Boycott Israel

[Sixties Fan]

[ The Inquisition, part -__ (lost count) ]

According to multiple media reports, an NYU student complained on Twitter that his account was suspended because “i expressed my desire for zionists to die [sic].” Among the multiple racists posts uncovered, a tweet from 2014 applauded Nazi leader Adolf Hitler while another from this past October stated, “remember to spit on zionists, it’s proper etiquette [sic].”

The forced closure of the heart of Jewish life at NYU came days after the school’s student government passed a resolution in support of the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, despite warnings by pro-Israel and Jewish student activists that BDS has led to an “unsafe environment for students … [who are] being targeted just because they support Israel.”

According to a campus watchdog, the AMCHA Initiative, a direct correlation exists between anti-Israel and antisemitic activity. An August 2018 report reveals that “Israel-related incidents are actually more likely to contribute to a hostile environment for Jewish students.” The data is clear. With anti-Israel activity on campus comes a heightened sense of alert within the Jewish community, who is left wondering when the next threat will appear.

----------
The starkly different outcomes at NYU and OSU highlight once again the dangers posed by the BDS movement to Jewish and pro-Israel students. The likelihood of antisemitic expression and targeted attacks increases significantly when anti-Israel activity, especially in the form of a boycott, rears its ugly head on campus.

(full article online)

When BDS Comes to Campus, Antisemitism Follows

 

[Coyote]

This is going too far. I am curious to see how it fairs in court - no one should be forced to sign such an oath, it's a total infringement of free speech.

A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job
A children’s speech pathologist who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.

The child language specialist, Bahia Amawi, is a U.S. citizen who received a master’s degree in speech pathology in 1999 and, since then, has specialized in evaluations for young children with language difficulties (see video below). Amawi was born in Austria and has lived in the U.S. for the last 30 years, fluently speaks three languages (English, German, and Arabic), and has four U.S.-born American children of her own.


If they come to boycott you, fire them first | Opinion
The Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu is playing with anti-Semitic fire. And anyone who plays with fire gets burned. There’s no delicate way of warning the Jews in the world from the dangers the government is exposing them to, except perhaps to scream at the government: Have you lost your mind?

A children’s speech pathologist in Texas was fired because she refused to sign a contract that required her to pledge that she does not and will not boycott Israel or support boycotting products from West Bank settlements. This is no conspiracy theory from a new edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or a new anti-Semitic cartoon posted by Yair Netanyahu. This really happened and was first reported on The Intercept site.

American citizen Bahia Amawi had been employed for nine years as a speech pathologist in Austin, Texas, where she worked with children ages 3-11 with special needs – autistic children and students with language difficulties. In each of the nine years she signed an employment contract, until this year, when a new, irregular clause appeared in the contract requiring her to pledge that she “does not currently boycott Israel” and “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.”

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is going too far. I am curious to see how it fairs in court - no one should be forced to sign such an oath, it's a total infringement of free speech.

A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job
A children’s speech pathologist who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.

The child language specialist, Bahia Amawi, is a U.S. citizen who received a master’s degree in speech pathology in 1999 and, since then, has specialized in evaluations for young children with language difficulties (see video below). Amawi was born in Austria and has lived in the U.S. for the last 30 years, fluently speaks three languages (English, German, and Arabic), and has four U.S.-born American children of her own.


If they come to boycott you, fire them first | Opinion
The Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu is playing with anti-Semitic fire. And anyone who plays with fire gets burned. There’s no delicate way of warning the Jews in the world from the dangers the government is exposing them to, except perhaps to scream at the government: Have you lost your mind?

A children’s speech pathologist in Texas was fired because she refused to sign a contract that required her to pledge that she does not and will not boycott Israel or support boycotting products from West Bank settlements. This is no conspiracy theory from a new edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or a new anti-Semitic cartoon posted by Yair Netanyahu. This really happened and was first reported on The Intercept site.

American citizen Bahia Amawi had been employed for nine years as a speech pathologist in Austin, Texas, where she worked with children ages 3-11 with special needs – autistic children and students with language difficulties. In each of the nine years she signed an employment contract, until this year, when a new, irregular clause appeared in the contract requiring her to pledge that she “does not currently boycott Israel” and “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.”

 

[Hollie]

As just another hate group (although in the case of the BDS’ers, they have a hateful politico-religious element to their hate), they’re something of a fad that is fading.




Is the BDS Movement Failing? Depends on Your Definition of Success.

