Friday, May 23, 2014

 What are the goals of the BDS movement?

From the pen of a BDS-supporter, mover and shaker, comes a vision for a one-state solution:

There is only conflict between you and us: only conflict.  I even cringe when I see you protests because I know how deeply racist you are and how much you suffer from self-admiration and delusions.  But your delusions are good for us: you won't know what will hit you in the future in response to all the war crimes that you have committed against our people.  You may hear a cheer or two from a handful of puppets of your occupation, or from a propagandist or two in Saudi publications.  But the conflict will continue:  It will only end by the end of that Zionist entity and an end to the occupation of Palestine.  And once the Palestinian refugees are returned to their homes all over Palestine, I will make sure that you get decent rents in the formerly Palestinian refugee camps because we may be a bit short of space for the occupiers then.  Oh, one more word: go and shed more tears for Mubarak and ask him for space in his Sharam Ash-Shaykh hospital. 

And here is Norman Finkelstein, providing the glossary necessary to understand these goals:

"... the BDS movement “think they are really clever” by covering up their real intentions when they call for a “three-tier” agenda of ending the occupation, demanding the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and equal rights for all Arabs in Israel. “You know and I know what the result is. There is no Israel!” he said."

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Before and After

I don't get it. The "before" photo shows a valley between two mountain slopes. There is a group of trees in the middle but the mountain slopes are bare, brown and rocky. The "after" photo shows a valley between two mountain slopes. The valley in the middle is bare and seems to be covered by some sort of sand. The mountain slopes on either side of it are green and covered with trees and grass for as far as the eye can see.

So I really don't understand what kind of a before and after this is. How long has elapsed between the before and the after? How long would it take for the trees in the after to grow on those bare slopes of the before? How many years, or seasons, hours, would it take for those slopes to turn green? And how come neither the author of the piece nor any of the commenters noticed this anomaly? Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

The New Moral Frontier: It's not a lynch if the victim is a Jew 

In recent news: 

Two Israeli journalists covering Palestinian riots in Beitunua, near Ramallah, were attacked by masked Palestinian rioters on Friday.

The journalists, Walla Arab affairs analyst Avi Issacharoff and a cameraman, were attacked after a Palestinian woman claiming to be a journalist set the rioters on them, Issacharoff told Channel 10 News on Friday evening.
 The two were beaten by masked men and suffered bruising before being evacuated from the area by plainclothes Palestinian Authority security officers, who then transferred them to the custody of the IDF’s Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria.

Look how the BDS Angry-in-chief characterizes the near-goring of two Israeli journalists:
"... two Israeli journalists said they were nearly “lynched” by a Palestinian mob."  Today, I NEARLY invented a cure for cancer."
Now see how he characterizes similar (very few) incidents in the past when the victims were Arabs:

Zionism is a mass hate crime

lynching Arabs in Israel:

that Israelis habitually lynch Arabs,

This is Zionism: “Two Palestinians narrowly escaped a lynching attempt in Jerusalem Tuesday evening after they were assaulted by dozens of ultra-Orthodox Jews. The two Arabs were wounded, while a Jewish resident who protected them with his body was stabbed.” (thanks Rashid)
Posted on July 23, 2008 by As'ad

According to Haaretz, following the incident in Zion Square:
Four minors between the ages of 13-15, including one girl, were arrested on Sunday in connection with the attack at Zion Square, in which one victim was seriously injured and three others were slightly hurt.

Let's look at some records:

The professor says thathat Israelis habitually lynch Arabs,

 Googling " lynching of Arabs by Israelis" produced 409,000 results . 

I looked at the first 5 pages. There were lynching stories and near- lynching stories but only one  story about a "near lynching" of  Palestinian youths by Israeli-Jewish youth, the same incident I mentioned above.

Other lynching and near-lynchings stories were about Palestinians murdering or attempting to murder Israeli -Jews, one attempt to lynch a Palestinian family mistaken for Jews. ("She spoke to them in Arabic and only then did they understand that we ourselves are Arabs, and left us alone. I hit the gas and drove away as fast as possible.” According to him, the youth clearly mistook them for Jews: “Me and my wife look Jewish, even the police officer who arrived said ‘at first sight I was sure you were Jews.")

Then there are other Arab-on-Arab lynchings, like this one:

They had been "caught red-handed," working for Israel, and so were executed.
According to the Associated Press, who also photographed the grisly spectacle, masked Hamas gunmen had forced the six men suspected of collaborating with Israel to lie face down on the street, then shot them dead. Later, while an angry mob stomped and spat on five of the bodies, the sixth was tied to the back of a motorcycle. “Spy! Spy!” the people screamed as the corpse was dragged off.

There are websites where one can find accounts of these lynchings that ended in death. All you need is to look for them.

