Boycott Israel

[rylah]

Between Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine by Sykes/Picot in 1916. Egypt's international border was set with the Ottoman Empire in 1906. Palestine inherited that border. Article 25 in the Mandate agreement gave Britain the option of dividing Transjordan from Palestine. Britain exercised that option, with agreement by the League of Nations, in 1922.

Sykes Picot isn't a legal document, or even mentions 'Palestine'.
If your argument is that 'Palestine' inherited Ottoman borders,
then your idea of "Palestine" includes parts of Bosnia...

But you're correct about one thing - until division,
Palestine was a geographic unit, that included
the territory on both sides of the river,
none titled with Arab sovereignty.

Confirms the division was in violation of articles 5 and 27.

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."

ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

 

[rylah]

Subsequent UN Resolutions state that Palestine is a non self governing territory.

Like Antarctica...neither a state nor a nation,
and never been such in history to claim the title.

 

[Sixties Fan]

General Konstantinos Floros, chief of the Hellenic National Defense General Staff, with IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi in Israel on June 8, 2022. Photo: IDF

(full article online)

In Second Visit to Israel, Greek Military Chief Touts Strong Bonds

General Konstantinos Floros, chief of the Hellenic National Defense General Staff, with IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi in Israel …

www.algemeiner.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Indeed, the multinational company, which makes household brands including Pillsbury, Häagen-Dazs and Yoplait, thoroughly debunked claims that BDS had a hand in prompting the closure of its factory in Israel, describing such allegations as “false.”

“We have made clear the global business strategy that drove this decision. Any claims by others taking credit for this decision are false,” a statement given to Jewish Insider read, adding that “We continue to sell our products in Israel and look forward to continuing to serve Israeli consumers with our other brands.”

An earlier statement pointed out that the company was also planning on selling its European dough business as part of a new strategy.

‘East Jerusalem’: Media Parroting BDS Falsehoods​

True to form, the media have taken the BDS baton and run with it. Numerous reports about General Mills’ decision assert that the company’s factory in the Atarot Industrial Zone is located in “East Jerusalem” (see here, here and here).

Aside from the fact that “East Jerusalem” is a misnomer, which falsely suggests the holy city is divided, the factory is not even located in the eastern part of the city – it is actually in northern Jerusalem.

Furthermore, as attorney Stephen M. Flatow noted, the area is an industrial zone and is not a hub of “settlers” as has been suggested in several reports (see hereand here), Indeed, the factory closure will disproportionately affect Arab workers:

[Atarot] has become one of Israel’s successful industrial zones and, incidentally, has employed quite a few Palestinian Arabs over the years. In a 2017 study it was estimated that 80% of the employees within the Atarot were Palestinian Arabs.”

And this is but the latest example of media outlets uncritically parroting BDS falsehoods.

(full article online)

BDS Doesn't Care About Palestinians... Its Response to General Mills Jerusalem Factory Closure Proves It | Honest Reporting

Boycott, Sanctions and Divestments (BDS) supporters have been celebrating over the past week following an announcement by American food giant General

honestreporting.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Is any donation involved in this change? ]

MESA has received absolutely no public condemnation of its boycott from the AAUP, AAU, or ACE. Not a peep. And except for Brandeis University and NYU, no other university leaders have spoken out publicly against MESA’s boycott.

Where’s the moral outrage?

To answer this question, it’s important to understand what the AAUP, AAU, ACE, and 250 university presidents failed to grasp about academic BDS, even as they forcefully condemned it eight years ago, and to consider the deeply disturbing turn that academia has taken since then.

Not one of the hundreds of condemnatory statements acknowledged the biggest casualty of academic boycotts: students on US campuses who want to study in or about Israel, or to openly express their support for the Jewish state.

Even a cursory examination of the boycott’s guidelines reveals this to be true.

Academic BDS’ fundamental rejection of “the normalization of Israel in the global academy” demands that faculty work towards boycotting educational programs in or about Israel at their schools; refuse to write letters of recommendation for students wanting to participate in such programs; and endeavor to cancel or shut down pro-Israel events and activities on campus.

