Boycott Israel

[montelatici]

Israel Ranked 38th in the Legatum Prosperity Index
Given the odds against it, Israel should be ranked number 1.
November 17, 2015
Joseph Puder

London Based Legatum Institute has recently released (November) the Prosperity Index for 2015. Israel placed 38th among 142 countries. The criteria used to evaluate the standing of each country was based on such factors as the economy, governance, education, health, entrepreneurship and opportunity, safety and security, personal freedom, and social capital.

European countries were well represented in the top ten with Norway taking the first spot, followed by Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Finland, and Ireland at number ten. The U.S. was ranked 11th.

Apparently the safety and security criteria impacted on Israel’s standing, albeit, in a prejudicial way on the part of the evaluators. Yet, in the economy category, Israel was ranked 16th, ahead of the Republic of Korea 17th, United Kingdom (UK) 19th, Austria 22nd, Belgium 23rd, Japan 25th, France 30th, and Ireland 31st. The U.S. was ranked 11th again.

In the Education category, Israel once again was ranked 16th, ahead of such seemingly prosperous countries as Sweden ranking 17th, Switzerland 18th, Republic of Korea 20th, Belgium 21st, Austria 24th,

UK 25th, and France 26th. The U.S. was ranked 9th in this category.

The governance category too, was kind to Israel, ranking the Jewish state 25th out of 142 states, ahead of Spain ranked 27th, Slovenia 33rd, the Czech Republic 34th, Republic of Korea 35th and Taiwan 36th. The U.S. was ranked 11th, while the UK and France ranked 9th and 20th respectively.

Israel got clobbered in the safety and security category. The British Legatum Institute exaggerated, perhaps out of bias stemming from the negative coverage of Israel by the British media, when it placed Israel 98th among the 142 ranked states. Considering that countries such as United Arab Emirates was ranked 34th in this category, and South Korea (Republic of Korea) 17th, should raise some questions as to the reliability of the findings. With nuclear North Korea governed by an unstable dictator possessing nuclear weapons constantly threatening its southern neighbor, one would doubt that Koreans feel safe or secure. It is rather questionable to consider Saudi Arabia, ranked 73rd as more safe and secure than Israel, or for that matter Greece, ranked 27th, where their people feel economic and social desperation and insecurity. Ukraine, ranked 54th is not only economically downtrodden, but the civil war in eastern Ukraine makes it definitely unsafe and insecure. Jordan, ranked 84th, threatened by the Islamic State (IS) and beset by radical Islamists who would like to join the IS Caliphate, does not make it safer or more secure than Israel.

Perhaps the most unfair ranking occurred in the personal freedom category where Israel was ranked 98th again. Israel is one of the most vibrant democracies in the world, where the citizenry enjoys full civil and human rights, religious freedom, and clearly a great deal of personal freedom for both Arab and Jewish citizens. Moreover these freedoms are maintained in spite of Arab-Palestinian terror against Israelis. Placing countries such as Taiwan ranking 31st and Hong Kong, ranked 26th, (which is ruled by non-democratic China), United Arab Emirates 65th and Kuwait 84th (ruled by authoritarian and non-democratic Emirs) ahead of Israel is simply outrageous. Consider the fact that Legatum ranked a failed state such as the Central African Republic, which ranked 142nd overall, ahead of Israel in terms of personal freedom (ranking 93rd), casts doubt as to the accuracy and objectivity of the evaluators.

Israel’s Arab neighbors fared rather poorly. Jordan’s overall ranking by Legatum Institute was 88th, Lebanon 98th, Egypt fared even worse at 110th, Iraq, worse yet, at 123rd, and Syria was ranked close to the very bottom at 136th.

...

Israel Ranked 38th in the Legatum Prosperity Index

With the amount of aid Israel gets from the U.S. and world Jewry, it should be no. 1.

 

[Hollie]

Israel Ranked 38th in the Legatum Prosperity Index
Given the odds against it, Israel should be ranked number 1.
November 17, 2015
Joseph Puder

London Based Legatum Institute has recently released (November) the Prosperity Index for 2015. Israel placed 38th among 142 countries. The criteria used to evaluate the standing of each country was based on such factors as the economy, governance, education, health, entrepreneurship and opportunity, safety and security, personal freedom, and social capital.

European countries were well represented in the top ten with Norway taking the first spot, followed by Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Finland, and Ireland at number ten. The U.S. was ranked 11th.

