Israel’s best-selling daily paper enlists in the war against international isolation and boycott. But ‘Yedioth,’ like many others in Israel, is ignoring the driving force behind boycott and international isolation — the occupation.

By Tomer Persico

Israel’s best-selling daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth and its website, Ynet, launched a special project on Monday. Under the banner, “Fighting the Boycott,” the newspaper entered “trench warfare” against the boycott Israel movement. Star right-wing columnist Ben-Dror Yemini wrote a long article claiming that the boycott movement is borne of a desire to de-legitimize the entire State of Israel, and not just the settlements and the occupation.

There are some serious problems with that line of argument, and not just the fact that it is a gross generalization. True, significant parts of the BDS movement challenge the State of Israel’s right to exist as a nation state for the Jewish people. True, there are some in the radical Israeli left who see the 1948 war as Zionism’s original sin, the source of its unraveling. But the entire movement is certainly not convinced that the Israel has no right to exist. BDS is a coalition of organizations, intellectuals and activists that represent a wide range of positions.

And the BDS movement is not the premier international threat facing Israel. It is secondary to steps and processes being undertaken by the European Union, individual European states, and in various UN bodies. None of those threats challenge Israel’s right to exist. We need only to think back to the FIFA crisis this past week, where the attempt to boycott Israel pivoted on the occupation and not Israel’s very existence; if Israel was the problem it wouldn’t have been accepted into FIFA in the first place. Indeed, the international community is not in the habit of challenging the existence of states that have been recognized by the UN, and whose right to exist the UN has reaffirmed time and again.

What is taking place in Israel these days is reminiscent of what took place in South Africa in the 1980s and in Yugoslavia in the 1990s: international pressure that is focused on a specific problem is understood by those states’ citizens as an assault against the entire country, evidenced by the world’s irrational loathing and hatred of it. As a result, nationalism grows, internal dissent is silenced, and various democratic characteristics become weaker, or are weakened.

Take for example, in South Africa, the activist movement Black Sash, a group of white women who opposed apartheid. The activists organized protests and published reports that highlighted the injustices of apartheid. For that work they were ostracized, labeled as traitors, and even suffered physical violence. As apartheid became more repressive and international pressure increased, opposition to Black Sash intensified: its members were repeatedly arrested, their protests were banned, and the violence directed toward them got worse.

In Serbia it was a similar story. The Serbs saw themselves as the victims of the international media, which, they alleged, did not fairly portray their positions. In the period when Serbia was subjected to international criticism, support for Slobodan Milosevic only increased; hatred toward Albanians became stronger, democracy was weakened, and opposition activists were seen as traitors.

It is a dynamic that is as predictable as it is depressing: a country suffering from negative international treatment entrenches itself in self-righteousness and sees any criticism as illegitimate. National unity coalesces against external threats, but because there is no desire to resolve the problem causing the external pressure, anger and frustration are eventually directed toward the internal opposition, toward the media, or toward problematic but marginal actors — like Yedioth’s special project against BDS. This process is not a Jewish invention, as we can learn form what happened in South Africa and Yugoslavia.

That is not to say that there exists no anti-Semitism or unfair criticism of Israel. Both exist — but they always did. Today, the problem is only consolidating: the occupation, which is approaching its 50th year, does not allow Israel to present itself as having clean hands. Until we reach an agreement with the Palestinian people, criticism of Israel will be considered legitimate and deserved, along with the sanctions that will be placed on the country.

Of course we are still far from the type of sanctions that were imposed on South Africa, and certainly from the military intervention that took place in Serbia — and I hope – and believe – we will never get there. But we can learn from those examples that the international community’s harsh, negative treatment suffered by those two countries was not meant to destroy or wipe them off the map. Nobody today questions the existence of South Africa or the countries that emerged from Yugoslavia, which were recognized by the UN. That is because the moment the central problem was resolved, the entire affair was over as far as the international community was concerned. And the central problem facing Israel is the occupation.

Dr. Tomer Persico is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Elyachar Center in Ben Gurion University. He also teaches at the department for Comparative Religion in Tel-Aviv University and at the Schechter Institute in Jerusalem. This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.

