Israel's response to the U.N.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Here's something from a legitimate source.

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=297107

"Even if civilians were deliberately attacked" at Deir Yassin ?????? Even IF ????? Wow. Just wow. (I'll bet you think Holocaust denial is pretty despicable, though.)

I didn't deny anything. You can't compare the amount of evidence in each case. Like I said there's conflicting reports. I didn't say that it wasn't deliberate. I simply said if it was then...

Please provide any credible report that says civilians were not deliberately massacred in Deir Yassin, or that justifies their murder. Because you are the one who said "Even IF they were...." - that's what I mean by denying it and/or justifying it.

hmm lets see...the hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, they planted the bomb in the basement of the main building, under the wing which housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. They called and sent warnings ahead of time, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which the hotel staff decided to ignore.

So, show me a Palestinian, who attacks an Israeli government post(not a bus with civilians), AND calls ahead of time to let them know there is a bomb.

Once again, you are trying to blame the victims of the attack.

And haven't Israelis have been warned over and over and over to leave occupied Palestinian land, or that violence would ensue ? Why do they ignore the warnings ????? Glad to see you have made the connection - so it's obviously Israel's fault that its soldiers and settlers get attacked.

Israel has a free press. The only thing censorship has to do with is anything that can give significant intelligence info to the other side. Otherwise, anything they wanna say, they can say it. And they do. You really think they would put up with not being able to?

Please try to follow the context of the conversation. I was replying to your claim that the Israeli media is "the first to jump on, report, and question any instance where Israel hurts unarmed civilians." This claim is simply not true, because the Israeli media is provided information from the IDF itself. For the most part, Israeli media prints IDF claims as dictated. It is usually other entities that discover the discrepancies.

Again, I can't speak for anyone else, I only know what I've been taught. Also, we're not talking olive trees. We're talking developing a land...compare what Israel looks like today, to what many areas of the Middle East STILL look like(not even talking about 60 years ago). Doesn't take anyone lying to me, just me seeing it with my own eyes.

Oh please. Trying to say - "well Palestinians didn't have skyscrapers in 1920, so that proves how much Israel did" - this is ridiculously orientalist thinking. Palestine was heavily cultivated with productive and profitable farms and orchards; its industry was mainly agricultural, but there were also businesses and factories and cities and towns - which Israel appropriated at the point of a gun. Just because it wasn't a little New York City doesn't mean it was an unused wasteland. You have been taught a pack of lies about Israel being the blossom of the Middle East building civilization out of desolation - it's simply not true (and keep in mind that arriving Europeans were not used to the Middle Eastern landscape and it probably looked desolate to them in comparison with the landscapes of Germany and Poland.)

All of Israel's territory and all of its natural resources were stolen from another people, and the Israeli government has conducted an ongoing campaign to wipe out the memory of their existence in the land before the Zionists came. Open those eyes and see. This is a good place to start:

http://zochrot.org/en

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Here's something from a legitimate source.

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=297107

OMG I missed this one. This is an article from the Jerusalem Post crowing about the Human Rights Watch report about rockets from Gaza being a violation of the laws of war.

Now hold on here. You are the one who slammed HRW for its condemnation of Israeli conduct in Cast Lead, posting a slew of screeds calling it biased and unreliable. But now you want to bring HRW back in as a reliable source - but only when it slams Palestinians.

[OriZ 3,157]

Who would actually think the fact that Israel gives its citizens more freedoms than Libya or Yemen (!) would really be something to brag about ???? Try comparing Israel to a first-world country next time, as that is what it claims to be.

Well being my wife has lived in Israel for the last 3 and a half years you can ask her what she thinks...she doesn't feel she's any less free than in the states, if anything in some ways she now thinks the US is less free than she did before.

Aren't you the same person who tried to justify Israel devastating an entire country and killing more than 1100 people (mostly civilians) over what a certain group of people did ? Oh, yes, you are that person:

You missed my point. There's war, and there's preventive attacks. We were talking about the latter. Just like when Israel tries to prevent an attack it targets the militia that was going to do it(as with what happened right before pillar of defense), so would the Palestinians be justified to do the same thing.

Such remarks about it being "ok" to rape women during wartime would definitely be a problem in the US military... especially if it was a high-ranking officer saying it.

Being gay has also been a problem for a very long time in the US army(but not in the Israeli army), so that makes it kind of null and void. And that's on top of the other differences with it having to be mandatory service(lack of manpower, you know).

Now hold on here. You are the one who slammed HRW for its condemnation of Israeli conduct in Cast Lead, posting a slew of screeds calling it biased and unreliable. But now you want to bring HRW back in as a reliable source - but only when it slams Palestinians.

Again, you missed the point. That WAS my point. I've called them biased before and you said they weren't, you didn't like my other sources so I gave you a legitimate source according to you who says the same thing(you know...that whole rubbish thing about deliberately attacking civilians and shooting from areas with many civilians).

Also, you keep describing Palestinians as the "indigenous" people, whereas Jews are just the foreign occupiers. Jewish presence in Israel has been since the begining of time, so the Palestinians cannot be compared to the indigenous peoples of Asia and Africa that were colonized by Europeans. So, one could make the argument that the Jews, being they never completely left, were an occupied minority for many centuries and maybe they FINALLY got their land back through "resistance"? It is the same thing isn't it? I mean when did the world start, in 1948? in 1920? in the 19th century? 2000 years ago? 5000 years ago? The fact of the matter is the land kept getting occupied by different people all throughout the years(including the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan which the Palestinians didn't seem to complain about). But clearly, it's different when Israel does it.

The bottom line is we can sit and discuss this for years and not agree on alot of things, but what we've already agreed on is what's more important and that's how to move forward and not look back.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163528

Edited December 25, 2012 by OriZ

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Well being my wife has lived in Israel for the last 3 and a half years you can ask her what she thinks...she doesn't feel she's any less free than in the states, if anything in some ways she now thinks the US is less free than she did before.

I've been to Israel myself, many times. It's true that Israelis have some freedoms that US citizens don't have - for instance, they can get the government to subsidize them a home built on illegally confiscated land in illegally occupied territory (where they even get perks like free utilities and money for groceries, etc.; ) they can even bring all their distant relatives into Israel with little to no process or waiting time, etc. etc.

But there are also many rights and freedoms guaranteed in the US that Israelis don't have (as you already know.) For instance to legally marry a person of a different faith - can't do it in Israel. You have to leave the country to get a legal marriage between a Jew and a Christian, or a Jew and a Muslim, or a Christian and a Muslim, etc.

We already had the thread about Israelis not being able to own a firearm there (well, unless you're an illegal settler, of course.)

Israelis can't just buy or rent a home in any neighborhood they can afford, as in the US - often, they have to first be "approved" by a neighborhood council which can legally bar them on the basis of ethnicity or religion (a legal discriminatory loophole that is used to keep "Arabs" from moving into "Jewish" communities.)

Israelis are not free to engage in any boycotts (economic, cultural or academic) of companies, products, services or organizations that operate in or benefit from the illegally occupied West Bank. Journalists are routinely detained and questioned. Israeli organizations that publicly commemorate the Nakba face penalties and punishment.

These curtailments of free speech and other freedoms actually get a surprising amount of support from Israelis - over 1/3 of them say there is "too much" free speech in Israel.

You missed my point. There's war, and there's preventive attacks. We were talking about the latter. Just like when Israel tries to prevent an attack it targets the militia that was going to do it(as with what happened right before pillar of defense), so would the Palestinians be justified to do the same thing.

Palestinians have been trying to prevent the State of Israel from taking their land for decades - their resistance is an ongoing preventive operation. And yet another Israeli attack against them was announced just today:

Israel to build 942 more homes in east Jerusalem

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-build-942-more-homes-east-jerusalem-114800175.html;_ylt=ApoxPXSY.API7yP_QH10PIC1qHQA;_ylu=X3oDMTQ4ZTNidnBmBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBXb3JsZFNGIE1pZGRsZUVhc3RTU0YEcGtnAzQ2NTRmNDg4LTE5NDMtM2YyZi1hNjcyLWFhZDQxZjc4ODdiNwRwb3MDMgRzZWMDdG9wX3N0b3J5BHZlcgNlNTAzZDAzMy00ZWFjLTExZTItOWU3My04YzhhMjBjOGYwNWQ-;_ylg=X3oDMTF1cDZjaTBwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZHxtaWRkbGVlYXN0BHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Being gay has also been a problem for a very long time in the US army(but not in the Israeli army), so that makes it kind of null and void. And that's on top of the other differences with it having to be mandatory service(lack of manpower, you know).

Ah #27 on the Hasbara Talking Points Top 40: Pinkwashing - "Israel loves gays ! (so never mind if it discriminates against and oppresses non-Jews.)"