Apparently the safety and security criteria impacted on Israel’s standing, albeit, in a prejudicial way on the part of the evaluators. Yet, in the economy category, Israel was ranked 16th, ahead of the Republic of Korea 17th, United Kingdom (UK) 19th, Austria 22nd, Belgium 23rd, Japan 25th, France 30th, and Ireland 31st. The U.S. was ranked 11th again.

In the Education category, Israel once again was ranked 16th, ahead of such seemingly prosperous countries as Sweden ranking 17th, Switzerland 18th, Republic of Korea 20th, Belgium 21st, Austria 24th,

UK 25th, and France 26th. The U.S. was ranked 9th in this category.

The governance category too, was kind to Israel, ranking the Jewish state 25th out of 142 states, ahead of Spain ranked 27th, Slovenia 33rd, the Czech Republic 34th, Republic of Korea 35th and Taiwan 36th. The U.S. was ranked 11th, while the UK and France ranked 9th and 20th respectively.

Israel got clobbered in the safety and security category. The British Legatum Institute exaggerated, perhaps out of bias stemming from the negative coverage of Israel by the British media, when it placed Israel 98th among the 142 ranked states. Considering that countries such as United Arab Emirates was ranked 34th in this category, and South Korea (Republic of Korea) 17th, should raise some questions as to the reliability of the findings. With nuclear North Korea governed by an unstable dictator possessing nuclear weapons constantly threatening its southern neighbor, one would doubt that Koreans feel safe or secure. It is rather questionable to consider Saudi Arabia, ranked 73rd as more safe and secure than Israel, or for that matter Greece, ranked 27th, where their people feel economic and social desperation and insecurity. Ukraine, ranked 54th is not only economically downtrodden, but the civil war in eastern Ukraine makes it definitely unsafe and insecure. Jordan, ranked 84th, threatened by the Islamic State (IS) and beset by radical Islamists who would like to join the IS Caliphate, does not make it safer or more secure than Israel.

Perhaps the most unfair ranking occurred in the personal freedom category where Israel was ranked 98th again. Israel is one of the most vibrant democracies in the world, where the citizenry enjoys full civil and human rights, religious freedom, and clearly a great deal of personal freedom for both Arab and Jewish citizens. Moreover these freedoms are maintained in spite of Arab-Palestinian terror against Israelis. Placing countries such as Taiwan ranking 31st and Hong Kong, ranked 26th, (which is ruled by non-democratic China), United Arab Emirates 65th and Kuwait 84th (ruled by authoritarian and non-democratic Emirs) ahead of Israel is simply outrageous. Consider the fact that Legatum ranked a failed state such as the Central African Republic, which ranked 142nd overall, ahead of Israel in terms of personal freedom (ranking 93rd), casts doubt as to the accuracy and objectivity of the evaluators.

Israel’s Arab neighbors fared rather poorly. Jordan’s overall ranking by Legatum Institute was 88th, Lebanon 98th, Egypt fared even worse at 110th, Iraq, worse yet, at 123rd, and Syria was ranked close to the very bottom at 136th.

...

Israel Ranked 38th in the Legatum Prosperity Index

With the amount of aid Israel gets from the U.S. and world Jewry, it should be no. 1.

You poor dear. You're just incensed that Israel is successful and dynamic while world islamism is retrograde and self-loathing.

 

[aris2chat]

A Cambridge academic refused to help a 13 yr old student who wrote about a class project related to horse domestication because the student was Israeli. Refused to help till there is peace and justice for Palestinians in "Palestine"

This is not just nonsense, it is becoming criminal. Time to fire, fine and require community service (for jewish or Israelis charities or community centers) and put an end to this insane bigotry. Most of these people should know better.

 

[fanger]

Horse expert Dr. Marsha Levine, who is Jewish, charged that Jews in Israel have become “monsters” and “Nazis.”

Shachar Rabinovitch wrote recently to Levine that she was doing a school project about horses and requested details about the domestication and breeding of early horse species.

According to a Facebook post by her mother, Shamir, on Monday, Levine replied: “I’ll answer your questions when there is peace and justice for Palestinians in Palestine.”

In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, Levine said: “I made the decision that I have the choice not to waste my time on people who tread on the rights of other people. I didn’t do anything to her. I said that when there is justice for Palestine I will answer her – that’s a fair answer.