Twelve years after its official founding, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel has failed to isolate the Jewish state. As of September, Israeli exports were on pace to cross $100 billion in a single year for the first time in history. Meanwhile, Israel’s diplomatic relationships in Africa, Asia, and even the Arab Middle East are improving, with countries from Bahrain to India eager to expand ties. If the BDS movement’s goal was to turn Israel into a pariah state, it’s not really working as intended.

There’s evidence the BDSers aren’t meeting many of their less ambitious objectives, either. On American college campuses, BDS is in the midst of a quiet losing streak, as its strategy of using student government resolutions and campus-wide referenda to prohibit business, cultural, or academic contacts with Israeli companies, institutions, and individuals has yielded few enduring results. At the same time, one of the student organizations that’s sustained and coordinated the movement on a national scale saw a sizable year-to-year drop-off in attendance for its national conference, which was held in late October.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This is going too far. I am curious to see how it fairs in court - no one should be forced to sign such an oath, it's a total infringement of free speech.

A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job
A children’s speech pathologist who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.

The child language specialist, Bahia Amawi, is a U.S. citizen who received a master’s degree in speech pathology in 1999 and, since then, has specialized in evaluations for young children with language difficulties (see video below). Amawi was born in Austria and has lived in the U.S. for the last 30 years, fluently speaks three languages (English, German, and Arabic), and has four U.S.-born American children of her own.


If they come to boycott you, fire them first | Opinion
The Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu is playing with anti-Semitic fire. And anyone who plays with fire gets burned. There’s no delicate way of warning the Jews in the world from the dangers the government is exposing them to, except perhaps to scream at the government: Have you lost your mind?

A children’s speech pathologist in Texas was fired because she refused to sign a contract that required her to pledge that she does not and will not boycott Israel or support boycotting products from West Bank settlements. This is no conspiracy theory from a new edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or a new anti-Semitic cartoon posted by Yair Netanyahu. This really happened and was first reported on The Intercept site.

American citizen Bahia Amawi had been employed for nine years as a speech pathologist in Austin, Texas, where she worked with children ages 3-11 with special needs – autistic children and students with language difficulties. In each of the nine years she signed an employment contract, until this year, when a new, irregular clause appeared in the contract requiring her to pledge that she “does not currently boycott Israel” and “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.”

[ Research.....research.....research.....]

A Texas speech pathologist has recently filed suit on First Amendment grounds because a public school that hired her as a contractor asked her to sign a statement mandated by the state’s law against boycotts of Israel. When the incident was first reported in the viciously anti-Israel Intercept, a headline described the statement as a “pro-Israel oath.” Not only is that false, many of the details given in the article itself—which have since been repeated in many media outlets that picked up the story—are misleading or incorrect. David E. Bernstein sets the record straight and explains why the law does not violate freedom of speech:

Texas has a law banning state entities from contracting with businesses, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel. As a result, just as local governments require contractors to certify that they adhere to many other state laws—such as anti-discrimination laws and financial propriety laws—they also must certify . . . that their business does not boycott Israel. . . .

Note that, consistent with the language and obvious intent of the law, the school district certification applies to the business[of which the speech pathologist is the sole proprietor]. Contrary to what I’ve been reading all over the Internet, she is not being asked to pledge that she, in a personal capacity, will not privately boycott Israel, much less that she will, e.g., not advocate for boycotting Israel or otherwise refrain from criticizing the country.


(full article online)

No, Texas Schools Don’t Require Employees to Sign a “Pro-Israel Oath”

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

The fact that we are talking about the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is evidence that it has had some impact well into the international community.

◈ The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement "works to end international support for Israel."
◈ The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement work to bring to the light the oppression of Palestinians.
◈ The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement work to pressure Israel to comply with international law.
​

Maybe it was not as successful as the Movement's prime movers would like it to be. And maybe the Prime Movers are not as appreciate those that have hijacked pieces of the Movement. But it may be showing success in ways that the creators never imagined.

And if we look at other similar activities, like The Quartet on the Middle East, and for all the Millions of dollars spent on various Israeli-Palestinian Issues, in the end - 16 years later, The Quartet has not proven to be any more effective.

Success is often both relative and strangely startling.

Is the BDS Movement Failing? Depends on Your Definition of Success.