Source: http://972mag.com/israels-war-on-bds-misses-the-point/107343/

...due to Israel ending its occupation of Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. BDS started at the height of Israel withdrawing from occupied territories.

In addition, BDS doesn't support any peace plan since 1999 that Israel has offered, which would end the occupation. In fact, BDS is against any peaceful cooperation (normalization) between Israelis and Palestinians.

The reason being that it's not about ending the occupation or attaining peace, but ending Israel.

...even if Israel ends its occupation of the W.Bank. It won't end because the goal is ending the Jewish state, not just ending the occupation.

President Obama just recently said that advocating an end to the Jewish state is antisemitic.

exactly where did say he wanted to destroy Israel? The problem is that once there is a Palestinian State and RoR for Palestinians has been worked out, BDS will die of it's own accord, much like the boycott against South Africa did

Here's Omar Barghouti in his own words advocating for the end of the Jewish state...

"Going back to the two-state solution, besides having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start with.We are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can be done to save it, for Zionism is intent on killing itself. I, for one, support euthanasia.“

“Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution.”

The one state solution "means a unitary state, where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.”

“A Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the indigenous Palestinian population and perpetuate a system of racial discrimination that ought to be opposed categorically….Definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”

he says Zionism is killing itself and with each progressive more extremest Rightwing government elected in Israel that may well be true

the next paragraph reads

Palestinian refugees don't already live in Palestine while > 6 million Jews live in Israel

"The one state solution "means a unitary state, where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.”

however a link providing real proof he said that not just some ProIsrael blogger claiming he did

“As Omar Barghouti, a leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, put it recently to Yale students: ‘If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you’d have a Palestine next to a Palestine’.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/opinion/global/zero-dark-zero.html?_r=0

He must not have meant that either.

Israel’s situation feels sustainable. The economic miracle that makes swathes of the country feel like southern California can go on: Israel’s diplomatic loneliness does not amount to commercial isolation. Military domination will grow with U.S. support. A strong Israeli nationalist current — we won all the land on the battlefield, so it’s ours! — will prevail over the peace-talk fatigue among Israeli liberals and a splintered Palestinian movement.

Stepping across the wall-fence into the West Bank already feels like time travel back 30 years. Soon, given current momentum, it will feel like 40 years. Perhaps half a million Israelis living beyond the Green Line hardly know what it is: The two-state solution based around the 1967 borders, give or take agreed land swaps, is then a diplomatic and intellectual fiction.

Yes, Israel on all the land of Eretz Israel (a biblical term widely used to refer to the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, encompassing all of the West Bank) is sustainable. The status quo is not static. On balance, despite demographic patterns that favor the Palestinians, power tilts Israel’s way. Vitality trumps demography.

and later on intones

I said Israel’s situation is sustainable. It is in physical terms. It is not in ethical terms. This is a state whose Declaration of Independence in 1948 says it will “be founded on the principles of freedom, justice and peace in the spirit of the visions of the Prophets of Israel; will implement equality of complete social and national rights for all her citizens without distinction between religion, race and gender; will promise freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.” The West Bank dominion over 2.6 million humiliated Palestinians runs counter to every word of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/opinion/global/zero-dark-zero.html?_r=1

For that matter, do you?

Cohen stated it too, albeit Cohen seems more willing to settle for what is, the most he can work up is it's unethical but the status quote is sustainable

even though it was your own link?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134104920

If Barghouti supported the existence of a Jewish state, he'd be a Zionist.

He's against that, and thus for the destruction of the Jewish state - the very thing Obama calls antisemitic.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/why-do-zionists-falsely-claim-bds-movement-opposes-two-state-solution

and the quote, which you may accept or reject:

"First, the facts. The 2005 Palestinian BDS call makes absolutely no mention of one state or two. It is not a call for a political “solution.” It is a rights-based call with three clear demands of Israel:


(1) Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
(2) Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
(3) Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

Second, any informed person would know that the vast majority of organizations represented on the Palestinian Boycott National Committee (BNC) – the movement’s steering group and collective leadership – explicitly support a two-state solution. You can see a list of organizations that currently make up the BNC."

They're not that stupid.

But their demands would obviously lead to that, they know that, and Omar Barghouti has admitted such on many occasions.