“I want this girl not to worry about horses. I don’t need people emailing me… I don’t see any obligation to further her ego or make her feel better about herself,” she added. Levine said she gave Rabinovitch “useful information which might help her for the rest of her life.”
BDS-backing Jewish horse expert stands by ‘fair’ snub of Israeli schoolgirl

 

[American_Jihad]

Israel Needs an Effective PR Machine
Justice for Jews and Israel has been ignored for too long.
February 23, 2016
Joseph Puder

Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, also known as the “Start-up Nation,” has given the world technological innovations and medical cures for diseases. Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, invested billions in Israeli high tech, as did Microsoft, Intel, Google, and Yahoo. All of them opened Research and Development centers in Israel. Israel’s agricultural genius has helped save native populations in Africa, Asia, and Latin-America from starvation. Yet, Israeli governments have failed miserably in combating the de-legitimization campaigns against it, particularly in Europe and on North American campuses.

The problem Israel faces is serious. Its Palestinian enemies, European leftist and neo-Nazi groups have bonded with Islamists with the common denominator being anti-Semitism, directed at the collective Jew - Israel. The Prime Minister’s office and the Foreign Ministry are currently responsible for dispensing information and public relations (hasbara in Hebrew). Official Jerusalem has been unsuccessful at combating the propaganda of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement, which has gained global steam and now poses a threat not only to Israel’s image, but to its economic and diplomatic well-being.

Barry Shaw, Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy at the Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies wrote (February 10, 2016) in Israel National News that, “It is disgraceful how incompetent the Israeli government is when it comes to public diplomacy. It is not shockingly bad, it’s actually dangerously damaging to us.” Shaw goes on to say, “They concentrate on international diplomacy, government to government, government to international institutions, and what a mess they are making of that when it comes to protecting Israel from de-legitimization, anti-Israel resolutions, labeling, and a host of other slanders. They don’t really know how to deal with the problem, even when we are getting hit by so-called friendly countries. They’re clueless.”

Shaw suggests that government money should go to Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s) who have the “intimate grassroots connections our government personnel can never maintain.” Shaw concludes, ”We must continue to develop a non-governmental body to help and coordinate the privately-created NGO’s who are fighting Israel’s battles even as government officials fail to understand or support us in these battlefields.”

Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Israeli governments neglected to wage a serious campaign on the definition of the territories (Judea and Samaria) of the West Bank. Conversely, the Palestinian-Arabs have succeeded in convincing the world that these territories were “occupied Palestinian territories.” A State of Palestine never existed before or after the Six Day War of 1967, when Israel captured these territories following the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan attack on Israel. In fact, it was Jordan who occupied the West Bank illegally in 1948. The Palestinian-Arabs forfeited their chance for self-determination and statehood when they rejected the UN Partition Plan of 1947. They chose instead a war of annihilation against the newly found Jewish state, which did accept the UN Partition Plan, albeit, a shrunken state with insecure borders.

Young American and European students born decades after these events need to be reminded that the Palestinians were not denied justice, and that the same Palestinians sought to commit genocide against the Jews of Palestine/Israel of whom many were Holocaust survivors.

The BDS movement, which cries “occupation” as a mantra needs to be set straight about the facts. These are “disputed” territories, which Israel has as much right to as do the Palestinians. UN Security Council Resolution 242 predicated Israel’s withdrawal from certain “territories” on the Arabs making peace with the Jewish state. Egypt and Jordan did, and Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula (Three times the size of Israel) to Egypt, and territory to Jordan. In 1988, King Hussein of Jordan relegated the solution to the West Bank territorial “dispute” to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO, under Yasser Arafat, chose terror instead of peace. For Arafat, the Oslo Accords amounted to “a Trojan Horse” from which to destroy the Jewish state. The Second Intifada (2000-2004) proved it. Arafat rejected a golden opportunity to establish a state in July, 2000, when at Camp David Two, Israel’s Prime Minister Barak offered him 95% of the West Bank and Gaza including a capital in Jerusalem. U.S. President Bill Clinton witnessed this opportunity for Palestinian statehood, which Arafat rejected.

...

Israel Needs an Effective PR Machine

 

[Challenger]

Israel Needs an Effective PR Machine
Justice for Jews and Israel has been ignored for too long.
February 23, 2016
Joseph Puder

Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, also known as the “Start-up Nation,” has given the world technological innovations and medical cures for diseases. Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, invested billions in Israeli high tech, as did Microsoft, Intel, Google, and Yahoo. All of them opened Research and Development centers in Israel. Israel’s agricultural genius has helped save native populations in Africa, Asia, and Latin-America from starvation. Yet, Israeli governments have failed miserably in combating the de-legitimization campaigns against it, particularly in Europe and on North American campuses.

