Law ‘Combating BDS Act’ passes Senate, 77-23, free speech in America has outlived its usefulness

As a jew, why do you think its illegal for me to deny the jewish holocaust but not others?

I don't, because I don't think hate speech should be illegal. Of course, I also think it should be legal to punch Holocaust deniers in the face.

But I'll give you some of the logic behind the reasoning.

The countries that have made Holocaust denial illegal have made "hate speech" illegal. Many of these countries are in Eastern Europe, had a history of participating in the Holocaust, and, 100% correctly in my opinion, view Holocaust denial as a form of anti-Semitism. So if hate speech is illegal, it follows that anti-Semitic speech is illegal. If anti-Semitic speech is illegal, it follows that Holocaust denial is illegal.

Is there such a thing as anti-Armenianism? Anti-Tutsiism? I don't think so, which is why denying that the Tutsis were wiped out by the Hutus is very different from denying the Holocaust.

By the way, there are a number of European countries that make Srebrenica Massacre denial illegal, possibly because doing so would be anti-Muslim.

Still other countries in Europe make it illegal to deny Communist Party or Soviet crimes or any finding of a war crime. Presumably in the latter countries, it would be illegal to deny the Japanese enslavement of Chinese and Korean comfort women.

It's not always about the Jews, you know....
 
I thought the First Amendment was very important to Americans.
Vp9GC7D.gif
the first amendment died with same sex marriages
 
I see. That's worrisome. I agree with this last part of the latter article,
"Responding to the vote in a news release, the National Council on Canada Arab Relations said the anti-BDS motion goes “against the spirit of the Freedom of Speech, a right enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

The group described BDS as a “non-violent campaign that supports proven methods of conscientious objection to encourage Israel to respect international law.”"

I found a very good article about the non-violent nature of BDS and the purely political campaign on the part of the Netanyahu government to paint any criticisms of their actions as anti-Semitic. It was a resolution first adopted by the UN, apparently, and has thus gained steam in North America as well.

I don't have time right now because I have to go out, but I will look for this article when I get back and add further detail.
 
I think the very small percentage of Jewish people controlled communist Russia, too.

Early on, many of the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were Jewish by birth (they didn't practice) but many (most) were wiped out by Stalin. Anti-Semitism was prevalent in the Soviet Union.


Jewish people have a very, VERY long history of working themselves to the top.

We have a long history of emphasizing education and literacy. Can't say the same for most of Western Civilization.
 
I don't, because I don't think hate speech should be illegal. Of course, I also think it should be legal to punch Holocaust deniers in the face.

But I'll give you some of the logic behind the reasoning.

The countries that have made Holocaust denial illegal have made "hate speech" illegal. Many of these countries are in Eastern Europe, had a history of participating in the Holocaust, and, 100% correctly in my opinion, view Holocaust denial as a form of anti-Semitism. So if hate speech is illegal, it follows that anti-Semitic speech is illegal. If anti-Semitic speech is illegal, it follows that Holocaust denial is illegal.

Is there such a thing as anti-Armenianism? Anti-Tutsiism? I don't think so, which is why denying that the Tutsis were wiped out by the Hutus is very different from denying the Holocaust.

By the way, there are a number of European countries that make Srebrenica Massacre denial illegal, possibly because doing so would be anti-Muslim.

Still other countries in Europe make it illegal to deny Communist Party or Soviet crimes or any finding of a war crime. Presumably in the latter countries, it would be illegal to deny the Japanese enslavement of Chinese and Korean comfort women.

It's not always about the Jews, you know....


Not buying it, weak sauce right there. Its the "oh, us poor jews, people just hate us more than others are hated".
 
well they are strategically your largest R&D partner and do hold a ton of investment into your economy - China is trying to surpass the US as Israel bff, so by all means give up the connection but you have to deal with whatever losses that brings as well. I say canada is as beholden to the US, if not more as you are to Israel -- but we would never boycott a top partner.
 
Not buying it, weak sauce right there. Its the "oh, us poor jews, people just hate us more than others are hated".