It would become a multi ethnic, multicultural state where ALL religions could be freely practiced. What is so bad about that?

As does the State Dept.

The pope just said it too.

No 2-states for 2 people. Just a majority Palestinian state for 1-people who'd have self-determination. The other humans, Jews, have no right to self-determination.

When Obama says the USA always has Israel's back - you tell us it's because of an Iranian "angle" or when Erdogan says Jerusalem is Muslim it's because Y net wrote the headline wrong ... Now Bhargouti never said something it's because....?
( fill in the blank mistranslation ... Or some angle or headline ..maybe )

oh wait......

Here's your post on Obama:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134104467#post46

Thanks for bringing that up

which is much the same as your accusation on the thread you followed me here with, BTW I never denied Erdogan said that, I stated quite accurately that the headline was fake click bait no more no less

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=104935

Or anything of the kind.
I did not follow you anywhere , I post mainly in this group ,and so that is that.

I never created any of this heat, you did that all alone... You own any post you create and can not complain when other posters take you to task.

It ain't no misrepresentation or accusation to challenge someone on what they posted.

Bye , I am off now.

and yes you brought my comments from an unrelated thread here

...you must have little faith in us if you think BDS can destroy Israel within the Green Line .

You are wasting your time and energy on me ..........we are complete polar opposites .

Nothing you say can convince me that its not about the occupation ....nothing ...nada !!

Israel's problem isn't BDS – it's the occupation

One can object to boycotts. But sanctimonious wailing and the automatic posing as victims coated with the memory of the Holocaust won't hide the fact that Israel is ruling over an entire other nation.

By Ravit Hecht

The daily Yedioth Ahronoth has launched a campaign called “Fighting the boycott” — the subheadline declares that the paper too “is mobilizing to join the battle.” Yedioth was never a journal with a particular ideology, so it’s probably trying to position itself as a patriotic, right-wing paper in its war against the leading daily, the free Israel Hayom owned by U.S. casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.

The campaign's opening salvo was an article by right-wing journalist Ben-Dror Yemini, who accused rock star Roger Waters, gender theorist Judith Butler (a Jew) and physicist Stephen Hawking of harboring dark motives and anti-Semitism in their opposition to the occupation.

Yemini lays out the usual right-wing argument against anti-Israel initiatives: The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, despite the way it presents itself, not only opposes the occupation but denies Israel’s very right to exist.

According to this thinking, Nazi-like propaganda methods ensnare naïve young Jews who espouse values of tikkun olam, repairing the world. In addition, the global struggle against the occupation is hypocritical and biased because only Israel is targeted, not those awful countries like Iran, Sudan or North Korea.

This last argument is particularly interesting because it’s popular on the right and implies an unconscious admission of guilt. If Israel is as pure as the driven snow, why should it be mentioned in the same breath as emblems of human rights violations? If Israel is completely blameless, why does it need special treatment or a better spot in the group of problem countries?

The answer is that most Israelis — even if they fear territorial concessions for security reasons and don’t believe that a peace deal with the Arabs is sustainable — know that Israel is committing an injustice against civilians and denying them their freedom. They know that in the frequent rounds of violence, Israel kills thousands of innocent people as well as terrorists. They know that in a certain place under Israeli rule there is one legal regime for one nation (Israeli law for settlers) and a different one for another nation (military law for Palestinians).

How does one deal with such guilt, to which Yemini is also an accomplice? “Israel, of course, is far from perfect”, the writer states before returning to the real enemy, the BDS movement.

Yemini sets BDS in his sights, but Israel faced a suspension from FIFA last week not because of that vilified organization but because of claims by the Palestinian Football Association that others supported. The affair that made the whole country hold its breath proves the opposite of what Yemini is arguing. Israel is a member of FIFA because the world recognizes its sovereignty within the 1967 borders. It risked expulsion because of its policies in territories it captured in 1967.

Stretching the conflict back to 1948, which Yemini attributes to the boycott movement, serves his goal. It removes with a magic wand Israel’s responsibility for the situation that began in 1967.

The hope that the Palestinians will quietly resign themselves to the settlements, happily content with the conditions imposed by the occupation, is unrealistic. What can we do if they impudently insist on resisting and striving for freedom, their natural right?