The problem Israel faces is serious. Its Palestinian enemies, European leftist and neo-Nazi groups have bonded with Islamists with the common denominator being anti-Semitism, directed at the collective Jew - Israel. The Prime Minister’s office and the Foreign Ministry are currently responsible for dispensing information and public relations (hasbara in Hebrew). Official Jerusalem has been unsuccessful at combating the propaganda of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement, which has gained global steam and now poses a threat not only to Israel’s image, but to its economic and diplomatic well-being.

Barry Shaw, Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy at the Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies wrote (February 10, 2016) in Israel National News that, “It is disgraceful how incompetent the Israeli government is when it comes to public diplomacy. It is not shockingly bad, it’s actually dangerously damaging to us.” Shaw goes on to say, “They concentrate on international diplomacy, government to government, government to international institutions, and what a mess they are making of that when it comes to protecting Israel from de-legitimization, anti-Israel resolutions, labeling, and a host of other slanders. They don’t really know how to deal with the problem, even when we are getting hit by so-called friendly countries. They’re clueless.”

Shaw suggests that government money should go to Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s) who have the “intimate grassroots connections our government personnel can never maintain.” Shaw concludes, ”We must continue to develop a non-governmental body to help and coordinate the privately-created NGO’s who are fighting Israel’s battles even as government officials fail to understand or support us in these battlefields.”

Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Israeli governments neglected to wage a serious campaign on the definition of the territories (Judea and Samaria) of the West Bank. Conversely, the Palestinian-Arabs have succeeded in convincing the world that these territories were “occupied Palestinian territories.” A State of Palestine never existed before or after the Six Day War of 1967, when Israel captured these territories following the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan attack on Israel. In fact, it was Jordan who occupied the West Bank illegally in 1948. The Palestinian-Arabs forfeited their chance for self-determination and statehood when they rejected the UN Partition Plan of 1947. They chose instead a war of annihilation against the newly found Jewish state, which did accept the UN Partition Plan, albeit, a shrunken state with insecure borders.

Young American and European students born decades after these events need to be reminded that the Palestinians were not denied justice, and that the same Palestinians sought to commit genocide against the Jews of Palestine/Israel of whom many were Holocaust survivors.

The BDS movement, which cries “occupation” as a mantra needs to be set straight about the facts. These are “disputed” territories, which Israel has as much right to as do the Palestinians. UN Security Council Resolution 242 predicated Israel’s withdrawal from certain “territories” on the Arabs making peace with the Jewish state. Egypt and Jordan did, and Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula (Three times the size of Israel) to Egypt, and territory to Jordan. In 1988, King Hussein of Jordan relegated the solution to the West Bank territorial “dispute” to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO, under Yasser Arafat, chose terror instead of peace. For Arafat, the Oslo Accords amounted to “a Trojan Horse” from which to destroy the Jewish state. The Second Intifada (2000-2004) proved it. Arafat rejected a golden opportunity to establish a state in July, 2000, when at Camp David Two, Israel’s Prime Minister Barak offered him 95% of the West Bank and Gaza including a capital in Jerusalem. U.S. President Bill Clinton witnessed this opportunity for Palestinian statehood, which Arafat rejected.

...

Israel Needs an Effective PR Machine

So what Joseph Pruder, director of "Stand with us" is really saying is that the Hasbara machine has failed; took him long enough to realise what the rest of the world already knows; Zionists lie.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Needs an Effective PR Machine
Justice for Jews and Israel has been ignored for too long.
February 23, 2016
Joseph Puder

Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, also known as the “Start-up Nation,” has given the world technological innovations and medical cures for diseases. Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, invested billions in Israeli high tech, as did Microsoft, Intel, Google, and Yahoo. All of them opened Research and Development centers in Israel. Israel’s agricultural genius has helped save native populations in Africa, Asia, and Latin-America from starvation. Yet, Israeli governments have failed miserably in combating the de-legitimization campaigns against it, particularly in Europe and on North American campuses.

The problem Israel faces is serious. Its Palestinian enemies, European leftist and neo-Nazi groups have bonded with Islamists with the common denominator being anti-Semitism, directed at the collective Jew - Israel. The Prime Minister’s office and the Foreign Ministry are currently responsible for dispensing information and public relations (hasbara in Hebrew). Official Jerusalem has been unsuccessful at combating the propaganda of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement, which has gained global steam and now poses a threat not only to Israel’s image, but to its economic and diplomatic well-being.

Barry Shaw, Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy at the Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies wrote (February 10, 2016) in Israel National News that, “It is disgraceful how incompetent the Israeli government is when it comes to public diplomacy. It is not shockingly bad, it’s actually dangerously damaging to us.” Shaw goes on to say, “They concentrate on international diplomacy, government to government, government to international institutions, and what a mess they are making of that when it comes to protecting Israel from de-legitimization, anti-Israel resolutions, labeling, and a host of other slanders. They don’t really know how to deal with the problem, even when we are getting hit by so-called friendly countries. They’re clueless.”

Shaw suggests that government money should go to Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s) who have the “intimate grassroots connections our government personnel can never maintain.” Shaw concludes, ”We must continue to develop a non-governmental body to help and coordinate the privately-created NGO’s who are fighting Israel’s battles even as government officials fail to understand or support us in these battlefields.”

Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Israeli governments neglected to wage a serious campaign on the definition of the territories (Judea and Samaria) of the West Bank. Conversely, the Palestinian-Arabs have succeeded in convincing the world that these territories were “occupied Palestinian territories.” A State of Palestine never existed before or after the Six Day War of 1967, when Israel captured these territories following the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan attack on Israel. In fact, it was Jordan who occupied the West Bank illegally in 1948. The Palestinian-Arabs forfeited their chance for self-determination and statehood when they rejected the UN Partition Plan of 1947. They chose instead a war of annihilation against the newly found Jewish state, which did accept the UN Partition Plan, albeit, a shrunken state with insecure borders.

Young American and European students born decades after these events need to be reminded that the Palestinians were not denied justice, and that the same Palestinians sought to commit genocide against the Jews of Palestine/Israel of whom many were Holocaust survivors.

The BDS movement, which cries “occupation” as a mantra needs to be set straight about the facts. These are “disputed” territories, which Israel has as much right to as do the Palestinians. UN Security Council Resolution 242 predicated Israel’s withdrawal from certain “territories” on the Arabs making peace with the Jewish state. Egypt and Jordan did, and Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula (Three times the size of Israel) to Egypt, and territory to Jordan. In 1988, King Hussein of Jordan relegated the solution to the West Bank territorial “dispute” to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO, under Yasser Arafat, chose terror instead of peace. For Arafat, the Oslo Accords amounted to “a Trojan Horse” from which to destroy the Jewish state. The Second Intifada (2000-2004) proved it. Arafat rejected a golden opportunity to establish a state in July, 2000, when at Camp David Two, Israel’s Prime Minister Barak offered him 95% of the West Bank and Gaza including a capital in Jerusalem. U.S. President Bill Clinton witnessed this opportunity for Palestinian statehood, which Arafat rejected.

...

Israel Needs an Effective PR Machine

The Prime Minister’s office and the Foreign Ministry are currently responsible for dispensing information and public relations (hasbara in Hebrew).(Bullshit in English)

 

[Uncensored2008]

So what Joseph Pruder, director of "Stand with us" is really saying is that the Hasbara machine has failed; took him long enough to realise what the rest of the world already knows; Zionists lie.

Ah, but you Muzzie Beasts are completely honest...

 

[Kondor3]

BDS is a flea... a pimple... a fly-speck... damned-near invisible... but desperate Palis want us to think otherwise... tee-hee.

 

[Challenger]

BDS is a flea... a pimple... a fly-speck... damned-near invisible... but desperate Palis want us to think otherwise... tee-hee.

Tell that to Nutandyahoo, he's the one calling BDS a strategic threat to the existance of his little Zionist paradise.

 

[Kondor3]

BDS is a flea... a pimple... a fly-speck... damned-near invisible... but desperate Palis want us to think otherwise... tee-hee.

Tell that to Nutandyahoo, he's the one calling BDS a strategic threat to the existance of his little Zionist paradise.

That's just for Public Consumption... doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Challenger]

BDS is a flea... a pimple... a fly-speck... damned-near invisible... but desperate Palis want us to think otherwise... tee-hee.

Tell that to Nutandyahoo, he's the one calling BDS a strategic threat to the existance of his little Zionist paradise.

That's just for Public Consumption... doesn't mean it's true.

Ah, I see. Positive confirmation that Zionists lie and scaremonger, well we all knew that, but thanks for confirming it anyway.

 

[Kondor3]

BDS is a flea... a pimple... a fly-speck... damned-near invisible... but desperate Palis want us to think otherwise... tee-hee.

Tell that to Nutandyahoo, he's the one calling BDS a strategic threat to the existance of his little Zionist paradise.

That's just for Public Consumption... doesn't mean it's true.

Ah, I see. Positive confirmation that Zionists lie and scaremonger, well we all knew that, but thanks for confirming it anyway.

Oh no... I've let the cat out of the bag... politicians are professional bullshit artists... who-woulda-thunk it? Hold the presses! New front-page story! Puh-leeez!

 

[RoccoR]

Kondor3, Challenger, et al,

Threats are "subjective" evaluations (formulated on the influenced by each individual or analytical opinion). What the Quartet may feel is a threat may not be the same as what members of the ArabLeague might consider a threat.

BDS is a flea... a pimple... a fly-speck... damned-near invisible... but desperate Palis want us to think otherwise... tee-hee.

Tell that to Nutandyahoo, he's the one calling BDS a strategic threat to the existance of his little Zionist paradise.

That's just for Public Consumption... doesn't mean it's true.

Ah, I see. Positive confirmation that Zionists lie and scaremonger, well we all knew that, but thanks for confirming it anyway.

Oh no... I've let the cat out of the bag... politicians are professional bullshit artists... who-woulda-thunk it? Hold the presses! New front-page story! Puh-leeez!

(COMMENT)

It is not really up to an external market or entity to consider what form of threat may be influencing decisions of Israel. Threat analysis may consider a challenge to be a financial or economic threat, --- or --- a political-military threat. Or it may be the case that the assessment considers the threat will trigger a cascade of adverse impacts on vital areas necessary to the continuation of key areas in the national development of Israel. The perception of a threat is not viewed the same way by ever international community member.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is a economic campaign of propaganda for sympathy. The BDS Movement want to gradually make any positive industry the Israelis may have made economically and commercially in the West Bank --- uneconomical and not commercially viable --- driving the employer of Arab Palestinians out of the territory. The BDS Movement is a propaganda effort to amplify the desperation and need for equality in Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel (already outside the territory). And the BDS Movement wants to disseminate their version of the "right of return" for a near non-existent refugees population.

[NOTE: Less than 4% of the entire West Bank population is over the age of 65 (≈ 45,000 males and 62,000 females --- and not all of them are displaced from the 1948-49 War of Independence.). It has been ≈ 68 years since the Israel War of Independence and the displacement of of Arab Palestinians from the land. That is to say that there is only a very small probability that more than 100,000 Arab Palestinians are still alive that could have actually been a displaced Arab.]​

There may actually be as few as only 10,000 Arab Palestinians Refugee that were actually displaced from the territory known as Israel; and that number will dramatically decrease in those number will rapidly diminish in the next few years.
​

Soon, no one in the BDS Movement will be able to claim that they are a displaced person. The best they could argue will be that they are a descendant of an ancestral refugee.

The Arab Palestinians in the BDS Movement claim that there were ≈ 750,000 Palestinians displaced as a result of the 1948-49 War that defended the establishment of Israel as the Jewish National Home (alla the Balfour Declaration). Today the Arab Palestinian claim there are approximately 5 million refugees who are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA); AND an additional one million Palestinians who were descendants of the 1948-49 War but who could not or did not register with UNRWA for assistance. One might ask, how can this be. And that is because the definition used by the UNRWA is unique to Palestinian Refugees, and is not the definition used by the remainder of the International Community. The Arabs change the definition, work the numbers, and establish under the false color of law, a scenario of fraudulent benefits.
​

While the BDS Movement is a peaceful means, it is not a non-hostile means.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is a economic campaign of propaganda for sympathy...

Standard Zionist talking point, as expected. The reality of BDS aims are as follows:

"These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194." http://bdsmovement.net/call#sthash.u6ExJwey.dpuf

Nothing to do with sympathy, just a desire to force the Zionist colonial regime to, "recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination" and fully comply with the precepts of international law" not too much to ask?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is a economic campaign of propaganda for sympathy...

Standard Zionist talking point, as expected. The reality of BDS aims are as follows:

"These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194." Palestinian Civil Society Call for BDS | BDSmovement.net

Nothing to do with sympathy, just a desire to force the Zionist colonial regime to, "recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination" and fully comply with the precepts of international law" not too much to ask?

What does number 2 mean? The Arab citizens of Israel proper already have full equality. Have you ever been there?

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Well --- you and I see things differently. Yes --- your reply comes straight from the "Introducing the BDS Movement." In my experience most criminals assailants profess to be innocent; when people own you money, they swear the checks in the mail; AND, all BSD is for truth, justice and the jihadist way.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is a economic campaign of propaganda for sympathy...

"These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law.

(COMMENT)

The obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s "inalienable right to self-determination."

• The Hostile Arab Palestinian exercised the "right of Self-determination" in 1950, when as the 50% representation in the Jordanian Parliament, voted to accept Jordanian Citizenship and Annexation.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinian exercised their right as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” in the Declaration of Independence.
​

The Arab Palestinian people have never lost the right and have never been denied the right of self-determination.

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian has delayed the the "ending of the occupation" though:

• The continuation of hostilities preventing favorable action. The normal way for an occupation to e nd is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

• A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes " actually placed under the authority of the hostile army " (Hague Reg, Article 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.
​

The ICJ made no reference to the fact that the Armistice Agreement that created the Green Line had terminated and that no Arab state had ever recognized the Green Line as an international boundary, nor had Israel given the line such recognition. The ICJ Opinion refrained from declaring that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal.​

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

(COMMENT)

Even if this claim had merit it is a domestic issue. Arab-Israeli citizens live with greater freedoms and a more economically commercial sound set of freedoms and rights then can be found in any of the adjacent countries. These freedom sets are unavailable in any other country in the Middle East, a result of more liberal democratic values.
​

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194."

(COMMENT)

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948, Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. DID this resolution t guarantee an unconditional Right of Return – that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel? No, it did not. First it is a General Assembly Recommendation, and not an order or treaty enforcement measure. Nor did it specifically mention Arab refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was not exclusively applying to the Hostile Arab Palestinian, but rather to all refugees; both Jewish and Arab. AND, this non-binding Resolution, along with it base recommended --- "refugees wishing to return to their homes" must meet two important conditions:

1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors
2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date”
​

Again, this was an Arab-Palestinian decision to stand by the solemn obligation made in February 1948, in which they pledged "that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. "Arabs are in duty and honor bound to defend their country to the last man." AND:

• that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.

Even if the GA/RES/194(III) was enforceable, the Hostile Arab Palestinians stated their position in 1948. It continued to adhere to the Hostile Arab Khartoum Resolution in 1967 (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel). And then again the Hostile Arab Palestinian amplified their position by creating Terrorist Organization and declaring Jihad. And then, more recently, the Hostile Arab Palestinians reiterated that all the territory, formerly under the Mandate (form the River to the Sea) was Arab and that no Arab Lands would be negotiated away.​

There has been only a marginal period in which (during the Oslo Accords) when the Hostile Arab Palestinians were considering a negotiated peace. But clearly, the Hostile Arab Palestinian refused to negotiate in 1948, 1967, and 1988, --- through to the present.

Nothing to do with sympathy, just a desire to force the Zionist colonial regime to, "recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination" and fully comply with the precepts of international law" not too much to ask?

(COMMENT)

Area "C" was negotiated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in 1995. Since the Arab Palestinians has declared a policy of "no negotiation," then it might be wiser to develp that part in which the Israelis have authority. As stated AND demonstrated, the Arab Palestinians can exercise their right to self-determination any time they want. They have don so in the past. But don't think for a moment that the Host Arab Palestinians can just say some magic words and the Israelis will hand the 18th Ranked nation in the world for Human Development to the extremely poor leadership of a failed state.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

Well --- you and I see things differently. Yes --- your reply comes straight from the "Introducing the BDS Movement." In my experience most criminals assailants profess to be innocent; when people own you money, they swear the checks in the mail; AND, all BSD is for truth, justice and the jihadist way.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is a economic campaign of propaganda for sympathy...

"These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law.

(COMMENT)

The obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s "inalienable right to self-determination."

• The Hostile Arab Palestinian exercised the "right of Self-determination" in 1950, when as the 50% representation in the Jordanian Parliament, voted to accept Jordanian Citizenship and Annexation.

• The Hostile Arab Palestinian exercised their right as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” in the Declaration of Independence.
​

The Arab Palestinian people have never lost the right and have never been denied the right of self-determination.

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian has delayed the the "ending of the occupation" though:

• The continuation of hostilities preventing favorable action. The normal way for an occupation to e nd is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

• A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes " actually placed under the authority of the hostile army " (Hague Reg, Article 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.
​

The ICJ made no reference to the fact that the Armistice Agreement that created the Green Line had terminated and that no Arab state had ever recognized the Green Line as an international boundary, nor had Israel given the line such recognition. The ICJ Opinion refrained from declaring that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal.​

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

(COMMENT)

Even if this claim had merit it is a domestic issue. Arab-Israeli citizens live with greater freedoms and a more economically commercial sound set of freedoms and rights then can be found in any of the adjacent countries. These freedom sets are unavailable in any other country in the Middle East, a result of more liberal democratic values.
​

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194."

(COMMENT)

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948, Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. DID this resolution t guarantee an unconditional Right of Return – that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel? No, it did not. First it is a General Assembly Recommendation, and not an order or treaty enforcement measure. Nor did it specifically mention Arab refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was not exclusively applying to the Hostile Arab Palestinian, but rather to all refugees; both Jewish and Arab. AND, this non-binding Resolution, along with it base recommended --- "refugees wishing to return to their homes" must meet two important conditions:

1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors
2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date”
​

Again, this was an Arab-Palestinian decision to stand by the solemn obligation made in February 1948, in which they pledged "that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. "Arabs are in duty and honor bound to defend their country to the last man." AND:

• that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.

Even if the GA/RES/194(III) was enforceable, the Hostile Arab Palestinians stated their position in 1948. It continued to adhere to the Hostile Arab Khartoum Resolution in 1967 (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel). And then again the Hostile Arab Palestinian amplified their position by creating Terrorist Organization and declaring Jihad. And then, more recently, the Hostile Arab Palestinians reiterated that all the territory, formerly under the Mandate (form the River to the Sea) was Arab and that no Arab Lands would be negotiated away.​

There has been only a marginal period in which (during the Oslo Accords) when the Hostile Arab Palestinians were considering a negotiated peace. But clearly, the Hostile Arab Palestinian refused to negotiate in 1948, 1967, and 1988, --- through to the present.

Nothing to do with sympathy, just a desire to force the Zionist colonial regime to, "recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination" and fully comply with the precepts of international law" not too much to ask?

(COMMENT)

Area "C" was negotiated and agreed upon by the Palestinians in 1995. Since the Arab Palestinians has declared a policy of "no negotiation," then it might be wiser to develp that part in which the Israelis have authority. As stated AND demonstrated, the Arab Palestinians can exercise their right to self-determination any time they want. They have don so in the past. But don't think for a moment that the Host Arab Palestinians can just say some magic words and the Israelis will hand the 18th Ranked nation in the world for Human Development to the extremely poor leadership of a failed state.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Since when do people negotiate their rights?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The negotiation is a part of a process that happens when there is a conflict or dispute between one two constituents and their rights.

But a "right" of self-determination is not just a about the Arab-Palestinians and what they think they are owed in the Rule-of-Law for the Western civilization; that does not exist in the Arab League. The Palestinians should know, firsthand, this from their experience relative to Black September and the traitorous Hostile Arab Palestinians who tried to exercise their right of self-determination.

Remember: It was George Habash (AKA: al-Hakim), founder of the Popular Front for Liberate Palestine (PFLP) made the promise that "we will turn the Middle East into a hell." Or when Yasser Arafat, in front of thousands of Palestinians in Amman, promised: "We will liberate our land."
​

Since when do people negotiate their rights?

(COMMENT)

There are few cultures that have suffered more though history from the "tyranny of the majority." In the case of the Palestinian, the international community (the Allied Powers and Council to the League of Nations) took into consideration the political equality. The is a distinction made between the value of the rights for the Arab majority --- as compared to the absolute need and potential loss to the Jewish minority. Given, at the time of the UN Special Committee for Palestine (UNSCOP) recommendation was made, the lack of care when the Jewish were forced back to the Europe by the Americans and British, during the Holocaust.

We call this (sometimes) "special circumstance." Given that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were all Arab League Countries; a small sliver of territory to protect, secure, and preserve the culture.

The preferred method of international community is to negotiate such territorial disputes.

No specific territory was promised to Arab Palestinians. There was a recommendation by the UNSCOP that was rejected by the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

I´m coming to take over your house Roccor, I will only take 60% the other 40% I will call disputed territory, and provide troops to police that area, I May turn a blind eye if some of my tribe take residence in the disputed territory
you can accept my deal or face the consequences