That and $4.50 would get us a Grande' at Starbucks.

Gotta run, controlling the world is a full time job.
 
Here is a link
https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/canada-officially-passes-anti-bds-motion

There are lots of other news stories if you want to google.

What about denying the jewish holocaust beign illegal but not other holocausts?
Re: the first part, see below. Re: the second part, @fishNjits hit the nail on the head.
I see. That's worrisome. I agree with this last part of the latter article,
"Responding to the vote in a news release, the National Council on Canada Arab Relations said the anti-BDS motion goes “against the spirit of the Freedom of Speech, a right enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

The group described BDS as a “non-violent campaign that supports proven methods of conscientious objection to encourage Israel to respect international law.”"

I found a very good article about the non-violent nature of BDS and the purely political campaign on the part of the Netanyahu government to paint any criticisms of their actions as anti-Semitic. It was a resolution first adopted by the UN, apparently, and has thus gained steam in North America as well.

I don't have time right now because I have to go out, but I will look for this article when I get back and add further detail.

I don't, because I don't think hate speech should be illegal. Of course, I also think it should be legal to punch Holocaust deniers in the face.

But I'll give you some of the logic behind the reasoning.

The countries that have made Holocaust denial illegal have made "hate speech" illegal. Many of these countries are in Eastern Europe, had a history of participating in the Holocaust, and, 100% correctly in my opinion, view Holocaust denial as a form of anti-Semitism. So if hate speech is illegal, it follows that anti-Semitic speech is illegal. If anti-Semitic speech is illegal, it follows that Holocaust denial is illegal.

Is there such a thing as anti-Armenianism? Anti-Tutsiism? I don't think so, which is why denying that the Tutsis were wiped out by the Hutus is very different from denying the Holocaust.

By the way, there are a number of European countries that make Srebrenica Massacre denial illegal, possibly because doing so would be anti-Muslim.

Still other countries in Europe make it illegal to deny Communist Party or Soviet crimes or any finding of a war crime. Presumably in the latter countries, it would be illegal to deny the Japanese enslavement of Chinese and Korean comfort women.

It's not always about the Jews, you know....
I would suggest saving the "should hate speech be illegal" question for another thread. That's not the point here, but rather how can anyone who purports to support the constitution of the US or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in turn vote in favor of anti-BDS legislation?
 
@HockeyBjj Found the article I was referring to earlier.
Edit: oops, forgot to provide the link,
BDS: how a controversial non-violent movement has transformed the Israeli-Palestinian debate
It's a long article but well worth the read if this subject is of even minor concern to you. It's very enlightening, if true; I have no reason to doubt but I'm open to evidence that contradicts it.

The first 2 quotes are mostly background and a detailed description of the BDS movement. But a lot of the article describes what the Israeli government is up to, why such a movement would be gaining traction now in particular, and the unseemly zealousness with which the American government (and the UN, and Canadian too, I have just learned) cedes to the Israeli government's demands such that criticizing Netanyahu as an individual or the Israeli government as a political istitution equals anit-Semitism and an attack on the right of Israel to exist. It's pretty fucked up unless there is some glaring error in fact in the article, but that doesn't seem likely given this clearly anti-free speech action by the US government.

In the UK, BDS has brought turmoil to courts and local councils, embroiling them in disputes over the legality of local boycotts of settlement goods. In the US, BDS has caused two dozen states to pass bills or issue orders inhibiting or penalising those boycotting Israel or its settlements, pitting Israel’s allies against free speech advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union. It has ignited debates in Protestant churches in the US, some of the largest of which have divested from companies that profit from Israel’s occupation. It has become the bane of college administrators, forced to adjudicate complaints from BDS-supporting professors and students that their free speech has been stifled, and claims by Zionist faculty, donors and undergraduates that their campuses have become “unsafe” spaces. It has pulled liberals toward greater support for the Palestinians, making Israel an increasingly partisan issue in the US, associated less with Democrats and progressives than with Trump, evangelicals and the far right.