The guidelines also promote a “common sense” boycott that encourages the censuring, denigration, protest, and exclusion of pro-Israel individuals, including students who use their free speech to advocate on behalf of Israel. These boycott-compliant actions simply cannot be carried out by faculty without directly and substantively hurting their own students, revealing such behavior to be both morally repugnant and indefensible.

But in limiting their condemnation of ASA’s boycott to its negative impact on an abstract concept of “academic freedom,” without condemning, or even mentioning, the very real and intolerable harms that the boycott’s implementation would inflict on vulnerable students, the AAUP, AAU, ACU and 250 university presidents ceded the moral high ground to boycott-supporting faculty, who claimed that their“academic freedom” was being violated by the condemnation.

More importantly, by primarily framing academic BDS as a violation of academic freedom principles rather than as an egregious transgression of institutional standards of faculty conduct, higher education leaders effectively gave faculty boycotters a free pass to continue privileging their political animus towards the Jewish state over their professional responsibilities to their students and university. And unfortunately, that’s a gift that has kept giving.

Within the last eight years, the number of faculty who have publicly expressed support for an academic boycott of Israel has more than doubled, with over 3,000 faculty boycotters currently employed on more than 450 campuses nationwide.

Accompanying this dramatic uptick in faculty support for academic BDS is a documented increase in the willingness of faculty boycotters to bring their support for BDS into their classrooms and departmentally sponsored campus events.

But a new line was crossed last May, following the onset of the Israel-Hamas war. More than 150 academic departments took the unprecedented step of issuing or endorsing blatantly anti-Zionist statements, more than half of which called for or endorsed some form of BDS, including an academic boycott of Israel. Shamefully, all of the statements positioned their anti-Zionist political stance squarely within their disciplinary missions, a disingenuous maneuver to provide academic cover for departments to use their institutional status to advance a purely political agenda.

Against the backdrop of these unprecedented departmentally-endorsed statements, the MESA vote to adopt academic BDS has become a defining moment, not just for the organization or even the discipline, but for the entire academy and its future.

Middle East Studies, until recently, sought to project a strictly scholarly, non-political image. That is, until 2017, when the organization quietly eliminated the adjective “non-political” from its online mission statement and official bylaws, just in time to voice its first-ever opposition to pending federal legislation: the “Israel Anti-Boycott Act.”

Then, in December 2021, as the association voted to advance the academic BDS resolution to its full membership, the “About MESA” webpage was once again updated with a new section entitled “Vision Statement” and a link to MESA’s “Strategic Plan 2021 – 2025,” both of which contained a radically new characterization of the association’s mission: “The strength of MESA lies in its dual commitment to scholarship and advocacy.”

Conveniently, academic BDS now fell squarely within MESA’s newly minted mission.

It is important to point out that since MESA began issuing full-membership resolutions in 1993, Israel is not just the only country in the Middle East that has been targeted by a MESA resolution for an academic boycott, but it’s the only country in the region to be targeted by that group for any punitive action. This, in a region that includes such flagrant human rights violators as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iran – countries that routinely engage in human trafficking, execute members of the LGBTQ community, and turn a blind eye to honor killings – as well as soaring levels of antisemitism, which are two to four times higher than in any other region of the world.

Yet instead of punishing these countries with boycotts, as it has done to Israel, MESA defends them from boycotts.

For example, six months after Iran’s Supreme Leader released a video denying the Holocaust, and just a few weeks after the Iranian government funded its Second Holocaust Cartoon Contest showcasing hundreds of cartoons denying or mocking the Holocaust, MESA’s Board sent a letter to US legislators urging them to review the government’s “long-standing network of Iran sanctions … to take care not to continue imposing restrictions on the free flow of ideas and knowledge.”