(COMMENT)

Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the BDS Movement, and a Palestinian Human Rights activist (who isn't these days) has outlined the focus on Israels three-tiered system of oppression against the Palestinian people:

◈ Israel's occupation, 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and that includes East Jerusalem;
◈ Israel's system of racial discrimination,

✦ against its non-Jewish citizens,
✦ the Palestinian citizens of Israel; ​

◈ Israel's denial of the right of return for the refugees, Palestinian refugees,​

In 2010, Omar Barghouti's view is that BDS Movement, a type of non-violent campaign, is a "calling upon people of conscience around the world to boycott Israel." This is often truncated to "coalition of Palestinian civil society groups called for people all over the world to engage in a nonviolent campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel until it complies with international law;" or phasing to that effect.

And in recent years, has grown to include institutions, visitations, industry, and culture that are viewed to be complicit with Israel. And the success or failure in this regard is yet to be determined; but, it is pointed in favor of Israel. This is especially true since the beginning of the "March of Return" and the violence instigated at the border by the Arab Palestinians. While the media is publishing stories originating from inside Gaza, the reality is that the world has begun to use common sense in these staged events for propaganda purposes.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

The New York Times publishes a staff editorial headlined, “Curbing Speech in the Name of Helping Israel,” with the subheadline, “A Senate bill aims to punish those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.”

The first problem is the subheadline’s reference to “those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.” Boycotts of Jewish products in the Land of Israel have existed since 1945, before the Jewish state even existed. The idea that this boycott is about “settlement policy” is not founded in fact, since the boycott has existed for decades regardless of whether Israel did or didn’t occupy the West Bank and regardless of whether the Israeli government in power was expanding or limiting settlement activity.

The second problem is the editorial’s framing of the matter as a threat to freedom of speech. If the Times were a consistent defender of free speech, that’d be one thing. But on issue after issue — the right of a Christian business not to cover contraception as a health benefit, the right of a wedding cake bakery not to bake a cake for a gay marriage, the right of a wealthy donor or advocacy group to spend money on political advertising — the Times has been downright dismissive of free speech concerns, and of the argument that economic choices qualify as protected free speech. In fact, when it is gays or women being discriminated against, the Times has been downright dismissive of the argument that an economic choice qualifies as protected speech. Yet when it is Israeli Jews being discriminated against by the BDS movement, the Timeseditorialists all of a sudden become free speech absolutists. It’s a double standard.

Nor is it the only double standard in the piece, which brings us to the third problem. The Times refers to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as a “pro-Israel lobby group,” but refers to “Palestinian rights organizations.” Why aren’t the Palestinians, who do also lobby, described as lobbyists? Or why isn’t AIPAC, which does care about the rights of Israelis, described as a “rights organization”?

(full article online)

Seven Problems With The New York Times Pro-BDS Editorial

 

[Coyote]

,.,n

This is going too far. I am curious to see how it fairs in court - no one should be forced to sign such an oath, it's a total infringement of free speech.

A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job
A children’s speech pathologist who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.

The child language specialist, Bahia Amawi, is a U.S. citizen who received a master’s degree in speech pathology in 1999 and, since then, has specialized in evaluations for young children with language difficulties (see video below). Amawi was born in Austria and has lived in the U.S. for the last 30 years, fluently speaks three languages (English, German, and Arabic), and has four U.S.-born American children of her own.


If they come to boycott you, fire them first | Opinion
The Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu is playing with anti-Semitic fire. And anyone who plays with fire gets burned. There’s no delicate way of warning the Jews in the world from the dangers the government is exposing them to, except perhaps to scream at the government: Have you lost your mind?

A children’s speech pathologist in Texas was fired because she refused to sign a contract that required her to pledge that she does not and will not boycott Israel or support boycotting products from West Bank settlements. This is no conspiracy theory from a new edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or a new anti-Semitic cartoon posted by Yair Netanyahu. This really happened and was first reported on The Intercept site.

American citizen Bahia Amawi had been employed for nine years as a speech pathologist in Austin, Texas, where she worked with children ages 3-11 with special needs – autistic children and students with language difficulties. In each of the nine years she signed an employment contract, until this year, when a new, irregular clause appeared in the contract requiring her to pledge that she “does not currently boycott Israel” and “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.”

[ Research.....research.....research.....]

A Texas speech pathologist has recently filed suit on First Amendment grounds because a public school that hired her as a contractor asked her to sign a statement mandated by the state’s law against boycotts of Israel. When the incident was first reported in the viciously anti-Israel Intercept, a headline described the statement as a “pro-Israel oath.” Not only is that false, many of the details given in the article itself—which have since been repeated in many media outlets that picked up the story—are misleading or incorrect. David E. Bernstein sets the record straight and explains why the law does not violate freedom of speech:

Texas has a law banning state entities from contracting with businesses, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel. As a result, just as local governments require contractors to certify that they adhere to many other state laws—such as anti-discrimination laws and financial propriety laws—they also must certify . . . that their business does not boycott Israel. . . .