Under those circumstances, what kind of struggle do Yemini and his right-wing readers, or any other reasonable person, prefer? Diplomatic and economic measures or exploding buses? UN votes or suicide bombers?

One can object to boycotts, including cultural or economic boycotts of the settlements. But sanctimonious wailing and the automatic posing as victims coated with the memory of the Holocaust is as mistaken an approach as the one Yemini accuses BDS of. Israel’s problem isn’t BDS or Jibril Rajoub — it’s the occupation.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.659292

This is explicitly stated on the BDS website.

...whose growth will do absolutely nothing to bully Israel into risking its security with Hamas and friends who would just set up camp within short walking distance of Israeli residential neighborhoods. BDS's growth will only lead to more contempt and hatred for Jews, not an end to occupation.

BDS leads extreme Palestinians to believe it's okay they should hold out, reject a 2 state solution, and go for the 1-state deal; knowing full well they have help from their western friends who will encourage more "popular resistance", Intifadas, etc. With the help of so many friends, why should the Palestinians settle for 2 states?

BDS leads well meaning people into confronting the movement for its extreme views rather than focusing on the occupation. Same as David Duke from the KKK attacking Israel & wanting the Jewish state gone. He cannot be taken seriously given his hatred and contempt, and neither should BDS given its motives. If it were a peaceful movement (which it is not) they would find it much easier to get worldwide support and sympathy for ending the occupation (which should be their only goal). As it is, BDS doesn't deserve any support for their foul views.

Their demonizing rhetoric & growing pro-fascist influence also leads to antisemitic attacks worldwide, so you'll have to forgive Jews for taking this hate movement personally.

Now why would a billionaire care about some "little movement" as some on here have describe BDS

BDS ruffling some big wigs feather

I wonder if Haim Saban will be join him

Jews on campus are constantly bullied when it's assumed they're Zionists.

Ergo, the need to address such an odious, pro-fascist hate movement like BDS.

on activists for distribution with the intent of damaging their lives in nearly any way possible?

https://twitter.com/canarymission

or this

-

See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/head-of-israel-lobby-education-group-boasts-of-fear-political-opponents-feel#sthash.rRFZuDyB.dpuf

ProIsrael groups do, the groups I showed were in answer to your claim of bullying

Last edited Tue Jun 2, 2015, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

....all manner of antisemitic attacks worldwide. It's not just a coincidence that global antisemitism is spiking at the same time BDS's hate propaganda is spreading like wildfire.

or are you unable to do that for some reason?

when people talk about the BDS movement.

Adelson assumes that he can buy a President, now he assumes he can buy a movement? Another reason to bring back the 90% top marginal tax rate. So scum like Adelson and his 1% fellow fascists cannot buy the country they want.

and what about the deportation, vile rhetoric toward blacks in Israel have they no place in Israeli society

Do you support the current fascist right wing govt lead by Binyamin Netanyahu ? ,and don't tell me that Israel is some sort of Progressive utopia of the Middle East or try deflect the question

....whose goal is the elimination of the Jewish state.

President Obama believes those who are against the existence of a Jewish state are antisemitic.

Hence, the concerted effort by Chaim Saban and all liberals in Congress and the Senate to fight antisemitic movements like BDS.

==================

If you want to discuss legitimate issues like discrimination against African refugees, that's another topic altogether.

I support Israel as a Jewish state, no matter who is in charge. I'd have preferred Herzog/Livni to Netanyahu. It turns out Netanyahu is a gift to the Israel haters. I'm sure they prefer Netanyahu to Herzog/Livni. How about yourself?

I would only support one who truly wants a two state solution
passing legislation to ban a movement/boycott is censorship whether you agree with it or not

It would be like a state passing a bill to wanting to curb The #blacklivesmatter movement and labeling it anti police movement to drum up fear. Would you suppport such ban ?

BDS goals, if realized, would lead to more conflict - not less.

Sorry I don't buy into the notion that BDS advocates the end of Jewish State just my opinion

Do you believe the Palestinian People have the right to their own state ?

Because if they accept the existence of a Jewish state, that makes them Zionists by definition.

Of course I believe the Palestinians have a right to their own state. I'm all for a peaceful 2 state solution.