to a peace deal? Only if all the other arab countries stop using them a s proxy for their hatred I'm guessing.

The Israelis can't end this, only the arabs can. Whether you like it or not, that's the cold hard fact.

LEGO's comment though does give an interesting timescale, will the arabs run out of oil and fold? Are they too stupid to invest in their own economies and people, it seems that way. Right now Libya is non functional as all the foreigners who run everything, are gone. Saudi and all the other countries in the region similarly use foreigners to run their crucial assets, since it's cheaper than educating their populace, or developing an education system that pumps out more than sycophants and arts grads. Israel has built into a formidable arms developer, because of the arab pressure. I'll bet the arabs are all happy that they actually drove that development.

It never fails to amaze me the racist views expressed by supporters of Israel. They dismiss every criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism and then accuse all Arabs of being homicidal rapists.
Maybe it is simply that they judge all others by their own standards. Because because they are unthinking racists themselves, they think everyone else must be.
A man was jailed for two years in Western Australia recently (Brendon McConnell) for publicly claiming that Judaism is a religion of hate and ethnic cleansing. Here I read LEGO branding all Arabs as rapists and mass murderers.
No mention of the Saudi Peace initiative offering peace and full normalisation of relations with Israel for withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967.
Much easier to live in a simplistic world where all the worlds problems can be blamed on irrational Jew hatred.

>>A man was jailed for two years in Western Australia recently (Brendon McConnell) for publicly claiming that Judaism is a religion of hate and ethnic cleansing.>>

Rhys Jones,

If the facts about Brendon Lee O’Connell (Not McConnell) are as you state then this is APPALLING. Anyone should be allowed to say whatever they like about any belief system.

Unfortunately the only report I can find on the affair is this one on the ABC website.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/31/3125998.htm

Not knowing what was on the youtube video I cannot comment further

Dear Mr Jones, I will answer your post, as it seems to be directed at me.

I did not accuse anyone of anti Semitism, I simply pointed out that the white western opponents of Israel have got their facts wrong, and their ideology screwed up.

I used to be an anti racist myself, until I finally worked out that the so called “anti racists” were extremely racist towards my race. Your side can not train me to recognize racism, and then wonder why I can see it in their own arguments. Put simply, people with your view have a “Blame the White Guy for Everything” approach, to explain away the consistent failures of certain ethnic, religious and racial groups. Hitler blamed the Jews for the misfortunes of the Germans, but by some process of doublethink, your side makes a similar claim about whites and then pretends that such an opinion is not racist.

But you are right when you say that I do think that everybody is racist. Every one of us identifies groups of people that we despise because of their attitudes, values or behaviours. And we denigrate, stereotype and label them. There is nothing wrong with it, it just happens to be one of the favourite pastimes of the entire human race.

I do have a theory that one of the reasons why people like you hate Israel. It is because your utopian idealism is totally dependent on non racism, and the Jews should understand all about that and be your natural allies. But instead of being anti racist, the Jews in Israel realized that they must copy the every Muslim country and form a racist state where their own religious cultural values prevailed, or they were never going to be safe.

This is totally unacceptable for your Alice in Wonderland thinking, where you think that countries can remain stable when the various tribes have cultural values which are diametrically opposed. All the people have to do is sit around the campfire and sing “Kumbaya”.

The 'Peace Process', dead as Monty Python’s parrot. So says Stuart Littlwood.

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/04/%E2%80%9Cthis-peace-process-is-no-more%E2%80%A6-this-is-an-ex-peace-process%E2%80%9Ddead-as-monty-python%E2%80%99s-parrot-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IntifadaPalestine+%28Intifada+Palestine%29

A programmed sayanim like the article’s author by using the word “occupation” seems to feel feels no anguish over such a word. Whereas for the rest of the world, occupation has frightening connotations. It reminds people of World War II, France, Belgium, Eastern Europe, the Balkans under Germany, China under the brutal Japanese with the rape of Nanking.

The rape of Palestine should be on everyone’s minds, all but the occupiers, that is. They have shown over forty years that they don’t give a damn for humanity.

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under ‘occupation’.

Yes, there’s that word again.

To rexw

Muslims have been “occupying” Christian and Pagan lands since the 6th Century, and ethnically cleansing the places of anyone who refused to bow to Mecca. So why should anyone shed a tear when one of Islam’s victims reoccupies their ancestral home and returns the compliment to the Muslims?

LEGO,you are talking about events that happened over 2000yrs ago.Many of the Jews who returned to Israel after WW2 had no genetic connection to that country.They look pretty white to me.It was basically a religious connection.So to justify the taking of Palistinian land in your vision of what is right,you are using injustices that happened very long ago,which is not logical.

If they cannot get along,form 2 separate countries and stop incursions from both sides.

Greetings, Arjay.

I could counter by saying that many people who call themselves "Palestinians" were born in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Europe and Australia. And if you think that people with white skin are not really Israelis, then you and I might have some common ground. I don't think that Muslims are "Australians" either, for the same reason.

I see that you are just as big a racist as I am.

Islam is, and always has been, a warlike, intolerant and expansionist religion, which is noted for persecuting religious minorities. So I am not going to shed a tear for them when somebody does the same thing to them.

And it is nice to see that like me, you do not believe in multicultulralism, and advocate the separation of mutually hostile religious and ethnic groups into separate countries.

Of course, the Jews have done just that, but the Muslims will not leave them alone. From the very beginning, they have done everything that they could to destroy Israel. So if the Israelis have pushed them back and taken some of their land to give them selves more defensive manouvering room, then tough titty.

You know, and I know, that the Israelis will never give back the Golan Heights. Because if they were stupid enough to do so, the Syrians would have artillery and rockets lined up wheel to wheel, tossing their entire artilery inventory into Israel.