Note that, consistent with the language and obvious intent of the law, the school district certification applies to the business[of which the speech pathologist is the sole proprietor]. Contrary to what I’ve been reading all over the Internet, she is not being asked to pledge that she, in a personal capacity, will not privately boycott Israel, much less that she will, e.g., not advocate for boycotting Israel or otherwise refrain from criticizing the country.


(full article online)

No, Texas Schools Don’t Require Employees to Sign a “Pro-Israel Oath”

Research is indeed a good idea and this a good example of how deceptive some sources are.

No one said she was asked to sign a “pro-Israel” oath. That is one error. The second Is this is new to her contract, applies only to Israel...not boycotts or movements against other nations or entities.

That law has not been tested in the courts yet and I suspect it will not stand.

This is a good example of two things: the degree to which Israel attempts to influence our laws and perceptions in this conflict and the propaganda at play attempting to downplay its effect on Americans who don’t agree with Israeli policies. Smear them and then fire them for excersizing their rights of free speech in our country.

 

[Sixties Fan]

,.,n

This is going too far. I am curious to see how it fairs in court - no one should be forced to sign such an oath, it's a total infringement of free speech.

A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job
A children’s speech pathologist who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.

The child language specialist, Bahia Amawi, is a U.S. citizen who received a master’s degree in speech pathology in 1999 and, since then, has specialized in evaluations for young children with language difficulties (see video below). Amawi was born in Austria and has lived in the U.S. for the last 30 years, fluently speaks three languages (English, German, and Arabic), and has four U.S.-born American children of her own.


If they come to boycott you, fire them first | Opinion
The Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu is playing with anti-Semitic fire. And anyone who plays with fire gets burned. There’s no delicate way of warning the Jews in the world from the dangers the government is exposing them to, except perhaps to scream at the government: Have you lost your mind?

A children’s speech pathologist in Texas was fired because she refused to sign a contract that required her to pledge that she does not and will not boycott Israel or support boycotting products from West Bank settlements. This is no conspiracy theory from a new edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or a new anti-Semitic cartoon posted by Yair Netanyahu. This really happened and was first reported on The Intercept site.

American citizen Bahia Amawi had been employed for nine years as a speech pathologist in Austin, Texas, where she worked with children ages 3-11 with special needs – autistic children and students with language difficulties. In each of the nine years she signed an employment contract, until this year, when a new, irregular clause appeared in the contract requiring her to pledge that she “does not currently boycott Israel” and “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.”

[ Research.....research.....research.....]

A Texas speech pathologist has recently filed suit on First Amendment grounds because a public school that hired her as a contractor asked her to sign a statement mandated by the state’s law against boycotts of Israel. When the incident was first reported in the viciously anti-Israel Intercept, a headline described the statement as a “pro-Israel oath.” Not only is that false, many of the details given in the article itself—which have since been repeated in many media outlets that picked up the story—are misleading or incorrect. David E. Bernstein sets the record straight and explains why the law does not violate freedom of speech:

Texas has a law banning state entities from contracting with businesses, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel. As a result, just as local governments require contractors to certify that they adhere to many other state laws—such as anti-discrimination laws and financial propriety laws—they also must certify . . . that their business does not boycott Israel. . . .

Note that, consistent with the language and obvious intent of the law, the school district certification applies to the business[of which the speech pathologist is the sole proprietor]. Contrary to what I’ve been reading all over the Internet, she is not being asked to pledge that she, in a personal capacity, will not privately boycott Israel, much less that she will, e.g., not advocate for boycotting Israel or otherwise refrain from criticizing the country.


(full article online)

No, Texas Schools Don’t Require Employees to Sign a “Pro-Israel Oath”

Research is indeed a good idea and this a good example of how deceptive some sources are.

No one said she was asked to sign a “pro-Israel” oath. That is one error. The second Is this is new to her contract, applies only to Israel...not boycotts or movements against other nations or entities.

That law has not been tested in the courts yet and I suspect it will not stand.

This is a good example of two things: the degree to which Israel attempts to influence our laws and perceptions in this conflict and the propaganda at play attempting to downplay its effect on Americans who don’t agree with Israeli policies. Smear them and then fire them for excersizing their rights of free speech in our country.

In other words,

The BDS movement can make anyone boycott Israel, but Israel does not have the right to fight those boycotts.