In fact, DADT (the official policy of the US military since 1993) was struck down last year as being unconstitutional. (Maybe Israel should try getting a constitution ) Banning openly gay troops is illegal. An openly gay woman was just promoted to Brigadier General in the US Army.

But getting back to Israel and pink-washing, in fact the LGBT community there has come out (lol no pun intended) adamantly against the Israeli occupation and apartheid system imposed on the Palestinians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNV6QkRtj3A

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Again, you missed the point. That WAS my point. I've called them biased before and you said they weren't, you didn't like my other sources so I gave you a legitimate source according to you who says the same thing(you know...that whole rubbish thing about deliberately attacking civilians and shooting from areas with many civilians).

Um... what ? This is what I originally posted about HRW:

According to this new research, the conflict resulted in at least 1,109 Lebanese deaths, the vast majority of whom were civilians.

http://www.hrw.org/n...10734/section/5

(Note that Human Rights Watch also condemns Hezbollah for indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel.)

...

In its strongest condemnation of Israel since last summer's war, Human Rights Watch said yesterday that most Lebanese civilian casualties were caused by "indiscriminate Israeli air strikes".

The international human rights organisation said there was no basis to the Israeli claim that civilian casualties resulted from Hizbollah guerrillas using civilians for cover. Israel has said that it attacked civilian areas because Hizbollah set up rocket launchers in villages and towns. More than 1,000 Lebanese were killed in the 34-day conflict, which began after Hizbollah staged a cross-border raid, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two others.

Israeli aircraft targeted Lebanese infrastructure, including bridges and Beirut airport, and heavily damaged a district of Beirut known as a Hizbollah stronghold, as well as attacking Hizbollah centres in villages near the border. Hizbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets at northern Israel, killing 119 soldiers. In the fighting, 40 Israeli civilians were killed.

Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch executive director, said there were only "rare" cases of Hizbollah operating in civilian villages.

"To the contrary, once the war started, most Hizbollah military officials and even many political officials left the villages," he said. "Most Hizbollah military activity was conducted from prepared positions outside Lebanese villages in the hills and valleys around."

http://www.independe...ver-401638.html

This sent you hunting for screeds smearing HRW, all because it criticized Israel. Now you want to bring HRW back, but only when it criticizes Arabs. Make up your mind - are you accepting HRW or not ? Is your sole criterion for deciding whether you think something is true or not based merely on whether it criticizes Israel or not ?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Also, you keep describing Palestinians as the "indigenous" people, whereas Jews are just the foreign occupiers. Jewish presence in Israel has been since the begining of time, so the Palestinians cannot be compared to the indigenous peoples of Asia and Africa that were colonized by Europeans. So, one could make the argument that the Jews, being they never completely left, were an occupied minority for many centuries and maybe they FINALLY got their land back through "resistance"? It is the same thing isn't it? I mean when did the world start, in 1948? in 1920? in the 19th century? 2000 years ago? 5000 years ago? The fact of the matter is the land kept getting occupied by different people all throughout the years(including the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan which the Palestinians didn't seem to complain about). But clearly, it's different when Israel does it.

The bottom line is we can sit and discuss this for years and not agree on alot of things, but what we've already agreed on is what's more important and that's how to move forward and not look back.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163528

Since the beginning of time ?????

Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine (despite the Joan Peters fantasies.) I already answered you on this same subject in this very thread:

There were Jewish communities that remained in Palestine after the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. Most of the population gradually converted to Christianity over the next several centuries, but small Jewish communities did remain. After the rise of Islam, most of the population in turn became Muslim, but again, there were some small Jewish communities that remained, as well as significant Christian communities. After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, Jews were allowed to return to the city and several Jewish communities were re-established over the next thousand years.

...

...the land was never exclusively Jewish in the past; there were always a number of peoples living in the area concurrently, at any given time in history.

The Jewish people are not a homogenous unit; they are racially diverse due to centuries of migration, intermingling with other populations, and conversion. Many do not even have ancestors linked to the Middle East. And some Jews with Middle Eastern heritage are not genetically linked to Palestinian Jews, either.

And from another post I did earlier in another thread:

First of all, not all of today's Jews are descended from the ancient Hebrews, and many modern Jews' ancestors never set foot in Palestine. Certainly Palestine holds great significance in the history of the Jewish religion, but you could say the same thing about the Christian religion. Christians also once thought they had a "divine" right to the land which was the birthplace of their faith, at the expense of the native inhabitants.

Secondly, the Hebrews were not the original people of Palestine - according to their own Biblical tradition, the Hebrews were originally from Mesopotamia (Ur, in modern-day Iraq.) Egyptian records of the time indicate other origins. At any rate, wherever they came from, by the time the Hebrews arrived in Palestine ("Canaan Land,") it was already populated with Canaanites, who had already founded the city of Jerusalem. The Biblical narrative makes it clear that the Hebrews came from outside Canaan, and it also makes it clear that there were a number of other people already living in the area when the Hebrews first arrived on the scene.

Thirdly, not all Jews were driven out of Palestine. Yes, the Romans cleared out Jerusalem, but some Jewish communities remained in other parts of Palestine. Over time, the majority of these converted to Christianity, and then later to Islam. Today's Palestinian people are descended in part from the ancient Hebrews along with the other groups that lived in the region over the centuries - including the Arabs, who left a lasting cultural influence including language and religion. The indigenous people were not replaced by Arabs; rather, they became Arabized, as they had become Judaized and then Christianized before the arrival of Islam.

So what about the rights of the Palestinians to live in their own ancestral land - one they had never left ?

...

By the late 1800s, when the Zionists formulated their plan to create a Jewish nation in Palestine, the area had been predominantly Arab and Muslim for nearly a thousand years. Although different empires had come and gone, the core population remained in the land - an established society with homes, farms, businesses, villages, towns, and cities, and who were well aware that they lived in a place called Palestine.

The plan to partition Palestine and "give" half of it to immigrant European Jews - at grievous expense to the indigenous people living there - was made completely without their consent. Why would anyone accept such a thing ?

In fact, the indigenous Jewish community of Palestine was completely against the Zionist project, and spoke out very harshly against it.

So what has Israel in fact done ? It has kicked out people who are undisputably descended from the ancient Hebrews (as well as many other peoples) simply because they were the wrong religion, in order to replace them with any foreigner who claims to be Jewish, whether or not their ancestors ever even set foot in Palestine.

Zionism is a mental disease...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Zionism is a mental disease...

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[OriZ 3,157]

But there are also many rights and freedoms guaranteed in the US that Israelis don't have (as you already know.) For instance to legally marry a person of a different faith - can't do it in Israel. You have to leave the country to get a legal marriage between a Jew and a Christian, or a Jew and a Muslim, or a Christian and a Muslim, etc.

Yes I've already mentioned that as one of my problems, but at least it's recognized once it's done.

Israelis can't just buy or rent a home in any neighborhood they can afford, as in the US - often, they have to first be "approved" by a neighborhood council which can legally bar them on the basis of ethnicity or religion (a legal discriminatory loophole that is used to keep "Arabs" from moving into "Jewish" communities.)

Simply not true, I do not personally know one single person that had to be approved to buy or rent a home(and I know many people that have moved ALOT)...it may be the case in very few specific communities, but it is the exception to the rule and not the rule. As a matter of fact, in the area where I live there are many Arabs and none of them ever had to get permission. A couple of them live in the apartment right beneath me(very nice and quiet young people). By the way, the reason there are so many in my area is because it is close to Haifa University and the Technion...where of course Arabs are free to go and they do.

Israelis are free to engage in any organized protest or boycott they choose to(unlike so many of the neighbors), and journalists are detained and questioned no more than in any western democracy, once again unlike so many other countries such as Turkey, Iran, China or Russia.

http://www.cpj.org/reports/2012/12/imprisoned-journalists-world-record.php#more

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/turkey-media-idUSL4N09T4RL20121219

And here's a report about freedom in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_(report)

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012'>http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012

http://www.freedomhouse.org/

As you can see, according to them Israel is the only free country in the Middle East.

I personally don't think there is too much free speech in Israel, but I do think there's alot of it, no less free speech than in any other Western Democracy, including the US, and in some ways sometimes even more. But of course people would get pissed and frustrated when free speech or democracy is taken advantage of, as is the case many times with Arab members of Parliament who say and do things that border on treason. Btw, speaking of Haifa Uni, the Arabs there sure felt free enough to have a minute of silence right after Israel killed Jaabri, ahhh...democracy is a wonderful thing

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4306316,00.html

I said being gay HAS been a problem for a very long time in the US, I'm well aware that it's finally starting to change. And the fact the gays in Israel came out against occupation only goes to show the freedom of speech in Israel, so I really don't see the point. You couldn't find anything against gays so you said something completely irrelevant. Israelis treat gays equally(for the most part, besides isolated incidents here and there just like any other place on the planet) and I've known many openly gay people in the army. There's a reason why Tel Aviv was named best gay city in the world twice in a row.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088319/Tel-Aviv-trumps-New-York-named-worlds-best-gay-city.html

Also, many Palestinian gay people escape the west bank and find their way to tel aviv(whether legally or not) because they are afraid of being killed for being gay.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/sympathetic-film-unveils-invisible-gay-palestinians/

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/20/pinkwashing-difference-between-israel-palestinians-gay-rights/

This sent you hunting for screeds smearing HRW, all because it criticized Israel. Now you want to bring HRW back, but only when it criticizes Arabs. Make up your mind - are you accepting HRW or not ? Is your sole criterion for deciding whether you think something is true or not based merely on whether it criticizes Israel or not ?

I still don't like HRW. My point, again, was that if you consider them legitimate, and wanted me to post proof from a legitimate source that A. Hamas Targets civilians and B. Hamas uses civilians as human shields(btw, I don't need HRW for that, there's videos all over the web of them admitting it and being proud of it), well then there you have it from a source that you consider legitimate. If even the anti Israel HRW says that, that says alot.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I do not personally know one single person that had to be approved to buy or rent a home(and I know many people that have moved ALOT)...it may be the case in very few specific communities, but it is the exception to the rule and not the rule. As a matter of fact, in the area where I live there are many Arabs and none of them ever had to get permission. A couple of them live in the apartment right beneath me(very nice and quiet young people). By the way, the reason there are so many in my area is because it is close to Haifa University and the Technion...where of course Arabs are free to go and they do.

Whether or not you personally know of anyone that had to approved is irrelevant to the question of whether such an approval system exists. Note that I didn’t say that every single neighborhood in Israel operated under these constraints; I said that “many” do. Your home city of Haifa is a very old city which pre-dates the Zionist project; it was already full of Palestinians when the Zionists arrived, and a small percentage of them managed to remain in Haifa after the expulsions of the Nakba. Why shouldn't they have the right to live there freely ? It's how a democracy is supposed to work.

But meanwhile, Palestinians who fled or were driven out of Haifa during 1947-1949, are still refused the right to return to their own homes and property - even the Orwellian-named "present absentees" - Palestinians who fled to other areas which are still inside Israel, and today have Israeli citizenship. That's a whole 'nother can of wormy discrimination we can get to later... along with the wacko government officials who actively campaign for Jewish Israelis not to rent apartments or sell land to Arab-Israelis, and the religious groups that publicly "shame" landlords for renting to Arabs...

The discriminatory law I was specifically referring to (and there are others) affects newly built communities in the Galilee and Negev regions, which the Israeli government has prioritized as needing to be "Judaized":

“Law to Amend the Cooperative Societies Ordinance” (also known as the “Admissions Committees Law”

This is a law that allows the discrimination against potential residents who are deemed “socially unsuitable," which essentially means that communities can say "you just don’t fit in."

A candidate wishing to move into that community can be rejected if (in part):

(4) “The candidate is not suitable for the social life in the community; a decision by the admissions committee to refuse to accept a candidate due to this consideration will be based on a professional opinion by someone who is an expert in identifying such suitability;”

(5) The candidate’s lack of compatibility with the social-cultural fabric of the community town, when there is a reason to assume that this would harm the fabric;

This is called discrimination in housing in the US.

When new towns are approved in Israel, they are almost always specified as “Jewish.” Since 1948, Israel's planning authorities have approved more than 600 Jewish municipalities. In that same time, not a single new Arab town or village has been recognized. It doesn't stop there - many of the Arab villages that pre-date the establishment of the State of Israel are still unrecognized by the government, which means they receive no services, and are not even listed on official maps. Many Israeli communities with a majority Palestinian population still lack basic services and receive significantly less government funding than do communities with Jewish majorities. This is why many Arabs end up trying to move into "Jewish" communities - they are routinely denied services and even denied the right to build or expand in "Arab" communities.

Here's another example of the Israeli government upholding the legality of discrimination against Arabs:

Israel upholds legality of Jews-only housing complex in Jaffa

And here, an Israeli Lands Administration-approved project gets caught on undercover camera discriminating against potential Arab buyers:

"We aren't bringing in Arabs," the representative said, and when the reporter repeated the statement - asking, "So you don't bring in Arabs?" - the representative responded with a forceful "No!"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-arab-sues-real-estate-company-for-discrimination.premium-1.483940

We'll see how that case goes in Israel's kangaroo courts. This kind of thing happens all the time, but usually there are no undercover cameras around to document it.

Next up, Israel's laws concerning boycotts, protests and other democratic freedoms of speech

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Israelis are free to engage in any organized protest or boycott they choose to(unlike so many of the neighbors), and journalists are detained and questioned no more than in any western democracy, once again unlike so many other countries such as Turkey, Iran, China or Russia.

Nope, wrong again. Israelis are not “free” to engage in any organized protest or boycott they choose - they can be penalized for doing so. You are not paying attention to your own Knesset.

Israel’s Nakba Law

The Nakba Law grants the finance minister the authority to impose harsh fines on government-funded organizations that budget expenses for (among other things ) marking Independence Day as a day of mourning.

...

Four months after the High Court handed down its decision, a group of students at Tel Aviv University sought to hold a ceremony marking Nakba Day in which they would offer an alternative memorial, including a moment of silence.

The dean of students approved the event, but the university's security department announced that organizers would have to hire at least six ushers to maintain order. This was the first time that the university requested organizers of events on campus to fund security out of their own pockets, and it cited the Nakba Law as a reason.

The question of how the finance minister would apply the law, cited by the High Court, did not enter the equation, since the university preemptively refused to fund the ceremony on the campus. The court completely ignored just such an occurrence: the infringement of free speech stemming from the very existence of the law (for example, if the students had decided to cancel the ceremony because they could not afford to hold it ), as opposed to one stemming from the law's application. This is the law's chilling effect.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/chilling-effect-of-the-nakba-law-on-israel-s-human-rights-1.430942

So this law curtails the right to free speech by Israeli Arab organizations by threatening them with penalties.

In the US, in contrast, Native American organizations (even those that receive government funding) are free to budget funds to mark Columbus Day, July 4th or Thanksgiving as days of mourning, and many do so every year. They are not expected to shut up and be silent about what happened to them while others celebrate the events that resulted in their domination, expulsion and exploitation (not to mention their near-extermination.)

Israel's Boycott Law

Under the new law, which was approved by a vote of 47 to 38 in the parliament, or Knesset, any boycott against Israel, including those organized by groups inside its territory and in the West Bank, will be deemed a civil offense, such as libel or defamation. Anyone targeted by such a boycott could file a civil lawsuit and seek damages from those who initiated or publicly supported it.

For example, the new Ariel performance center in the West Bank could sue artists who sign petitions against appearing at the facility as a way to protest the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory. Activists who organize a campaign to discourage consumers from buying wine produced in the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in 1967, could be forced to pay damages to the winery.

…

Analysts say the law appears aimed at left-wing Israeli groups and pro-Palestinian activists who in recent years have organized economic, cultural and academic boycotts against Israel in protest over its settlement policy in the West Bank.

…

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/12/world/la-fg-israel-boycott-20110712

And:

Welcome to democracy, under which citizens can peacefully protest whatever they want, foreign or domestic, including through boycotts.

Except in Israel. In Israel, as of Monday, people are still free to use boycotts to express their views on consumer prices (like the recent cottage cheese boycott), their religious intolerance (like regular boycotts by religious Jews of businesses that open on the Sabbath), and even their unconcealed racism (like boycotts of businesses that employ Arabs and boycotts of anything Arab at all). In Israel, one can still in fact use boycotts to protest anything and everything. Except, that is, to protest Israeli government policy as it relates to settlements and the occupation. Under Israel's new anti-boycott law, participating in or calling for any such boycott opens one up to being sued for practically unlimited "compensation," with the person doing the suing not even obligated to prove that any actual "damage" was done.

The Association of Civil Rights in Israel helpfully has some additional analysis of the differences between the U.S. and Israeli laws here. And for those who read Hebrew, there is this handy Knesset report which states that a Knesset committee charged with finding parallels in other countries to what was then the draft boycott law, "did not find arrangements in these countries [in Europe] that were similar to our proposed legislation..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lara-friedman/israel-boycott-law_b_898317.html

American citizens may boycott any company they like, for any reason they like - such as boycotting Chik-fil-A because of its owners attitudes towards gays - without any fear of legal prosecution or penalties. Here are some people living in a real democratic country, publicly and freely exercising their right to free speech, which is banned in Israel:

[OriZ 3,157]

So lets see here. You say 'Israelis are not free to engage' and then you post a bunch of links about new laws passed just recently by a wacko coalition(bad laws, no doubt), which have never yet been used(you made it seem as if many people have already gotten either fined, punished or arrested for doing that, when the reality is not a single person has as of yet), which will likely be overturned not long from now, which have to do with ORGANIZATIONS receiving government funds, or ORGANIZING boycotts, which means I, as an independent Israeli, can still boycott whoever I want personally, or protest whatever I want personally. That doesn't make the law more right, but that's not what you said and not what I replied to.

Whether or not you personally know of anyone that had to approved is irrelevant to the question of whether such an approval system exists. Note that I didnt say that every single neighborhood in Israel operated under these constraints; I said that many do. Your home city of Haifa is a very old city which pre-dates the Zionist project; it was already full of Palestinians when the Zionists arrived, and a small percentage of them managed to remain in Haifa after the expulsions of the Nakba. Why shouldn't they have the right to live there freely ? It's how a democracy is supposed to work.

Also, I said it may be the case in few specific communities, but it is the exception to the rule. You tried to make it seem like it happens all the time.

Except in Israel. In Israel, as of Monday, people are still free to use boycotts to express their views on consumer prices (like the recent cottage cheese boycott), their religious intolerance (like regular boycotts by religious Jews of businesses that open on the Sabbath), and even their unconcealed racism (like boycotts of businesses that employ Arabs and boycotts of anything Arab at all). In Israel, one can still in fact use boycotts to protest anything and everything. Except, that is, to protest Israeli government policy as it relates to settlements and the occupation.

Analysts say the law appears aimed at left-wing Israeli groups and pro-Palestinian activists who in recent years have organized economic, cultural and academic boycotts against Israel in protest over its settlement policy in the West Bank.

Actions have included campaigns to discourage American rock stars from holding concerts in Israel, academic boycotts of Israeli universities and campaigns against Israeli-owned factories in the West Bank.

Those quotes are from your own links. I guess you missed the point of the law. For one as you can see by the first quote, Israelis are still free to organize boycotts on almost everything, and that is again, only the exception to the rule. For two, after years and years of Pro Palestinian or just Jewish hating activists using sheer numbers to threaten companies, artists, etc not go to to Israel or cooperate with Israel, which has actually caused some of them not to come here(Why is it my fault in Haifa that cause of the ongoing conflict in the west bank I should pay for it by not being able to go to a concert by someone I like because they were told not to come by Arab activists? It's called intimidation), is it any wonder that they want to put a stop to it?

Edited January 3, 2013 by OriZ

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

As a senior manager and one who has to discipline, sometimes after we have to discipline HR will ask me things like, well since one of the days you suspened that person for was the day before a holiday, they did not work the day before the holiday so they do not get holiday pay.

My reply is usually this. We have already made our point. Our goal is a happy productive worker not a biter resentful person, we will have to spend more time with. Never kick someone when they are down, instead reach out. The Marshall plan worked becuse we did not beat Japan, while she was down we helped rebuild her with some degree of respect. I never forgot that lesson in my management practices.

-Israel is kicking while down and is going to only make the problem worse. It's time for the Big Boy to reach out and try to work with the Palestine people, not keep kicking them while down..

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

So lets see here. You say 'Israelis are not free to engage' and then you post a bunch of links about new laws passed just recently by a wacko coalition(bad laws, no doubt), which have never yet been used(you made it seem as if many people have already gotten either fined, punished or arrested for doing that, when the reality is not a single person has as of yet), which will likely be overturned not long from now, which have to do with ORGANIZATIONS receiving government funds, or ORGANIZING boycotts, which means I, as an independent Israeli, can still boycott whoever I want personally, or protest whatever I want personally. That doesn't make the law more right, but that's not what you said and not what I replied to.

This "wacko coalition" are the people running your government (and Israelis are about to vote 'em back in again, along with even *wackier* folk, for yet more shenanigans.) Your own Prime Minister personally told the Knesset that his entire coalition should back the boycott bill and they did (although neither he nor Barak attended the final vote - they were already sure their minions would git 'er done.)

http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/1.1180288 (Hebrew)

and

http://972mag.com/boycott-bill-rollcall-how-did-they-vote/

And 52% of the Israeli public supports the boycott law - only 31% opposed. (As usual, average Israelis' aren't too worried about the serious curtailment of their rights to free speech and free protest, but rather what the rest of the world might think of this kind of fascism):

http://www.srugim.co.il/21160-%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%A8-%D7%A4%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%9C%D7%A1-%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A5-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%91-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%9A?di=1 (Hebrew)

Next, please quote me where I've "made it seem as if many people have already gotten either fined, punished or arrested for doing that," or retract your claim. TIA

In fact, the boycott law says nothing about only applying to organizations that receive government funding - it applies to any individual or group:

According to the law passed in July 2011, a person or organization calling for the boycott of Israel, including the settlements, can be sued by the boycott's targets without having to prove that they sustained damage.

...

“The law imposes a ‘price tag’ on legitimate political statements and causes damage to public debate, especially on the most burning and controversial issues,” the petitioners told Supreme Court President Asher Grunis and Justices Esther Hayut and Salim Joubran.

The petitioners maintained that harsh punishments for violating the law have a “censorship effect” on people who wish to express a political opinion by calling for a boycott. In this manner the law is damaging even before it is invoked against a particular individual or organization, they said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-s-high-court-hears-appeal-against-controversial-boycott-law.premium-1.482625#

Note that the definition of "calling for a boycott" is very broad, and includes such activities as merely holding a sign that says "Boycott ____," or making a simple call not to visit the State of Israel or any of its institutions or territories under its control (which of course include Israel's illegal settlements.)

As I've said from the get-go, the intent of this law is to bully people out of taking part in boycotts by threatening them with punitive measures. The fact that no one has been arrested yet is directly due to the threats contained in this law - few to no people in Israel are willing to take the risk of being sued for damages by these fanatics.

Of course the law should be overturned. It should never have even been passed (well, not in a democratic state.) But the Israeli court has put their decision on the appeal on hold, saying they will get around to deciding on it "at a later date." In other words, don't hold your breath.

Also, I said it may be the case in few specific communities, but it is the exception to the rule. You tried to make it seem like it happens all the time.

It doesn't happen in just a few communities; it is the usual scenario. And your government not only allows it and even upholds the legality of such discrimination, it actually encourages it - as shown in the links.

Those quotes are from your own links. I guess you missed the point of the law. For one as you can see by the first quote, Israelis are still free to organize boycotts on almost everything, and that is again, only the exception to the rule.

It's funny how you bolded the part you liked, but not the sentence immediately following:

In Israel, one can still in fact use boycotts to protest anything and everything. Except, that is, to protest Israeli government policy as it relates to settlements and the occupation.

So that's a huge exception. I can't think of any Western democracy that has such a law, and Israelis couldn't find one either:

...a Knesset committee charged with finding parallels in other countries to what was then the draft boycott law, "did not find arrangements in these countries [in Europe] that were similar to our proposed legislation..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lara-friedman/israel-boycott-law_b_898317.html

However, you are free to continue to stick your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA to drown all this out, 'cause that's pretty much your response anyway when confronted with anything that doesn't match the fairy tale you been programmed with.

For two, after years and years of Pro Palestinian or just Jewish hating activists using sheer numbers to threaten companies, artists, etc not go to to Israel or cooperate with Israel, which has actually caused some of them not to come here(Why is it my fault in Haifa that cause of the ongoing conflict in the west bank I should pay for it by not being able to go to a concert by someone I like because they were told not to come by Arab activists? It's called intimidation), is it any wonder that they want to put a stop to it?

I was wondering how long it would take for you to be reduced to screaming "anti-Semite !"

However, as you know very well, there are plenty of Jewish people who are taking part in the BDS movement, and even leading many of the boycotts. Non-Jewish people of conscious join as well.

So I'm sorry that you live in a pariah state which openly flouts international law and brutally oppresses millions of people. I wonder how you thought average Iraqis felt during the years of sanctions on their country over what their government did. Count your blessings - at least you all have enough to eat and Israeli kids aren't dying from lack of medicine, like what Israel inflicts on the civilian population of Gaza.

Anyway, boohoohoo if you don't get to see Carlos Santana or Jello Biafra in Tel Aviv. You'll survive (and you won't even be put on a Dov Weisglass-style "diet.") You can still see Britney Spears and Madonna. Or you can see the boycotting artists once you're in the US (that is, if you care to see these so-called "Jew haters" anyway.) Or you can fly to Europe or something. At least you have freedom of movement, which your government denies to Palestinians.

Edited January 4, 2013 by wife_of_mahmoud