But I think in view of these records  we will be justified in puckering our brow at Prof. As'ad AbuKhalil's manner of reporting gory near-murders and lynches. And we may wish to ask the respectable Professor who teaches young Americans at a bona fide good university in the US:

Why does he claim that "Israelis habitually lynch Arabs," when the record shows that it is Palestinians who seem to be unable to resist lynch-mobbing lusts?

Why does he belittle the serious near-lynching of Israeli journalists when not too long ago he referred to a violent clash among youths as a lynching, and extrapolated from this lie that Israel is in the habit of lynching Arabs?

One would be forgiven for concluding that for the venerable, justice-loving professor, it is almost as if the murder of an Israeli Jew is a normal occurrence, only to be expected, nothing to be exercised about.  His justice juices begin to flow furiously only when an Arab is killed (or almost killed) by a Jew.

He has no inclination for law and justice when Palestinians are summarily lynched for the suspicion of collaborating with Israel:

According to the West, those collaborators should be respected and their freedom of movement ensured because such are the rules of Western freedom of expression.  I can say this: Palestinian treatment of collaborators over the years has been far less brutal and indiscriminate than French resistance treatment of Nazi collaborators.  There is no question about that."

So we see a professor who is in charge of forming the minds of future generations of Americans, promoting, on his well-attended website, distortions of historical, easily-verifiable records, perversions of notion of justice, contempt for human life, justifications for murder and valorization of gory revenge as a reasonable recourse of action.

Of course he is not a man of peace. As can be evidenced from the most cursory perusal of his "news" service. This is the man whom universities trust with educating the young. This is what a BDS mover and shaker looks and sounds like.

Make no mistake: The BDS movement reflects this man's values. 

He tries, here, to put some distance between himself and the BDS movement, as if it does not go far enough:

"I count myself as BDS supporter, advocate, and even spokesperson but I am categorically against the existence of the State of Israel"

However, as we see from the quote he provides from Norman Finkelstein  he is fully aware that there is no light between his position and that of BDS:

"... the BDS movement “think they are really clever” by covering up their real intentions when they call for a “three-tier” agenda of ending the occupation, demanding the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and equal rights for all Arabs in Israel. “You know and I know what the result is. There is no Israel!” he said."

" I am categorically against the existence of the State of Israel", says the self-proclaimed
"BDS supporter, advocate, and even spokesperson". Which is exactly what Finkelstein claims is the goal of the BDS movement: "There is no Israel!” 

It all hangs together, the subhumanization of Israelis and the avowal to have Israel eradicated.
People who support BDS should know what it is they are supporting.

Saturday, May 10, 2014

By Your Slanderous Fabrications You Shall Be Recognized:

From avowed BDSers:

The passage highlighted in red is the source of a quote which circulates on the Internet in a distorted manner, attributing to Menachem Begin a declaration that Jews are a 'Master race" and Palestinians are "two footed animal". 

This is an excerpt from Begin's statement to the Knesset on June 8, 1982:

  "Mr. Speaker, what did we do after all the considerations, after all the weighing, after all the hesitations? What could we do? Could we accept the malicious interpretation of an unsigned agreement for the cessation of hostilities, according to which it was only from south Lebanon that terrorists could not strike at us, but from any other sector it is permitted, and all the Jews of the world can be their target?

We have never accepted this explanation. I asked Mr. Philip Habib, who I will soon meet with again, to note that we give no permission to strike at Jews in the Diaspora, and we stood by this correct interpretation. The talk that striking at Jews in London, in Athens, in Rome and in other locations is not a breach of the agreement for the cessation of hostilities - is a strange interpretation that I have never accepted, but it exists.

What could we do, therefore? In this generation, shall we abandon Jewish blood? Shall we allow the murder of an ambassador of the State of Israel, who represents its glory, honor and sovereignty? It is apparent that we had to react to this criminal act, and we did so. And what did the enemy do? It immediately began massive shelling. In the course of two days, 800 shells were fired on 23 of our settlements in the Galilee. There was mass destruction of property. There were wounded. A soldier was killed, our blood was spilled, and they threatened to continue. Men, women and children by the thousands and tens of thousands were forced to sit in shelters day and night, in the summer.
In the course of the past year, we added shelters. It is true that we improved shelters, but nevertheless it is very difficult. I have been in them. It is very difficult to sit in them even for a few hours. We have here a Knesset member who recalls her visit to her kibbutz, Gesher, our Edna. She once said to me: Soon we will have children who we will call "shelter children." Thank God, in that part of the country there is peace since then. And then we began shelter-children in Nahariya, shelter-children in Kiryat Shmona, in Kfar Giladi, in Metulla, in Misgav Am, in Dafna. Shelter children. 