When a professional organization with a decades-long reputation for non-political, high caliber scholarship radically redefines its organizational mission and, by implication, the mission of the discipline its members have largely shaped — for the express purpose of carrying out politically motivated and directed advocacy and activism that unfairly targets the only Jewish country in its purview (and in the world) — it can’t help but have at least five devastating consequences.

(full article online)

Middle East Professors Boycott Israel — Where’s the Moral Outrage?

A Palestinian boy looks on near graffiti boycotting Israel in Bethlehem, November 3, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Stephen Farrell/File Photo. Hours after …

www.algemeiner.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

In 1960, Life magazine published small excerpts of transcripts of tapes from a fellow Nazi interviewing Adolf Eichmann in Argentina in the 1950s.

This excerpt explains the similarities between Nazis in the 1930s and the fanatic Israel haters today.

We did not devise the yellow star to put pressure on the Jews themselves. On the contrary, its purpose was to control the natural tendency of our German people to come to the aid of someone in trouble. The marking was intended to hinder any such assistance to Jews who were being harassed. We wanted Germans to feel embarrassed, to feel afraid of having any contact with Jews. So our administration was quite happy to distribute these bolts of yellow cloth and to regulate the time limit by which the stars would have to be worn.

The yellow star was not to punish the Jews, but to make it difficult for non-Jews to express sympathy with them.

Today, the people who advocate boycotts of Israel aren't primarily trying to hurt Israel. They are trying to make it difficult for other people to be pro-Israel.

Those who accuse Israel of "apartheid" or "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" aren't trying to get Israel to treat Palestinians better. They are trying to make tar anyone who supports Israel's right to exist as supporting war crimes themselves.

"We wanted Germans to feel embarrassed, to feel afraid of having any contact with Jews. " Is there any better description of the purpose of BDS and anti-Zionism? Just look at how celebrities who visit Israel are treated by the "woke" crowd.

It is exactly the same.

Only exceptional people could stand up to the social pressure to ostracize Jews in Germany. And only exceptional people can stand up for Israel in Leftist circles. The weaker ones in both cases cower, and then it is but a small step to claim that their cowardice is really a moral, righteous position.

The yellow star was not meant to hurt Jews. It represents the original cancel culture.

(full article online)

The purpose of the yellow star in Nazi Germany was EXACTLY the same as that of BDS today

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Borders
⁜→ P F Timore, rylah, et al,

Yes, this is a realistic answer.

Depends who you ask.
Some say "Palestine" stretches
all the way from Yemen to Africa...

How much of Arab imperialism is agreeing with neighbors?

(COMMENT)
.
"Palestine" (as a standalone name) identifies a region, not sovereignty.

No answer will satisfy the geographer, politician, religious motivated, or the varied historical perspectives. Each has an agenda, and each will find fault with other answers.

There is no such thing as a "neighbor to Palestine." This is an invalid idea. There has not been a political map of sovereign territories in which the "Sovereign of Palestine" has been historically embossed in over a thousand years. The region has been diced, sliced, minced, and parceled in various ways over the last two millennia. And while there have been various agreements between sovereigns in Europe over this period, in the Levant and the Middle East, sovereignty has (almost) always been determined by armed conflict. But for more than 900 years, the Region known as "Palestine" has not had an Arab sovereign in control of the entire territory.

Looking back more than several centuries becomes mentally and intellectually futile. If you were to apply the same historical logic to the political awareness of Europe, you would see a very different place. There have been more than five Empires just in Europe alone. At the end of the Great War (WWI) the sovereignty of the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, German, and Russian Empires ALL disappeared (not to mention the numerous Sultanates that faded away). Trying to make NEW decisions and redefine TODAY'S sovereign territory on the basis of historical affiliations, control and politics would be totally ridiculous.

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact.​

Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” ​

.............................................— Marcus Aurelius​

................................................Last Great Emperor of Rome​

...............................................Stoic Philosopher​

.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Borders
⁜→ P F Timore, rylah, et al,

Yes, this is a realistic answer.

View attachment 656098

(COMMENT)
.
"Palestine" (as a standalone name) identifies a region, not sovereignty.