A BDS movement which targets Israel, and ONLY Israel, and has targeted Israel even before 1948, as the article above tells.

BDS is not about the Jewish "settlements" in Judea and Samaria, BDS is against Jews having any inch of their ancient homeland, and the attempt by that movement to weaken Israel via BDS actions and make the Israeli government capitulate to the Arab Muslim demands for more land.

The Arab Muslims can "influence" others, but Israel cannot.

No, the Palestinians have no lobby at all, nowhere in the world, especially in the UN, the EU and other parts of the world.

Curious.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Palestinians call for boycott of new Israeli-Palestinian mall

 

[Sixties Fan]

But at least one passer-by gives the haters a dressing down. At the start of this video (thanks, Alex Seymour, for keeping the footage in) a man who clearly supports Israel (could he be an Israeli himself?) tells the demonizers exactly what he thinks of them.

Daphne Anson: "You're No Better Than the Nazis During the Second World War!", London Israel-Haters Told (video)

 

[Coyote]

The New York Times publishes a staff editorial headlined, “Curbing Speech in the Name of Helping Israel,” with the subheadline, “A Senate bill aims to punish those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.”

The first problem is the subheadline’s reference to “those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.” Boycotts of Jewish products in the Land of Israel have existed since 1945, before the Jewish state even existed. The idea that this boycott is about “settlement policy” is not founded in fact, since the boycott has existed for decades regardless of whether Israel did or didn’t occupy the West Bank and regardless of whether the Israeli government in power was expanding or limiting settlement activity.

The second problem is the editorial’s framing of the matter as a threat to freedom of speech. If the Times were a consistent defender of free speech, that’d be one thing. But on issue after issue — the right of a Christian business not to cover contraception as a health benefit, the right of a wedding cake bakery not to bake a cake for a gay marriage, the right of a wealthy donor or advocacy group to spend money on political advertising — the Times has been downright dismissive of free speech concerns, and of the argument that economic choices qualify as protected free speech. In fact, when it is gays or women being discriminated against, the Times has been downright dismissive of the argument that an economic choice qualifies as protected speech. Yet when it is Israeli Jews being discriminated against by the BDS movement, the Timeseditorialists all of a sudden become free speech absolutists. It’s a double standard.

Nor is it the only double standard in the piece, which brings us to the third problem. The Times refers to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as a “pro-Israel lobby group,” but refers to “Palestinian rights organizations.” Why aren’t the Palestinians, who do also lobby, described as lobbyists? Or why isn’t AIPAC, which does care about the rights of Israelis, described as a “rights organization”?

(full article online)

Seven Problems With The New York Times Pro-BDS Editorial

BDS is boycotting products made in the settlements as a protest against Israel’s settlement policy. If protesting settlement policies in occupied territory is discriminatory to Israeli Jews, that raises an interesting question...why are the settlements solely Jewish?

 

[Sixties Fan]

The New York Times publishes a staff editorial headlined, “Curbing Speech in the Name of Helping Israel,” with the subheadline, “A Senate bill aims to punish those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.”

The first problem is the subheadline’s reference to “those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.” Boycotts of Jewish products in the Land of Israel have existed since 1945, before the Jewish state even existed. The idea that this boycott is about “settlement policy” is not founded in fact, since the boycott has existed for decades regardless of whether Israel did or didn’t occupy the West Bank and regardless of whether the Israeli government in power was expanding or limiting settlement activity.

The second problem is the editorial’s framing of the matter as a threat to freedom of speech. If the Times were a consistent defender of free speech, that’d be one thing. But on issue after issue — the right of a Christian business not to cover contraception as a health benefit, the right of a wedding cake bakery not to bake a cake for a gay marriage, the right of a wealthy donor or advocacy group to spend money on political advertising — the Times has been downright dismissive of free speech concerns, and of the argument that economic choices qualify as protected free speech. In fact, when it is gays or women being discriminated against, the Times has been downright dismissive of the argument that an economic choice qualifies as protected speech. Yet when it is Israeli Jews being discriminated against by the BDS movement, the Timeseditorialists all of a sudden become free speech absolutists. It’s a double standard.

Nor is it the only double standard in the piece, which brings us to the third problem. The Times refers to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as a “pro-Israel lobby group,” but refers to “Palestinian rights organizations.” Why aren’t the Palestinians, who do also lobby, described as lobbyists? Or why isn’t AIPAC, which does care about the rights of Israelis, described as a “rights organization”?