In the Jewish diaspora, BDS has created new schisms on the centre-left, which has been forced into a vice by the rightwing and pro-settlement Israeli government on one hand, and the non-Zionist left on the other. It has prompted liberal Zionists to grapple with why they sometimes accept the boycott of products from settlements but not the boycott of the state that creates and sustains them. It has compelled Israel’s more critical supporters to justify their opposition to non-violent forms of pressure on Israel, when the absence of real pressure has done nothing to bring occupation or settlement expansion to an end. It has put the onus on liberal Zionists to defend their support not for the abstract ideal of what they hope Israel might one day become, but for the actual, longstanding practices of the state, including expropriations of Palestinian land for Jewish settlement; detention of hundreds of Palestinians without trial or charge; collective punishment of two million Gazans living under a more than decade-long blockade; and institutionalised inequality between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel. BDS has deprived Israel’s liberal supporters of the excuse that an aberrant occupation or rightwing governments are mainly to blame for the state’s undemocratic practices.

Perhaps most significantly, BDS has challenged the two-state consensus of the international community. In so doing it has upset the entire industry of Middle East peace process nonprofit organisations, diplomatic missions and think tanks by undermining their central premise: that the conflict can be resolved simply by ending Israel’s occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, leaving the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel and refugees unaddressed.

When the second intifada erupted, in September 2000, with Palestinian suicide bombings and Israeli invasions and missile attacks, the dialogue and peacemaking activities of groups such as Holy Land Trust came to a halt. For Awad, the focus was now on nonviolent resistance, which was then neither popular nor simple. It was the bloodiest period of Israeli-Palestinian fighting since the 1948 war. More than 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis were killed. The militarisation of the intifada had made it dangerous to confront Israel in any manner, including peacefully.

Yet Awad and other activists still managed to carve out a small space for nonviolent resistance. He demonstrated against land confiscation in the West Bank and, after 2002, the building of what Israelis refer to as a security fence and Palestinians came to call the apartheid wall. The barrier – a mix of eight-metre-high concrete slabs, fences and barbed wire – cut through the West Bank and Jerusalem, dividing Palestinians from one another and villagers from their land. The barrier effectively annexed nearly 10% of the West Bank to Israel. In occupied East Jerusalem, up to a third of the Palestinian residents were walled off from their schools, health clinics and workplaces. Dense crowds of Jerusalemites and West Bankers could be seen at 4 and 5am, packed like cattle as they inched through caged checkpoints to get to the other side of the wall.

As the violence of the second intifada escalated, a campaign of international solidarity with Palestinians grew. In the first months of the uprising, students at the University of California in Berkeley erected mock checkpoints and brandished banners calling to “Divest from Israeli Apartheid”. Harvard faculty signed a divestment petition in 2002. In Durban, South Africa, alongside a contentious UN-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, representatives of some 3,000 NGOs called on “the international community to impose a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state”. Boycott and divestment campaigns spread across US, UK and European campuses, gaining the support of several Israeli academics and large numbers of Palestinians.

In the West Bank and Gaza, international and Israeli activists streamed in to offer their support. Their presence tended to make the Israeli army act more cautiously, which provided a measure of protection to Palestinian demonstrators. Awad still worked with Israelis, but now insisted that any cooperation be premised not on coexistence but co-resistance, with Palestinians in the lead. He was tear-gassed, beaten and detained alongside members of direct action groups such as the International Solidarity Movement, Christian Peacemaker Teams and the Israeli-led Anarchists Against the Wall.

After a week or more among Palestinian villagers, the foreign activists would return to their campuses, church groups and labour unions, explaining that there was a little-noticed Palestinian nonviolent resistance movement – and that it could be supported through divestment and boycott. The first divestment by a US institution of higher education, Hampshire College – also the first US school to have divested from South Africa – was spearheaded by an Israeli undergraduate named Matan Cohen, who at 17 had been shot in the eye by Israeli forces during a demonstration against the separation barrier. The nonviolent activism of the second intifada was a prelude to what would become a worldwide boycott campaign.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement was founded with a statement of principles, known as the BDS call, on 9 July 2005. It represented something of a last resort. The Palestinians had been crushed by the military defeat of the second intifada. The living embodiment of the Palestinian national movement, Yasser Arafat, was dead. His newly installed replacement, Mahmoud Abbas, was identified more than any other Palestinian with the Oslo peace process. Though Abbas’s leadership seemed to offer a respite from the violence, it also promised a return to a strategy of diplomacy and cooperation that had done little to bring occupation to an end. If there was going to be pressure on Israel to give Palestinians freedom, it was going to have to come from the grassroots and the outside.

The BDS call was made on the one-year anniversary of a historic advisory opinion by the international court of justice. The court ruled that Israel’s separation barrier was illegal, that Israel had to dismantle it “forthwith” and offer reparations to those it had harmed, and that every signatory to the fourth Geneva convention – meaning nearly every state in the world – was under an obligation to ensure Israel complied with international humanitarian law. But Israel ignored the ruling, and neither the PLO nor the international community made a real attempt to enforce the court’s findings. “If there had been action on the part of the international community to implement the ICJ ruling,” Ingrid Jaradat, a founding member of the BDS campaign, told me, “there wouldn’t have been a BDS call.”

More than 170 Palestinian organisations from the occupied territories, Israel and the diaspora endorsed the BDS call. They spanned the political spectrum – leftists and Islamists, supporters of two states and of one. They included the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces – the coordinating body for every significant political party – as well as major trade unions, refugee camp committees, prisoners’ societies, artistic and cultural centres and nonviolent resistance groups, among them Sami Awad’s Holy Land Trust. Twenty-nine of these entities now form the BDS National Committee, or BNC, a leadership council.

The chief innovation of the BDS call was not in the tactics that it advocated: boycott and divestment campaigns were already pervasive in 2005, and even sanctions and arms embargoes had been proposed previously, including by the UN general assembly. What was new about BDS was that it took disparate campaigns to pressure Israel and united them around three clear demands, with one for each major component of the Palestinian people. First, freedom for the residents of the occupied territories; second, equality for the Palestinian citizens of Israel; and third, justice for Palestinian refugees in the diaspora – the largest group – including the right to return to their homes.

Fully 20% of the population of Israel is Palestinian, yet,
"Israel’s longstanding policies of inequality were given additional backing in the form of a July 2018 “basic law” – Israel’s version of constitutional laws – that downgrades the status of the Arabic language, states that only Jews have a right to self-determination in Israel, and declares: “The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.”"

Plus they have a longstanding policy of not allowing Palestinians to return, in contravention of international rulings. That assumes everything in the article is true. If so, to criticize these things is perfectly understandable.

Here's where it gets really juicy:
Conflating boycotts of the settlements with opposition to Israel’s existence has been a central element of the government’s policy, reflecting a desire not just to protect settlements but to stem the tide of selective boycotts that could spread to Israel as a whole. “We are saying there is no difference between a settlement boycott and a boycott of Israel,” Yossi Kuperwasser said. “If you want to promote the boycotting of Israel, any part of Israel, you are not a friend of Israel. You are actually an enemy of Israel. So we have to deal with you.”

The government has passed a law that bars entry to foreigners who have publicly supported a boycott of Israel “or an area under its control”. Its minister of strategic affairs has called for imposing financial penalties on Israeli organisations, companies and in some cases individuals who advocate boycotts of either Israel or the settlements. After Hagai El-Ad, the head of the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, addressed the UN security council and called on it to take action against Israel’s occupation, the chairman of the governing coalition called to revoke his citizenship and to create a bill that would do the same to any Israeli who calls on international bodies to take action against Israel.