Is there a nation which would tolerate such a phenomenon?  Is there a nation which would acquiesce in such aggression? I want to declare to all nations: The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow and in Peking; in Paris and in Rome; in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of a million and half a million Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

But, here there are Katyushas, missiles and artillery shells day and night, with the sole intention of murdering our women and children. There are military targets in the Galilee. What a characteristic phenomenon, they are protected, completely immune to these terrorists. Only at the civilian population, only to shed our blood, just to kill our children, our wives, our sisters, our elderly. Such a method, so despicable, terroristic. Despicable. There has been none so despicable since the days of the S.A. the S.S. and the Gestapo.

There was never an armed organization so low, so despicable as this terrorist organization, which aims its unclean weapons against men, women and children. Therefore we have implemented our right to national self-defense.

In reply to U.S. President Reagan's letter, a very friendly letter, I explained to him: Here the U.S. supports Britain's actions in the Falkland Islands, or the Malvinas as the Argentinians call them. How does Mrs. Thatcher justify it? On the basis of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which speaks of "The inherent right of self defense." 8,000 miles from that country, this is a right of national self-defense? Whereas one mile, two miles, three miles, on our doorstep, our threshold, we are attacked and have no right to national self-defense? We have to sit by and watch the shells falling on our brothers and sisters? It is clear that we had to implement our right of national self-defense, and we did so. We continue to do so.

Once more, I would like to tell all peoples - for a long time, too long, the Jew was excluded from all the laws which applied to all nations. No more. The laws which apply to other nations will apply to our nation - to the Jewish people. The right of self-defense accorded to all other nations is also accorded to us. No more and no less.

Since I am still on the subject of Britain, I want to return to the important and famous newspaper, "Times". which today published a leader attacking Israel and me, personally, for what we have done in the north in order to protect our people in the Galilee and in Lebanon. That is its right - we believe in freedom of the press - however, if someone attacks he has to expect a response. I wish to say:
A newspaper which supported the treachery of the Munich Agreement must be very careful about moralizing to a small nation fighting for its life. Were we to listen to it, we would no longer be in existence. Czechoslovakia vanished because of the famous line of the "Times" in 1938, and the famous, or infamous lead article at the time of Rumciman's visit to Prague. But we learned the lesson. Therefore, we are also not taking the latest advice of the "Times", just as we did not take its advice at the time of Munich. It should take stock of its deeds and articles."

With regard to "two footed animal" I have this to say:

 It seems to me that the description of a person so evil and perverse that he seeks out to kill Jewish children qua Jewish Israeli children, that there is simply no comprehending him, as “two-footed animal” does gross injustice to the animal. Animals do not kill randomly. Animals do not murder innocents for revenge.

It is quite puzzling, in fact, that some people assume the Palestinians are the ones, as a collectivity, designated as "two legged animal"s. Surely this is not intended to imply, that all Palestinians, to a person, raise their hand to slay Jewish kids? I would hazard a guess that most Palestinians are horrified when Jewish kids are deliberately targeted and gunned down by a Palestinian or any murderer, in their name. In fact, even if images of celebrating Palestinians beam across the world's TV screens, they represent only themselves, and not the millions of other Palestinians who are not celebrating, and are not seen to be celebrating. Why, then, the assumption that Palestinians can be   essentialized as murderers? Why assume that Begin's angry description of the terrorist as "two legged animals" refers to all Palestinians?


I ask again: what good is  a cause that needs to be supported by lies, slanders and hateful inventions to prove its justice?

Friday, May 02, 2014

According to the wiki entry " AbuKhalil  ...supports one secular state in historical Palestine
Prof. Abukhalil dreams about the day Palestinians take over Israel's institutions, towns, cities, malls, universities, etc etc. Here are some of the fantasies he shares with his readers:

"... once Palestine is liberated, I don't think that Hebrew poet living under a Palestinian flag (and using the renamed George Habash International Airport) should be harassed unless they harm the security of the anti-Zionist state."

" But your delusions are good for us: you won't know what will hit you in the future in response to all the war crimes that you have committed against our people. "

"And once the Palestinian refugees are returned to their homes all over Palestine, I will make sure that you get decent rents in the formerly Palestinian refugee camps because we may be a bit short of space for the occupiers then.

And then there is this:
" (Nothing incenses me or provokes me like watching scenes of "tourist" promotion for the enemy state of Israel: I scream in my inside. The stones are not yours. The flowers are not yours. The beaches are not yours. The clouds are not yours. The blueness of the sky is not yours. All will return to their owners. Then, everything will be more beautiful and more splendid.)"


Abukhalil, let me re-iterate, is not some nutcase who fulminates on street corners, or a wild-eyed Islamist mullah in his Friday sermon. He is a respectable professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley.