Steve Huntley: Anti-Israel movement based on fallacies

State Department spokesman John Kirby issued a written statement saying the United States has “strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns, and sanctions targeting the state of Israel, and will continue to do so.” Then Kirby delivered the administration’s real message: “By conflating Israel and ‘Israeli-controlled territories,’ a provision of the Trade Promotion Authority legislation runs counter to longstanding U.S. policy towards the occupied territories.… The U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements and activity associated with them and, by extension, does not pursue policies or activities that would legitimize them.”

The BDS movement is based on two fallacies. First, Israel doesn’t do enough to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Second, all Israeli “settlements” in the West Bank are illegal and should be abandoned in any negotiated peace agreement.

It is the Palestinians who have been the obstacle to ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state. Only Israel has ever offered a comprehensive two-state proposal, first in 2000 and again in 2008. Both times Israel laid down the parameters of an agreement that every reasonable observer saw as a rational, workable deal.




In 2000 Yassir Arafat responded with a terror war that killed, maimed and traumatized thousands of Israeli civilians. Arafat was a terrorist and perhaps it was foolish to expect anything else from him. But in 2008, the president of the Palestinian Authority was Mahmoud Abbas, labeled in the media as a “moderate.” Yet he never responded to the peace offering.




In a bid to lure Abbas to negotiations in 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made an unprecedented concession, ordering a 10-month moratorium on construction in the disputed territories. In the ninth month, Abbas came to the bargaining table, only to walk away when the freeze expired.

As for the second rationale of the BDS movement, there are towns on the West Bank — the Jerusalem suburb Ma’ale Adumim and the Gush Etzion communities are just a couple of examples — that everyone acknowledges would be part of Israel under any conceivable peace deal. The new Palestinian state would in turn get Israeli territory in a land swap. President George W. Bush said exactly that in a 2004 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon — a simple fact refuting Kirby’s statement about U.S. policy always being opposed to all settlements. Pursuing peace will “legitimize” some settlements. To target these communities for an economic boycott is unreasonable, unjust and counter-productive to reaching a peace agreement.
European nations are not the only ones involved in the offensive BDS campaign. This week the general synod of the United Church of Christ voted to join the Presbyterian Church (USA) in boycotting products from West Bank companies. In another development, the Vatican signed a treaty making official its recognition of the “state of Palestine.”

Such moves not only work against peace, they also put Christians on the side of the virulent anti-Semitism so often documented by the monitoring agency the Palestinian Media Watch. For example, the official Palestinian Authority TV network in May aired a children’s program with a young girl reciting a poem calling Jews “barbaric monkeys.” An Islamic cleric who teaches at the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem preached the libel that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children to make Passover matzah bread. Another cleric stated on PA TV that Jews “are usurers” who “control the media, the money, the press.”
This is what the BDS movement and the Vatican treaty in effect endorse.



http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/7/71/736364/steve-huntley-anti-israel-movement-based-fallacies

Didge wrote:It is the Palestinians who have been the obstacle to ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state. Only Israel has ever offered a comprehensive two-state proposal, first in 2000 and again in 2008. Both times Israel laid down the parameters of an agreement that every reasonable observer saw as a rational, workable deal.

CNN News wrote:(CNN)The prospect of a Palestinian state is nil so long as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stays in office, Netanyahu said in a Monday interview.

Asked by an interviewer with the Israeli news site, NRG, if it was true that a Palestinian nation would never be formed while he's prime minister, Netanyahu replied, "Indeed."

His interview with NRG came as he courted conservative supporters a day before Israelis head to the polls for national elections.

"Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state, anyone who is going to evacuate territories today, is simply giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel," he said. "This is the true reality that was created here in the last few years."

We were wrong to believe Hitler regarding Czechoslovakia, and we would be just as foolish to believe Netanyahu today. It is the same land grab.

Been there, done that...got the post card to prove it.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:It is the Palestinians who have been the obstacle to ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state. Only Israel has ever offered a comprehensive two-state proposal, first in 2000 and again in 2008. Both times Israel laid down the parameters of an agreement that every reasonable observer saw as a rational, workable deal.

CNN News wrote:(CNN)The prospect of a Palestinian state is nil so long as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stays in office, Netanyahu said in a Monday interview.

Asked by an interviewer with the Israeli news site, NRG, if it was true that a Palestinian nation would never be formed while he's prime minister, Netanyahu replied, "Indeed."

His interview with NRG came as he courted conservative supporters a day before Israelis head to the polls for national elections.

"Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state, anyone who is going to evacuate territories today, is simply giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel," he said. "This is the true reality that was created here in the last few years."

We were wrong to believe Hitler regarding Czechoslovakia, and we would be just as foolish to believe Netanyahu today.  It is the same land grab.

Been there, done that...got the post card to prove it.

Nobody is denying peace is not much of a reality with Netanyahu, though what you ignore is the fundamental fact of the Palestinians through the PLO and Fatah not caring for the Palestinian people. As they have deliberately spurned the chance twice to become a nation and why? They have no intention of having peace with Israel until they can overcome Israel. That much is obvious. You do not keep refugee's in limbo if you care for them. You make them citizens of the new country and house them like in every other refugee situation, just like the 800,000 Jews displaced from Arab nations and the 11 million Germans displaced. You only keep them as refugee's by keeping a false promise to them. They are being used to keep the conflict going. Both Fatah/hamas have had the opportunity for peace, they constantly spurn this.

So going by your point on trusting Hitler, the PLO/Fatah/Hamas are Hitler as Hitler claimed victim status to lost lands in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Like the Arabs in 1948 and Germany in 1918, both were the aggressors and both lost. Germany lost lands they had only had as a unified nation for 47 years. The Palestinians never had a land to lose as it was formerly the British Mandate of Palestine. They were offered one and turn it down. Chamberlain tries to negotiate with Hitler and cedes land in the Sudetenland, Israel gives Gaza to the Palestinians. When this happens under Ariel Sharon we draw him in the same capacity as Chamberlain. Now you have Netanyahu who is defiant like Churchill So you are looking at this backwards. Hitler never accepted defeat for Germany. The PLO/Fatah and Hamas never accepted defeat in 1948. So I agree Netanyahu is never going to seek peace, not whilst Hamas and Fatah want to see Israel destroyed. As the Palestinians could have a state tomorrow if they give up their rockets, recognized Israel existence, stopped laying claim to its lands. The question you need to ask yourself is why the Palestinians continue to wish the conflict to continue. They have had ample chances to become a nation, which means that is not their end goal, the end goal is the destruction of Israel and the Jews, just like the end goal for Hitler was the destruction of the Jews .


Have to say your history was poor their buddy. You made the comparison the wrong way round, as seen the Palestinians claim victim status like Hitler did. Hitler should have been stopped in 1936 when he entered the Rhineland, he would have retreated if the French and British reacted. They failed to do so and it gave Hitler confidence. Hitler like Hamas were both elected into power and after both we see an escalation of aggression by both.

There's a time and a place for history. Arafat is history. Netanyahu is right now. Situation politics; things move quickly.

A transition has overtaken Israel, one in which it sees it can take advantage of history. Whereas once it wanted peace, now it wants land.

Original Quill wrote:There's a time and a place for history.  Arafat is history.  Netanyahu is right now.  Situation politics; things move quickly.

A transition has overtaken Israel, one in which it sees it can take advantage of history.  Whereas once it wanted peace, now it wants land.

Again I disagree Quill where again peace can be had tomorrow, because like I say if Hamas and Fatah really want peace they will come to the table and recognize Israel. Denounce their claims to eradicate Israel as wrong. Drop claims to lands, the same with Israel, give up their rockets and Israel has to sue for peace then also. The ball is in the court of Hamas and Fatah. They do not want peace and as seen play the victim card so well, you and others are taken in and wish to see support for Israel diminish, which is what both Hamas and Fatah want. To the point Israel becomes to weak to defend itself. Their plan is clearly working on you very well.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:There's a time and a place for history.  Arafat is history.  Netanyahu is right now.  Situation politics; things move quickly.

A transition has overtaken Israel, one in which it sees it can take advantage of history.  Whereas once it wanted peace, now it wants land.

Again I disagree Quill where again peace can be had tomorrow, because like I say if Hamas and Fatah really want peace they will come to the table and recognize Israel. Denounce their claims to eradicate Israel as wrong. Drop claims to lands, the same with Israel, give up their rockets and Israel has to sue for peace then also. The ball is in the court of Hamas and Fatah. They do not want peace and as seen play the victim card so well, you and others are taken in and wish to see support for Israel diminish, which is what both Hamas and Fatah want. To the point Israel becomes to weak to defend itself. Their plan is clearly working on you very well.

There will no peace as long as Netanyahu is around. Perhaps in 4 or 5 years, but right now we must part company with Israel and deal with our own problems.

We have tried to help them, but they have left us at an impasse. Netanyahu wants Palestinian land, and the US has no business helping him. There is no benefit to the US in that dogfight.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Again I disagree Quill where again peace can be had tomorrow, because like I say if Hamas and Fatah really want peace they will come to the table and recognize Israel. Denounce their claims to eradicate Israel as wrong. Drop claims to lands, the same with Israel, give up their rockets and Israel has to sue for peace then also. The ball is in the court of Hamas and Fatah. They do not want peace and as seen play the victim card so well, you and others are taken in and wish to see support for Israel diminish, which is what both Hamas and Fatah want. To the point Israel becomes to weak to defend itself. Their plan is clearly working on you very well.

There will no peace as long as Netanyahu is around.  Perhaps in 4 or 5 years, but right now we must part company with Israel and deal with our own problems.

We have tried to help them, but they have left us at an impasse.  Netanyahu wants Palestinian land, and the US has no business helping him.  There is no benefit to the US in that dogfight.

You are not taking on the points and just repeating yourself Quill
Again you have been easily bought by the Hamas and Fatah propaganda machine.
They are claiming victim status to a war they started and lost, just like Hitler did with Germany losing the First World war and claims to land. What you then have is two groups not accepting they were defeated, which is a very dangerous precedent, as it does not allow for any real chance of lasting peace.
Now they even brought in resolution 242 which Israel accepted on terms with the Arab nations. The Palestinians rejected this out right and why? As they will not except Israel existing
Your argument hinges on one individual, where I have pointed out the real problems is with the PLO/Fatah and Hamas. Again they could have peace tomorrow which would force Israel's hand if they gave up their rockets, recognized the right of Israel to exist. They are not going to do this and even when given chances to do so they have turned away from statehood. That proves they do not want peace.




Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967


The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.