Israel and its allies have pursued the same strategy abroad. In 2014, Netanyahu convened a meeting of top Israeli ministers to discuss possible counter-BDS measures, including, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz, “legal suits in European and North American courts against [BDS] organisations”, “legal action against financial institutions that boycott settlements”, and “whether to activate the pro-Israel lobby in the US, specifically Aipac, in order to promote legislation in Congress”. Since then, major banks around the world have shut down the accounts of pro-BDS groups. In 24 US states, bills and orders that stifle free speech by discouraging, penalising or restricting support for boycotts of Israel or of settlements have been passed, and have been challenged in two states so far by the ACLU. Following Hurricane Harvey, last summer, the city of Dickinson, Texas required residents who wanted relief to certify that they do not and will not boycott Israel, a demand the ACLU’s Texas legal director called “an egregious violation of the first amendment, reminiscent of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths”. A federal anti-boycott bill supported by Aipac has also met with opposition by the ACLU, which argues that “political boycotts are fully protected by the first amendment”, regardless of whether the boycott is of Israel or the settlements.

This deliberate elision of Israel and the settlements has caused no small amount of consternation among the state’s more liberal supporters in the American Jewish community. For years they have sought to protect Israel itself from sanction, by arguing that only boycotts of settlements are legitimate. Now they feel themselves under attack not just from BDS, on the left, but the Israeli government, on the right, both of which disdain the centre-left notion of being “pro-Israel and anti-occupation”, and both of which reject the position that wine produced in West Bank settlements should be boycotted while the government that created, financed and maintained the settlements should not.

Israel’s strategy has been to force a choice on companies subjected to pressure to withdraw or divest: stay in Israeli-controlled territory and ignore the boycott campaign, or accede to its demands and face potential lawsuits and losses in much bigger markets in Europe and the US. Given that choice, Kuperwasser said, most companies would be very reluctant to withdraw from Israel or the settlements: “But if it’s going to happen, there are going to be more laws around the world that are going to make these companies suffer. We can retaliate and come up with a response.”

The Ministry of Strategic Affairs has outsourced much of its anti-BDS activity in foreign countries, helping to establish and finance front groups and partner organisations, in an attempt to minimise the appearance of Israeli interference in the domestic politics of its allies in Europe and the US. Kuper said that anti-BDS groups were now “sprouting like mushrooms after the rain”. He and a number of other former intelligence and security officials are members of one of them, Kella Shlomo, described as a “PR commando unit” that will work with and receive tens of millions of dollars from the Ministry of Strategic Affairs. In 2016, Israel’s embassy in London sent a cable to Jerusalem complaining that the strategic affairs ministry was endangering British Jewish organisations, most of which are registered as charities and forbidden from political activity: “‘operating’ Jewish organisations directly from Jerusalem … is liable to be dangerous” and “could encounter opposition from the organisations themselves, given their legal status; Britain isn’t the US!” Last year, al-Jazeera aired undercover recordings of an Israeli official working out of the London embassy, who described being asked by the Ministry of Strategic Affairs to help establish a “private company” in the UKthat would work for the Israeli government and in liaison with pro-Israel groups like Aipac.

To Israeli liberals, the gravest threat from BDS is that it has induced in their government a reaction so reckless and overreaching that it resembles a sort of auto-immune disease, in which the battle against BDS also damages the rights of ordinary citizens and the organs of democracy. Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs has utilised the intelligence services to surveil and attack delegitimisers of Israel. It called to establish a blacklist of Israeli organisations and citizens who support the nonviolent boycott campaign, created a “tarnishing unit” to besmirch the reputations of boycott supporters, and placed paid articles in the Israeli press. Leftwing Israeli Jews have been summoned for interrogation or stopped at the border by agents of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, who described themselves as officers working against delegitimisation. Israel has banned 20 organisations from entry for their political opinions, including the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group that won a Nobel peace prize for helping Holocaust refugees and that now supports self-determination for Israelis and Palestinians while also endorsing BDS.

