Boycott Israel

[Sixties Fan]

The International Fencing Federation (FIE) did not do a thing to penalize him. He is still scheduled to compete in upcoming events.

Now, Alshatti is being honored by the Palestinian ambassador to Kuwait. He was presented with a commemorative gift as well as a souvenir and medal presented by the members of the Palestinian community in Kuwait to express their appreciation for his "heroic position."


The ceremony was held in front of the logo of the Kuwait Fencing Association and the International Fencing Federation.

Apparently, the FIE is fine with people politicizing its sport and its name.

(full article online )

Kuwaiti fencer who refused to compete against an Israeli honored; International Fencing Federation silent ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[USAF 2023]

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?

Can it be for the safety of the Israelis that their “ neighbors” are not out for their blood? Of course not everything has to be “ racist” Look at what happened to the Fogel family.
There have been many threads about Abbas stating “ No Israelis in Palestine” or the PLO position that Jews are not entitled to pray at the Western Wall. Don’t see you commenting or condemning that. The double standard of the Pro Palestinian team is typical and obvious

 

[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?

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.

Trying to conflate the BDS movements with earlier boycotts is a false comparison. The BDS movement is a specific movement aimed at the settlements. Let’s try to stick with it.

 

[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.

Trying to conflate the BDS movements with earlier boycotts is a false comparison. The BDS movement is a specific movement aimed at the settlements. Let’s try to stick with it.

That is how much you understand about it. So be it.

Again, as the article makes very clear the Arab boycotts have existed since 1945, if not before.

Where was the Jewish Settlements issue then? Can you find any Arabs complaining about "Jewish Settlements in Judea and Samaria from 1920 to 1967?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Understanding this reality, the most effective counter-measure to a UN blacklist is the anti-BDS legislation passed or on the way to being passed in most US states and the federal government. If one ignores partisan hyperbole regarding such legislation, these laws simply update rules that have been in place since the 1970s that make it illegal for US companies to participate in the Arab Boycott that goes back to the 1920s now that those same boycotters have hijacked the United Nations to give this age-old form of partisan warfare a veneer of global legitimacy.

Once anti-boycott laws are passed, companies (especially those more concerned with the large Arab market vs. the small Israeli one) considering participating in a UN-led boycott will have another factor to take into account: the impact such a choice will have on their relationship with the large US market. We’ve already seen what happened to one corporation (AirBnB) that thought it would face no consequences for joining the latest version of the Arab boycott. Given that companies are generally conservative, turning to US state and national legislators to add a counter-weight to the UN blacklist is not just a last resort, but our best choice.

(full article online)

Changing Your Mind (Divest This!) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ This are the people helping Boycott Israel ]

Summing up Tamika Mallory (Eldertoon) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

Madrid rejects BDS

 

[rylah]

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.

Trying to conflate the BDS movements with earlier boycotts is a false comparison. The BDS movement is a specific movement aimed at the settlements. Let’s try to stick with it.

Oldest lie in the BDS.
Arabs boycotted Palestinian Jews long before any settlement.
It was still ta those times when Jews were known as Palestinians and Arabs only as Arabs:

Who is there on the right? Do I have a dejavu or did BDS just re-brand a 100 boycott that started against Palestinian Jews before Israel even existed?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Chris Hedges: Israel is ‘frightened’ & ‘desperate’

 

[Sixties Fan]

Chris Hedges: Israel is ‘frightened’ & ‘desperate’

RT....AGAIN.......you are still desperate Tinmore.

What happened? Santa did not come down your chimney tonight?
Or is it over, and it is time to pass on more conspiracy theories?

There is no such thing as individuals having to sign support for Israel.

But you sure like to make believe that anti BDS moves by governments are leading to that. Right?

But you are wrong. Again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Some many lies, in so few maps.

Why don't you put the maps for the Mandate for Palestine, where the whole Mandate should have gone to the Jewish people, as it is their ancient homeland, and let us watch it shrink from 100% to 22%, to 20%, with the Muslims wanting not just the "West Bank" but all of Israel as well.

Oh, wait, Abbas had that final map made for the Palestinian people
where their "State of Palestine" (the one they do not want at all) includes ALL OF ISRAEL.

(Lots of coal in your stocking, last night, I see )

 

[Sixties Fan]

Yesterday, UNWRA was embarrassed by UN Watch when they noticed an UNRWA tweet complimenting a terrorist as a "famed Palestinian writer."
----

But this isn't the only time UNRWA has mentioned Ghassan Kanafani.

On multiple occasions since 2010, UNRWA has partnered with the Ghassan Kanafani Cultural Center in Lebanon. In 2015 and 2016 it called the Kanafani Center a local partner,

While the Ghassan Kanafani Cultural Center indeed works with disabled people, it makes it very clear that it is anti-Israel and antisemitic, in violation of UNRWA's rules.

(full article online)

.@UNRWA also partners with NGO that says "the idea of coexistence with the Jews is absolutely heretical" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

Egyptian super-star Mohamed Salah has allegedly threatened to leave Premier League football club Liverpool if Arab-Israeli soccer player Moanes Dabour joins the team, Israeli media reported.

(full article online)

Egyptian soccer star Salah may quit team if Israeli player joins

 

[Sixties Fan]

Wiesenthal’s top ten list of antisemites includes Pittsburgh shooter

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ No one mentions that there were no boycotts of Israel when it won.....how many times before. All of us sudden it is 2018...
Lets BDS !! ]

Ireland’s Former Eurovision Winner Says Boycotting ‘Isn’t Always the Answer’ Ahead of Upcoming 2019 Contest in Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

‘NYT’ calls out AIPAC and ADL for assault on free speech criticizing Israel

 

[Hollie]

BDS Fail: 15 Arab, Islamic Countries Cooperating with Israel

 

[Sixties Fan]

"This is an exceptional development that attests to the sensitivity that the Qataris show toward Israelis and the Jewish world," said Rabbi Schneier. He said the Qataris sought his advice with concern for the needs of Jewish fans in everything related to kosher food. "I responded to the request with joy. The fact that our conversation took place on this subject is already amazing," Schneier said.

Whether the Qataris will set up a synagogue for Jewish fans to pray inside Schneier said: "No comment. They have left me to advise them on how to host the Jewish fans. We have begun discussing the details. Al-Thawadi told the New York Times in an interview with that Israelis will be very welcome during the Mondial games in Qatar."

------
Arabic site Mobtada is not happy, saying that Qatar, by welcoming Jews, "shows its ugly face."



(full article online)

Qatar to accommodate Jewish visitors for 2022 World Cup; Arabs upset ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

University of California chiefs oppose any BDS action by faculty