No answer will satisfy the geographer, politician, religious motivated, or the varied historical perspectives. Each has an agenda, and each will find fault with other answers.

There is no such thing as a "neighbor to Palestine." This is an invalid idea. There has not been a political map of sovereign territories in which the "Sovereign of Palestine" has been historically embossed in over a thousand years. The region has been diced, sliced, minced, and parceled in various ways over the last two millennia. And while there have been various agreements between sovereigns in Europe over this period, in the Levant and the Middle East, sovereignty has (almost) always been determined by armed conflict. But for more than 900 years, the Region known as "Palestine" has not had an Arab sovereign in control of the entire territory.

Looking back more than several centuries becomes mentally and intellectually futile. If you were to apply the same historical logic to the political awareness of Europe, you would see a very different place. There have been more than five Empires just in Europe alone. At the end of the Great War (WWI) the sovereignty of the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, German, and Russian Empires ALL disappeared (not to mention the numerous Sultanates that faded away). Trying to make NEW decisions and redefine TODAY'S sovereign territory on the basis of historical affiliations, control and politics would be totally ridiculous.

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact.​

Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” ​

.............................................— Marcus Aurelius​

................................................Last Great Emperor of Rome​

...............................................Stoic Philosopher​

.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Palestine" (as a standalone name) identifies a region, not sovereignty.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

The UN states that Palestinians exist, that Palestine exists, that Palestine is a nation, that Palestinians have the inalienable right to sovereignty.

The UN cannot confer any of this. It can only reaffirm that which already exists.

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians acquire these attributes?

 

[rylah]

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

The UN states that Palestinians exist, that Palestine exists, that Palestine is a nation, that Palestinians have the inalienable right to sovereignty.

The UN cannot confer any of this. It can only reaffirm that which already exists.

At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians acquire these attributes?

But why is that resolution not legally binding?

Palestine itself is merely a concept of external interference.

 

[P F Tinmore]

http://www.mideastweb.org/3236.htmBut why is that resolution not legally binding?

Palestine is merely a concept produced by external interference.

But why is that resolution not legally binding?

Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

It is based on the UN Charter which is binding.

 

[Hollie]

Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

It is based on the UN Charter which is binding.

General Assembly opinions are just opinions.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Powers and Authorities.
⁜→ et al,

(PREFACE). Yes, we have heard this all before. But there is a very deep and abiding concern that the comprehension of these issues is sometimes perverted.

Anyone, even the PLO, may bring a box of tissues and cry their eyes out in the General Assembly. But at the end of the session, they will still walk away empty-handed.

Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

It is based on the UN Charter which is binding.

(COMMENT)
.
The misrepresentation here is that in 1974 "Palestine" was undefined. There was NO Government in the name of Palestine in 1974.

◈ The Arab League (1974), recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The Arab League DID NOT recognize the State of Palestine. There was no such state. The Arab Leagu9eattached the phrase of recognition as being limited to: "any liberated Palestinian territory". To date, there has been NO RECORD of "any liberated Palestinian territory."​

​

◈ A/RES/3237 (XXIX) Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate and work with the General Assembly; NOT the State of Palestine. Again, there was no such state.​

​

◈ A/RES/3237 (XXIX) Does not direct anything in particular or unique on the Question of Palestine. While the Resolution only mentions the people of Palestine, it is considered to extend to all people, including the Israelis.​

​

◈ A/RES/3236 (XXIX) does NOT demand anything, even if it could. It Reaffirms, Emphasizes, Recognizes and Further Recognizes, Appeals, Requests, AND Decides to include the question in the next agenda.​

.

General Assembly opinions are just opinions.

(COMMENT)
.
In Chapter V of the UN Charter, Article 25 states: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

The Membership does NOT agree to accept demands by the General Assembly based on the Function and Powers outlined in Chapter IV of the Charter. The General Assembly only makes the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests. The General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was NO Government in the name of Palestine in 1974.

Nobody said there was.

 

[P F Tinmore]

NOT the State of Palestine. Again, there was no such state.

Why do you keep saying state? The UN did not mention a state.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Powers and Authorities.
⁜→. P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm!

Nobody said there was.

(COMMENT)

OK, what is it that you are claiming?

I thought I read that you are claiming: "Palestine inherited that border." Palestine CAN NOT inherit anything if Palestine does not exist.

Oh, I get it now. It is a supernatural ghost country.

Can you tell me where that inheritance clause is?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Powers and Authorities.
⁜→. P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm!


(COMMENT)

OK, what is it that you are claiming?

I thought I read that you are claiming: "Palestine inherited that border." Palestine CAN NOT inherit anything if Palestine does not exist.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting. Then what did the UN mean when it said "in Palestine?" The UN also used the term "in Palestine" in the UN Armistice Agreements. Then they proceeded to mention Palestine's international borders.

BTW, one of those borders was with Egypt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Interesting. Then what did the UN mean when it said "in Palestine?" The UN also used the term "in Palestine" in the UN Armistice Agreements.

What did "Israel" mean in the armistice agreements Israel signed with its neighbors?
The agreements signed by Jewish Israelis not muslim "Palestinians".

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Powers and Authorities.
⁜→. P F Tinmore, et al,

(PREFACE). You already know that you are mixing up your timelines on the definition... You are not understanding the context of the terminology relative to the timeline.

This commentary you injected is intentionally deceptive.

Interesting. Then what did the UN mean when it said "in Palestine?" The UN also used the term "in Palestine" in the UN Armistice Agreements. Then they proceeded to mention Palestine's international borders.

BTW, one of those borders was with Egypt.

(COMMENT)
.

◈ Between 1920 and 1948, the Territory was designated the Government of Palestine under the British High Commissioner. It was considered a Political Entity.​

​

◈ Between 1949 and 1950, the West Bank was UN Trustee Territory under Jordanian Occupation​

​

◈ Between 1950 and 1967, the Territory was Sovereign under Jordanian Rule​

​

◈ Between 1967 and 1988 the Jordanian Sovereign Territory was Occupied by Israel. In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established as the recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.​

​

◈ Between 1988 and 1994 the territory was abandoned by the Jordanians and forfeited by default to Israeli Occupation​

​

◈ In 1994, the Jordanians Israeli and Jordan entered into a Treaty of Peace. New Bounders (International Boundaries) were established. The Armistice Lines encompassing the West Bank was dissolved.​

​

◈ Pursuant to resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1998, the designation "Palestine" was used in place of the designation "Palestinian Liberation Organization" in the United Nations.​

​

◈ In 2012, the designation "State of Palestine" was used to replace the use of the PLO, although the PLO retained the "observer Status."​

The reference to the Armistice Lines is more than a quarter-century out of context. The Armistice Lines were only in-force until a more permanent peace agreement was made.

.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Impact Statement
⁜→. P F Tinmore, et al,

(EXORDIUM). Who did the BDS Activity penalize here?

Jewish Voice for Peace/posts/395548762615296

(OBSERVATION)

"They noted that bandmate Max Oleartchik is Israeli and that this would be a “hometown” show for him and finished their statement by saying, “The show’s profits will be donated to NGOs that provide medical and humanitarian aid to Palestinian children, including joint efforts between Palestinians and Israelis working together for a better future.”

(COMMENT)

Let's see!

​

• The show’s profits would have been donated to NGOs that provide medical and humanitarian aid to Palestinian children have a net loss.​

​

The entire object of The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) would be to put economic pressure Israel. This does NOT accomplish that objective.

Who Benefits?

(∑Ω)

The economy of Israel advanced 8.2 percent in 2021, rebounding from a 2.2 percent contraction in 2020. It was one of the largest annual growth in the country's economic history, underpinned by private consumption (11.6 percent) and investment (10.9 percent), while public spending rose at a more modest pace (2.8 percent) and net exports contracted (-5.2 percent). source: Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel.

VISUALIZED:

​

Most Respectfully,
R