Last year, the Israeli intelligence minister, Yisrael Katz, called publicly for “targeted civil assassinations” of activists such as the BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti, a permanent resident of Israel. Barghouti was also threatened by Israel’s minister of public security and strategic affairs: “Soon any activist who uses their influence to delegitimise the only Jewish state in the world will know they will pay a price for it … We will soon be hearing more of our friend Barghouti.” Not long after, Barghouti was prevented from exiting the country, and last year Israeli authorities searched his home and arrested him for tax evasion.

And finally, the new definition:
Perhaps Israel’s most powerful tool in the campaign against delegitimisation has been to accuse the country’s critics of antisemitism. Doing so required changing official definitions of the term. This effort began during the final years of the second intifada, in 2003 and 2004, as pre-BDS calls to boycott and divest from Israel were gaining steam. At that time, a group of institutes and experts, including Dina Porat – a Tel Aviv University scholar who had a been a member of the Israeli foreign ministry’s delegation to the 2001 UN world conference against racism in Durban, South Africa – proposed creating a new definition of antisemitism that would equate criticisms of Israel with hatred of Jews.

These experts and institutions, working with the American Jewish Committee and other Israel advocacy groups, formulated a new “working definition” of antisemitism, including a list of examples, that was published in 2005 (and later discarded) by an EU body for combating racism. This working definition was adapted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and has been used, endorsed or recommended, with some small modifications, by a number of other organisations – including the US Department of State, which, since 2008, has defined antisemitism to include any of three categories of criticism of Israel, known as the “three Ds”: delegitimisation of Israel, demonisation of Israel and double standards for Israel. (More recently, the IHRA working definition has been at the centre of the antisemitism controversy in the Labour party, which adopted a modified version of the examples accompanying the definition.)

By the state department’s definition, delegitimisation includes “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist”. Thus anti-Zionism – including the view that Israel should be a state of all its citizens, with equal rights for Jews and non-Jews – is a form of delegitimisation and therefore antisemitic. According to this definition, virtually all Palestinians (and a large proportion of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, who oppose Zionism for religious reasons) are guilty of antisemitism because they want Jews and Palestinians to continue living in Palestine but not within a Jewish state. Kuperwasser, for one, stands by the charge: “Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the same lady in a different cloak.”

The second D, demonisation, includes “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” – as the Israeli army’s deputy chief of staff did during a Holocaust remembrance day speech in 2016, likening the “revolting trends” in Europe and Germany in the 1930s and 40s to tendencies visible in Israel today. The last of the three Ds, applying double standards, holds that singling Israel out for criticism is “the new antisemitism”. Yet practically every earlier divestment and boycott initiative around the world could be accused of double standards, including the campaign against apartheid South Africa, most of whose proponents ignored graver transgressions elsewhere, such as the concurrent genocides in Cambodia, Iraqi Kurdistan and East Timor.


An anti-Israel poster campaign in London in 2017. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo
The new definition of antisemitism has been frequently deployed against Israel’s critics in the US, especially on university campuses. Israel advocacy groups have urged several universities to adopt the state department definition. At Northeastern University in Boston and the University of Toledo in Ohio, pro-Israel students and advocacy groups attempted to thwart even discussing boycott and divestment, arguing that it would create an antisemitic climate on campus. The California legislature passed a resolution in 2012 to regulate speech on California campuses; it cited examples of antisemitism that included not just delegitimisation and demonisation of Israel but also “student- and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel”.

In 2015, an anonymous website, Canary Mission, began publishing lists of pro-Palestinian students who support divestment, often accusing them of antisemitism; the Israeli government has used Canary Mission profiles to interrogate and deny entry to pro-BDS US citizens. On several campuses, pro-Israel groups have intimidated pro-Palestinian students and faculty by placing names from the Canary Mission website on posters that state: “The following students and faculty … have allied themselves with Palestinian terrorists to perpetrate BDS and Jew Hatred on this campus.”

