EDIT: Finkelstein says the PA is "gang of corrupt retched , collaborators" and DML speak of an Abbas Treaty. I hope you understand now DML.

Norman Finkelstein on BDS

Norman says BDS is clever, deceitful, a cult. This is hate speech and if directed at Jews in public; a person could be arrested in certain jurisdictions.

But Norman can use it here without fear of arrest even though it's a lie and pathetic as BDS only calls for what the International law requires.

1. Right of return.
2. End of occupation
3. Equal rights for Arabs in Israel



Norman is saying that Israel will not follow International Law because it will eliminate Israel. But this is shear nonsense.

Nothing BDS calls for will eliminate Israel or the IDF or their atomic bombs & submarines.

Norman is realy saying that they (Jews) are not willing to live with their brothers and sisters in peace & harmony or as equals (because of the Jew supremacy issue)

No, Israel requires an exclusive , separatist, racist land where nobody can live but Jews.

This is an illness. It's a symptom of PTSD and is an extremist Jewish response to their oppression and the Holocaust.

The extremist Jew needs to recognize or acknowledge the PTSD illness first, in order to get better.

Norman Finkelstein on BDS

Norman Finklestein on the BDS movement [WHOLE VIDEO]

"EDIT: Finkelstein says the PA is "gang of corrupt retched , collaborators" and DML speak of an Abbas Treaty. I hope you understand now DML."

I'm not talking about the PA. I'm talking about the Arab Peace Initiative - which includes the right of return. What's wrong with that initiative? It stands the best chance of succeeding of all the peace plans - isn't that important?

DML wrote this: "The Palestinian Authority strongly supports the plan and Mahmoud Abbas officially asked U.S. President Barack Obama to adopt it as part of his Middle East policy.[6]"

One can only infer by your comments that the punishment aspect is the most important aspect of your "peace plan" - and any plan - even one created by Arabs - that doesn't contain a punishment element is not worth considering.

"But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had — power." Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1885)

No the BDS plan is fine for me.

Follow the law and they'll all
know peace.

Know Justice, Know Peace.

It's a disgrace to
the Holocaust to do otherwise.



Professor Ilan Pappe - Genocide Memorial Day 2012

Professor Ilan Pappe speaking at the third annual Genocide Memorial Day event.

His paper is entitled: "Memorcide: Crime, Closure and Reconciliation in Palestine"

IHRC held the third annual Genocide Memorial Day on 22 January 2012 between 4 - 8pm at the Brunei Gallery, SOAS in London.

What is your answer to Chomsky's arguments:

"Chomsky argues that BDS must be principled. Why should Tel Aviv university be boycotted, when American universities that are complicit and actively participate in far greater war crimes are not being challenged, he argues? What makes Israeli crimes special? Why should Israel be boycotted when its enabler and biggest supporter, the US, which is also responsible for far greater crimes is not facing a call for BDS. This picking on Israel could hurt the Palestinians. Just because some Palestinians have asked for BDS against Israel, doesn't mean we should blindly follow it, but should first ask whether these actions are going to hurt the Palestinians. Action needs to be principled, he says, and if they're not it will be a gift for Israeli right and Zionist sympathizers and will cause cries of antisemitism which will make it even harder to talk about Palestine, and therefore, it's counterproductive.

Chomsky believes that the one state solution is not much more than a slogan, similar to asking for a no-state solution. He says that there is no reason to worship imperial boundaries and he would like to see all states with their oppressive institutions and boundaries dissolved. He says he does not know of any advocacy of the one state solution, all he keeps hearing is a slogan that we should all live in peace. He says the two state solution which is the international consensus should be advanced. One of the ways this could happen is if the IDF pulls out of the West Bank, which will only happen after withdrawing US support. When that happens almost all of the illegal settlers will move to Israel proper, and et voila, a functioning Palestinian state, which the Palestinians in exile can return to. With time, he says, the borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state could begin to erode, and there might be some settlement in the future where both states are combined and the descendants of the refugees of 48 could return right back to their original hometowns in Israel. Regarding the right of return of the refugees he says the right should be affirmed but it is never going to happen because there is absolutely no support for it, and if there were, Israel would use nukes to prevent it from happening. He says that resolution 194 doesn't mention the right of return of the descendants although certain organisation have interpreted it to include them. Sooner or later he says Israel will accept resolution 194 because there will be no one left."

http://arabicforread.blogspot.ca/2011/09/chomsky-and-bds.html

Chomsky is disingenuous.
BDS (& everybody but Westerners)

knows that
the tail wags the dog (USA)
& the occupier is Israel.

EDIT: But I agree w G Atzmon that academics
free speech should be excluded from BDS here:

CrossTalk on BDS: Sanctioning Israel (ft. Gilad Atzmon)


What goals has the BDS movement achieved so far? Does it aim for a constructive solution to the conflict? How should Israel react to it? Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky agree that the goal of the movement is to destroy Israel - how valid is this judgment? Can the movement reinvent itself and win support from those who criticize it today? CrossTalking with Gilad Atzmon, Eric Walberg and Omar Baddar.

Ilan Pappe draws a distinction between Israeli crimes and Jewish crimes - he calls them Israeli crimes:

If it is possible ISRAEL’s conduct in 1948 would be brought onto the stage of international tribunals; this may deliver a message even to the peace camp in ISRAEL that reconciliation entails recognition of war crimes and collective atrocities. This cannot be done from within, as any reference in the ISRAELI press to expulsion, massacre or destruction in 1948 is usually denied and attributed to self hate and service to the enemy in times of war. This reaction encompasses academia, the media and educational system, as well as political circles."[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Papp%C3%A9


Why do you not draw the same distinction?

Could it be that he's a critic of Israel, and that you're a critic of Jews who likes to pretend to be a critic of Israel?

Israel was not even formed at the
time of the Nakba. You are grasping
at straws...

"Israel was not even formed at the
time of the Nakba."

That doesn't explain why you call it "Jewish Extremism" and the people you quote don't mention Jews, only Israelis.

You don't even present any evidence that a majority of the Jews who don't live in Israel are supportive of the Israeli policy of genocide. For all you know, the Jews who don't live in Israel could be the biggest critics of Israel.