(full article online)

Seven Problems With The New York Times Pro-BDS Editorial

BDS is boycotting products made in the settlements as a protest against Israel’s settlement policy. If protesting settlement policies in occupied territory is discriminatory to Israeli Jews, that raises an interesting question...why are the settlements solely Jewish?

Why are the Arab settlements in areas A and B solely Arab Muslim?

Why is Gaza solely Arab Muslim with few Christians?

Why is TranJordan (78% of Palestine) solely Arab Muslim?


And, please, it was not "occupied" until Israel took the land in the war started by those who were occupying it, the Jordanians.

But the Jordanians were not "occupiers" of all the land from 1948 to 1967 and you cannot tell us why.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The New York Times publishes a staff editorial headlined, “Curbing Speech in the Name of Helping Israel,” with the subheadline, “A Senate bill aims to punish those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.”

The first problem is the subheadline’s reference to “those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.” Boycotts of Jewish products in the Land of Israel have existed since 1945, before the Jewish state even existed. The idea that this boycott is about “settlement policy” is not founded in fact, since the boycott has existed for decades regardless of whether Israel did or didn’t occupy the West Bank and regardless of whether the Israeli government in power was expanding or limiting settlement activity.

The second problem is the editorial’s framing of the matter as a threat to freedom of speech. If the Times were a consistent defender of free speech, that’d be one thing. But on issue after issue — the right of a Christian business not to cover contraception as a health benefit, the right of a wedding cake bakery not to bake a cake for a gay marriage, the right of a wealthy donor or advocacy group to spend money on political advertising — the Times has been downright dismissive of free speech concerns, and of the argument that economic choices qualify as protected free speech. In fact, when it is gays or women being discriminated against, the Times has been downright dismissive of the argument that an economic choice qualifies as protected speech. Yet when it is Israeli Jews being discriminated against by the BDS movement, the Timeseditorialists all of a sudden become free speech absolutists. It’s a double standard.

Nor is it the only double standard in the piece, which brings us to the third problem. The Times refers to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as a “pro-Israel lobby group,” but refers to “Palestinian rights organizations.” Why aren’t the Palestinians, who do also lobby, described as lobbyists? Or why isn’t AIPAC, which does care about the rights of Israelis, described as a “rights organization”?

(full article online)

Seven Problems With The New York Times Pro-BDS Editorial

BDS is boycotting products made in the settlements as a protest against Israel’s settlement policy. If protesting settlement policies in occupied territory is discriminatory to Israeli Jews, that raises an interesting question...why are the settlements solely Jewish?

Odd how you are not dealing with some of the issues brought up by the article like:

The existence of Boycott against Israeli goods began decades before 1967. What was going on there, as there were no settlements and from 1948 until 1967, there were no Jews at all in the West Bank, but the Boycotts continued.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The New York Times publishes a staff editorial headlined, “Curbing Speech in the Name of Helping Israel,” with the subheadline, “A Senate bill aims to punish those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.”

The first problem is the subheadline’s reference to “those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.” Boycotts of Jewish products in the Land of Israel have existed since 1945, before the Jewish state even existed. The idea that this boycott is about “settlement policy” is not founded in fact, since the boycott has existed for decades regardless of whether Israel did or didn’t occupy the West Bank and regardless of whether the Israeli government in power was expanding or limiting settlement activity.

The second problem is the editorial’s framing of the matter as a threat to freedom of speech. If the Times were a consistent defender of free speech, that’d be one thing. But on issue after issue — the right of a Christian business not to cover contraception as a health benefit, the right of a wedding cake bakery not to bake a cake for a gay marriage, the right of a wealthy donor or advocacy group to spend money on political advertising — the Times has been downright dismissive of free speech concerns, and of the argument that economic choices qualify as protected free speech. In fact, when it is gays or women being discriminated against, the Times has been downright dismissive of the argument that an economic choice qualifies as protected speech. Yet when it is Israeli Jews being discriminated against by the BDS movement, the Timeseditorialists all of a sudden become free speech absolutists. It’s a double standard.

Nor is it the only double standard in the piece, which brings us to the third problem. The Times refers to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as a “pro-Israel lobby group,” but refers to “Palestinian rights organizations.” Why aren’t the Palestinians, who do also lobby, described as lobbyists? Or why isn’t AIPAC, which does care about the rights of Israelis, described as a “rights organization”?