And why should they give back Jerusalem, their ancestoral capitol? The Muslims had no qualms about ethnically cleansing "the jewish quarter" in Jerusalem when they owned the place, so why shouldn't the Israelis return the compliment?

Leggo, you are just not very bright.

"Islam is, and always has been, a warlike, intolerant and expansionist religion, which is noted for persecuting religious minorities. So I am not going to shed a tear for them when somebody does the same thing to them."

Before the crusaders attacked Jerusalem Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together without many problems at all. Jews lived without problems in Muslim occupied Spain until the Christians took it back. Those who went to Morocco were safe. Those that stayed in Spain and did not change their name and gave up their religion fell into the hands of the inquisition.
Historically Islam has been one of the more tolerant religions and was willing not to interfere with any religions even of the countries it conquered. They lived side by side and conversions were mostly voluntarily. Of course there were exceptions, but we are still also dealing with humans and all their general fault.

"Warlike, intolerant and expansionist religion."
Anybody been reading the Old Testament lately?

What is it like dancing with the fairies down the bottom of the garden, Rhys-Jones?

There is no "negotiated setlement" in the Arab/israeli conflict. Either the Arabs win and obliterate Israel, or the Israels stay put and keep fighting to exist.

I think that you and your friends are incapable of understanding that the Arabs really do hate the Jews. They hate them because because they were a conquored people who have the effrontery to re-establish themselves on land conquored by Islam. You live in a fairy tale world where the Arabs just want justice for thir Palestinian friends, and want nothing more than peace, love and mung beans with their Jewish neighbours.

Of course the Israelis are going to persecute the Arab minority in Israel, and try to get them to get lost. They represent an unacceptable internal threat to the survival of the Jews in Israel. You can hardly blame the Jews for doing to the Muslims, wheat the Muslims themselves have been doing to everybody else for the last 1400 years.

If the Muslims want to dislpay to the world that they share the same humanitarian ideals that you do, then they should let the Christians and Jews build Churches and synagogues in Arabia. But the only thing that the Muslims want, is the continued expansion of their religious caliphate, and Israel existence is an unnacceptable backward step to that end.

Israel exists, and it is not going to go away. The Jews have suffered enough pograms, expulsions and exterminations and this time they mean business. They will release their Jericho missiles and turn the whole Middle East into a giant sheet of glass before they allow themselves to be exterminated again.

And if the Arab armies try to invade them again, I hope that the Jews retaliate by taking even motre land from them to make their tiny country even more defensible.

To Joaquin:
You obviously don't know much history. Jewish people living under Moslem rule had a very mixed experience depending on the time and place. Some of the time they had many rights and prospered and at other times experience persecution and pogroms. More often than not they paid extra taxes as part of the privilege of living in Muslim majority countries.

This occurred right up until modern times even before the establishment of Israel. Including pogroms on Jewish community in Iraq during WW2. Look up "Farhud". Note that this was before there were "occupied territories".

Joaquin also read up on the history of Islam. It started amongst a small tribe of people in what is now Saudi Arabia. It did not spread by missionaries convincing people of the merits of Islam and handing out sweets. It was a war of conquest

Joachin, for God's sake, go to your local library and pick up a history book. The Crusades came about because the Ottoman Turks banned Christian pilgrims from visiting their shrines in the (so called) holy land.

And this after hundreds of years of Muslim invasions of Christian lands from Southern Russia to France. All of North Africa was once Christian, but you won't find many Christians living there today. Muslims are experts in ethnic cleansing, just ask the Iraqi Jews, the Syrian Christians, or the Armenians.

As for your claim that Muslims were tolerant to other religions, you are wrong again. The only tolerance that Islam has for other religions, is some degree of tolerance for Christianity and the Hebrew religion. This is because Muslims regard these two religions as earlier forms of Islam who's adherents have not got with the modern word of God.

All other religions are "pagan" religions and people from these religions must either convert to Islam or die. This explains the legendary hostility between Muslims and Hindu's (who the Muslims call "cow worshippers"). In addition, Muslim jurists are pretty well united in their belief that people who turn from Islam should be executed.

But don't believe me. Start doing a bit of reading yourself. I am not afraid of what you will find, but what you will find will hopefully start a bit of neuronal activity going within your head.

Joachin & LEGO,

For people who want an understanding of the reality of living under Islamic rule I recommend Andrew Bostom’s well documented:

The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims

Now available on Kindle.

See: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304031291&sr=1-2

This book exposes the lie of the politically correct myth of Islamic tolerance.

Yes, there were times and places in Dar-ul-Islam where kafirs could live peacefully. Spain was briefly an example.

But mostly life was pretty miserable for non-believers.

If you are especially interested in Muslim treatment of Jews I recommend:

A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism* from Antiquity to the Global Jihad by Robert. S. Wistrich.

It covers anti-Semitism generally but has excellent chapters on Muslim anti-Semitism.

See: http://www.amazon.com/Lethal-Obsession-Anti-Semitism-Antiquity-Global/dp/1400060974/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304031614&sr=1-1

One point that strikes me when reading Wistrich’s book is that Jews may have been better off living under Islam than under Christianity. Adherents of both religions despised Jews of course and the lives of Jews could be pretty miserable under both. But the Muslims seemed to have been less well organised in their Jew hatred. On average anti-Jewish riots in the Ottoman Empire produced fewer Jewish casualties than similar occurrences in Europe.

I suspect most people would prefer to stick to their politically correct myths.

*Although, as is often pointed out, Arabs are also Semites the word “anti-Semitism” means hatred of Jews. It came into use as a euphemism for Judenhass (Jew hatred).