Kuperwasser was unapologetic about the perceived excesses of Israel’s anti-BDS campaign at home and abroad. He was confident that Israel was taking the right approach and would succeed, as it had against past assaults: “We won the war on the conventional battlefield. To start with, our chances were very slim. We won the war on terror. Again, it wasn’t easy. I remember when we went to the big battle – the second intifada – and many generals around the world were telling me, ‘Listen, Kuper, you’re wasting your time: nobody ever won a war against terrorism,’ citing Vietnam and other cases. And I said: ‘No, we shall win this war as well. We are innovative and determined enough. And unlike many other battles, we don’t have a second option, an alternative. We have to win.’ The same goes here. We shall win.”
It's fascinating. And truthfully, I reeeeally do want to hear reasoned contradictions of any of the assertions of fact in the article because as is, it paints a pretty damning picture of our world today.
 
Last edited:
@HockeyBjj Found the article I was referring to earlier.
It's a long article but well worth the read if this subject is of even minor concern to you. It's very enlightening, if true; I have no reason to doubt but I'm open to evidence that contradicts it.

The first 2 quotes are mostly background and a detailed description of the BDS movement. But a lot of the article describes what the Israeli government is up to, why such a movement would be gaining traction now in particular, and the unseemly zealousness with which the American government (and the UN, and Canadian too, I have just learned) cedes to the Israeli government's demands such that criticizing Netanyahu as an individual or the Israeli government as a political istitution equals anit-Semitism and an attack on the right of Israel to exist. It's pretty fucked up unless there is some glaring error in fact in the article, but that doesn't seem likely given this clearly anti-free speech action by the US government.





Fully 20% of the population of Israel is Palestinian, yet,
"Israel’s longstanding policies of inequality were given additional backing in the form of a July 2018 “basic law” – Israel’s version of constitutional laws – that downgrades the status of the Arabic language, states that only Jews have a right to self-determination in Israel, and declares: “The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.”"

Plus they have a longstanding policy of not allowing Palestinians to return, in contravention of international rulings. That assumes everything in the article is true. If so, to criticize these things is perfectly understandable.

Here's where it gets really juicy:


And finally, the new definition:

It's fascinating. And truthfully, I reeeeally do want to hear reasoned contradictions of any of the assertions of fact in the article because as is, it paints a pretty damning picture of our world today.

Thanks. I'll leave this tab open and give that a read this evening
 
So does this mean our government would be banned from dealing with Ireland?


 
People want to literally kill them all.


Well yeah, thats a holocaust, just the the Armenia or Rwanda or so many others.

Oh, and fuck that. People don't want to kill them all. Sure the nazis did a go at the jews of europe but you are stretching it. I get it though, you have to stretch it to make the jewholocaust special.
 
Well yeah, thats a holocaust, just the the Armenia or Rwanda or so many others.

Oh, and fuck that. People don't want to kill them all. Sure the nazis did a go at the jews of europe but you are stretching it. I get it though, you have to stretch it to make the jewholocaust special.

"jewholocaust?"

"Sure the Nazi's did a go." Like no big thing, am I right?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Proof that Jews don't control everything is the fact that you're allowed to breathe, post, and possibly pass down your genes.
 
"jewholocaust?"

"Sure the Nazi's did a go." Like no big thing, am I right?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Proof that Jews don't control everything is the fact that you're allowed to breathe, post, and possibly pass down your genes.


Yeah, jewish-holocaust as opposed to armenian-holocaust. Oh wait, are only jews allowed to suffer a holocaust?

The nazis were god awful. The other poster stated people want to kill all jews. That is not factual during WW2. Nazis tried to kill european jews.
 
No, no, no, no, no. You don't get to re-edit.

You didn't write jewish holocaust. I wouldn't have had a problem with that. You wrote jewholocaust.

The Nazis wound up killing one-third of world Jewry, and had they the ability, they would have wiped out the other two-thirds as well. They wanted to kill all the Jews, not just those in Europe. Thankfully, they didn't get the chance.
 
So does this mean our government would be banned from dealing with Ireland?



I'm curious whether you've seen the article I quote above. Seems we're on the same page. But yeah, it would appear that bars Canada and the US from doing business with them, if their resolutions hold any water whatsoever.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,107
Messages
55,467,840
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby
Back
Top