(full article online)

Seven Problems With The New York Times Pro-BDS Editorial

BDS is boycotting products made in the settlements as a protest against Israel’s settlement policy. If protesting settlement policies in occupied territory is discriminatory to Israeli Jews, that raises an interesting question...why are the settlements solely Jewish?

Why are the Palestinians calling to boycott this Mall:

Jewish and Arab customers at a Rami Levy supermarket in Jerusalem.. (photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)


Palestinians call for boycott of new Israeli-Palestinian mall


Is this really about an "occupation" by Israel/Jews or is it about the Arab Leaders demand that there be no normalization between Arabs and Jews?

So, let me get this:

From 1948 to 1967, Jordan occupied the old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. It is now in Jewish hands and annexed to the rest of Jerusalem as it should have always been. Arabs and Jews live there.

But, the Muslims having taken that quarter to themselves for that period, cannot allow the Jews to return to it, even though it was clearly the Jewish Quarter for centuries.



What is going on here?


Is East Jerusalem a Jewish "Settlement"? simple because Israel got it back after 1967?

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Some think that boycotts against Jews started with Israel taking Gaza, Judea and Samaria during the war of 1967, started by the Arab countries. But it is not so. Here is a little history of boycotts against Jews, long before the creation of the State of Israel and the war of 1967 ]

In Palestine, the Arab leadership organized boycotts of Jewish businesses from 1929 onwards, with violence often directed at Arabs who did business with Jews.[19] The boycotts were publicized through anti-Semitic language and were accompanied by riots that the British authorities described as "clearly anti-Jewish."[20]

(full article online)

Antisemitic boycotts - Wikipedia


Anti-Jewish Boycott — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

 

[Sixties Fan]

What is the significance of this event?

"A billion people watched this event. They saw all of Israel, because the race takes place outside, in the air, in the landscape, not like a soccer game that people see on a soccer field. We had a billion people who watched us without the filters that they show on the news portraying Israel as an unsafe place. Here we reached masses of people that don't care about politics and army matters; they just watch with an open mind. A lot of young people, who aren't politicians and want good experiences without filters. A billion people visited Israel through a television screen."

(full article online)

Sylvan Adams: Giro D'Italia was our answer to BDS

 

[P F Tinmore]

The New York Times publishes a staff editorial headlined, “Curbing Speech in the Name of Helping Israel,” with the subheadline, “A Senate bill aims to punish those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.”

The first problem is the subheadline’s reference to “those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.” Boycotts of Jewish products in the Land of Israel have existed since 1945, before the Jewish state even existed. The idea that this boycott is about “settlement policy” is not founded in fact, since the boycott has existed for decades regardless of whether Israel did or didn’t occupy the West Bank and regardless of whether the Israeli government in power was expanding or limiting settlement activity.

The second problem is the editorial’s framing of the matter as a threat to freedom of speech. If the Times were a consistent defender of free speech, that’d be one thing. But on issue after issue — the right of a Christian business not to cover contraception as a health benefit, the right of a wedding cake bakery not to bake a cake for a gay marriage, the right of a wealthy donor or advocacy group to spend money on political advertising — the Times has been downright dismissive of free speech concerns, and of the argument that economic choices qualify as protected free speech. In fact, when it is gays or women being discriminated against, the Times has been downright dismissive of the argument that an economic choice qualifies as protected speech. Yet when it is Israeli Jews being discriminated against by the BDS movement, the Timeseditorialists all of a sudden become free speech absolutists. It’s a double standard.

Nor is it the only double standard in the piece, which brings us to the third problem. The Times refers to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as a “pro-Israel lobby group,” but refers to “Palestinian rights organizations.” Why aren’t the Palestinians, who do also lobby, described as lobbyists? Or why isn’t AIPAC, which does care about the rights of Israelis, described as a “rights organization”?

(full article online)

Seven Problems With The New York Times Pro-BDS Editorial

BDS is boycotting products made in the settlements as a protest against Israel’s settlement policy. If protesting settlement policies in occupied territory is discriminatory to Israeli Jews, that raises an interesting question...why are the settlements solely Jewish?

Odd how you are not dealing with some of the issues brought up by the article like:

The existence of Boycott against Israeli goods began decades before 1967. What was going on there, as there were no settlements and from 1948 until 1967, there were no Jews at all in the West Bank, but the Boycotts continued.

Read your history. There were a lot of Jewish only settlements in Palestine before 1948, and more after.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The New York Times publishes a staff editorial headlined, “Curbing Speech in the Name of Helping Israel,” with the subheadline, “A Senate bill aims to punish those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.”

The first problem is the subheadline’s reference to “those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy.” Boycotts of Jewish products in the Land of Israel have existed since 1945, before the Jewish state even existed. The idea that this boycott is about “settlement policy” is not founded in fact, since the boycott has existed for decades regardless of whether Israel did or didn’t occupy the West Bank and regardless of whether the Israeli government in power was expanding or limiting settlement activity.

The second problem is the editorial’s framing of the matter as a threat to freedom of speech. If the Times were a consistent defender of free speech, that’d be one thing. But on issue after issue — the right of a Christian business not to cover contraception as a health benefit, the right of a wedding cake bakery not to bake a cake for a gay marriage, the right of a wealthy donor or advocacy group to spend money on political advertising — the Times has been downright dismissive of free speech concerns, and of the argument that economic choices qualify as protected free speech. In fact, when it is gays or women being discriminated against, the Times has been downright dismissive of the argument that an economic choice qualifies as protected speech. Yet when it is Israeli Jews being discriminated against by the BDS movement, the Timeseditorialists all of a sudden become free speech absolutists. It’s a double standard.

Nor is it the only double standard in the piece, which brings us to the third problem. The Times refers to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as a “pro-Israel lobby group,” but refers to “Palestinian rights organizations.” Why aren’t the Palestinians, who do also lobby, described as lobbyists? Or why isn’t AIPAC, which does care about the rights of Israelis, described as a “rights organization”?

(full article online)

Seven Problems With The New York Times Pro-BDS Editorial

BDS is boycotting products made in the settlements as a protest against Israel’s settlement policy. If protesting settlement policies in occupied territory is discriminatory to Israeli Jews, that raises an interesting question...why are the settlements solely Jewish?

Odd how you are not dealing with some of the issues brought up by the article like:

The existence of Boycott against Israeli goods began decades before 1967. What was going on there, as there were no settlements and from 1948 until 1967, there were no Jews at all in the West Bank, but the Boycotts continued.

Read your history. There were a lot of Jewish only settlements in Palestine before 1948, and more after.

And there were a lot of Arab, or Bedouin, or Druze only settlements before and after 1948, as well.

You play at knowing things .

 

[Sixties Fan]

An eyewitness writing in 1920 described the effect in Germany of the publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

" In Berlin I attended several meetings which were entirely devoted to the Protocols. The speaker was usually a professor, a teacher, an editor, a lawyer or someone of that kind. The audience consisted of members of the educated class, civil servants, tradesmen, former officers, ladies, above all students …. Passions were whipped up to the boiling point. There, in front of one, in the flesh, was the cause of all ills – those who had made the war and brought about the defeat and engineered the revolution, those who had conjured up all our suffering …. I observed the students. A few hours earlier they had perhaps been exerting all their mental energy in a seminar under the guidance of a world-famous scholar. … Now young blood was boiling, eyes flashed, fists clenched, hoarse voices roared applause or vengeance. (W. K. Timmermann – Incitement in international criminal law) "


Imagine the scene. Authority figures - often academics - riling up groups of people, often students, with lies that are meant to do only one thing: to incite the audience into hating Jews. And their methods worked - they seemed to gather "incontrovertible facts" that fed into the people's need to find a scapegoat, to find a symbol that they can channel all their hate into.

This happens, today, too.

What are BDS meetings all about, anyway? They are meant to incite the audience with lies (in this case, the Protocols are replaced with heavily edited videos and fabricated news stories) in order to get them to hate Israel, and Zionist Jews.

Like the German antisemites of the 1920s, today's Israel-bashers work hard to ensure that any information about their avowed enemies that is not wholly negative get censored, stopped, or drowned out with protests. The entire concept of accusations of "pinkwashing" and "artwashing" is meant to say that even when Israelis do something that aligns with modern liberal and moral values, it is really a nefarious plot to hide their unspeakable crimes. When Israeli Jews do something seemingly bad it is horrendous, when they do something good even that is bad. There is no room in their discourse for truth or honesty. And like then, there are enough idiots who are more than willing to fully adapt a simplistic theory of Jewish/Zionist evil to explain all the ills of the world (today including things like US police brutality, racism, colonialism, slavery, stealing organs, poisoning water, economic woes, and so forth.)

And, sometimes, the BDS meetings go full circle to attack Jews themselves, as this recent video of David Sheen blaming false and twisted interpretations of the Talmud and Jewish scholars for Israeli actions at a BDS meeting in Amsterdam:

(full article online)

A frightening parallel between German antisemites in the 1920s and BDS activists today ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News