For real, dawg. Unfortunately, some Christians are slow to recognize that. But it’s never too late; a Dutch Church is reconsidering its policy of “Solidarity with Israel.”
After 37 years of boasting of “inalienable solidarity” with the people of Israel, the Netherlands’ second largest church plans to reexamine its stance this fall. A group of notables from the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PCN) warned last week that the organization, which has over 2 million members, is in danger of being “hijacked” by pro-Palestinian activists.
The warning – coauthored by Dr. Jan van der Graaf, who served for 35 years as PCN’s general secretary, and three other prominent church figures – was an open letter against changing the reference to Israel. It was addressed to Minister Henri Veldhuis, a General Synod member who said the clause made the church adopt a biased view that ignored Israeli actions against Palestinians.
Of course the Dutch are no leading voice on Christianity, nor are they an authority on theology, but they have a solid track record of democracy, human rights (officially and post-colonialism that is) and progressive values, evident by the omnipresent smoke blanket over the country.
This is the latest development in the march towards Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. A devil’s-advocate, wishful-thinking type, yet critical review of the BDS movement came out in last week’s Economist.
While the Economist correctly illuminates the strength of Israel’s advocates and lobbyists in comparison to Apartheid South Africa’s, it fails to recount much of the support the BDS movement has received, or state the intimidation tactics employed against those who consider BDS against Israel. More importantly, they fail to compare the time lines of the two struggles. The official calls to boycott apartheid South Africa began in 1958. Apartheid officially came down in 1994, with the march towards equality still in its infancy.
The calls to boycott and divest in Israel began in 2000, and received wide grassroots support from Palestine in the form of the BDS call only in 2005. The latter marked by the Economist as the starting point of the campaign. Which makes it even more unfair to expect large milestones in this short lifetime. The anti-apartheid movement received its first concrete backing in 1974 when the International Olympic Committee suspended South Africa’s membership. Given that timeline, and the amount of the misinformation it has to overcome, the BDS movement is making significant strides.
All this recalls the haphazard campaign against South Africa before sanctions got UN backing in 1962. But the anti-Israel movement shows little sign of getting such official support. One reason for this is that Israel has more powerful lobbyists—both in Jewish organisations and in America’s evangelical Christian movement, to whom the birth of the Jewish state is a fulfilment of prophecy (some BDS motions passed in American churches really reflect internal Christian rows). Unlike the African National Congress, which acted as both a moral beacon and an organiser for sanctions, the Palestinian leadership does not support BDS—fearing that it will hurt Palestinians as much as Israelis—and is much weaker and more divided.
The chief difference between the Israeli and South African cases is, however, in the moral sphere. Israel is a robust democracy with vibrant academic freedom [blah blah blah]. Whereas it was plain to most South Africans that “separate development” was a cover for a gross system of racism, the rights and wrongs in Palestine are both murkier and more fiercely contested. For all these reasons left-leaning diaspora Jews and campaigners against the occupation often argue against BDS and for more
“constructive” engagement. Boycotting Israeli universities, they note, actually hurts some of the occupation’s most trenchant critics (and may thus be unlikely to bother Israeli hawks).
Even fans of BDS do not fully agree on the best way forward. While some call for broad boycotts, others think “smart sanctions”, such as banning goods produced from settlements in the occupied territories, or from specific firms, will have more effect and sidestep claims of anti-Semitism. Israel’s economy, they say, is more vulnerable to pressure than South Africa’s—smaller, more globally connected and with fewer natural resources. “I don’t think the boycotts will be as widespread as with South Africa,” says Mr Hever, “but a small and specific economic impact can change many people’s minds.” Perhaps. But blaming Israel alone for the impasse in the occupied territories will continue to strike many outsiders as unfair.
You gotta love how they still try to pull off this “robust democracy” BS.
Related posts:
- Take The Zionists’ Word For It
- This Just In: Zionists Are Paranoid
- Zionists Gone Wild
- Halloween Costume Excites Zionists
- JESUS CHRIST! That’s a lot of hair…
I didn’t realize fayaad was so hip, dawg. In any event, has there been any tangible progress resulting from the divestment campaign? I know it failed at the University of Michigan but am unaware as to its effects in other locales??
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 5:55 amyou gotta love hoe fayaad likes to ignore the fact that israel is, in fact, a robust democracy.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 5:56 amPlease, anonymous 5:56am. Please enlighten us on just how robust said democracy is.
I certainly wasn’t aware of it. Did Israel finally decide it was going to join the rest of the world by becoming a country for all its citizens? I must have missed the memo.
Posted by QuiQui | September 19, 2007, 6:23 amIsrael doesn’t always choose the policies I’d like them to (understatement of the year), but it’s hard to apply any other label to their political system than “robust democracy”.
You could argue, based on the results of that democracy, as to whether they’re a liberal or illiberal democracy — I’d put them as a relatively illiberal democracy that’s in a process of reform.
But their political processes are incredibly vigorous. Higher-stage forms of political activity, such as political satire, are widespread, and issues generally tackled by late-stage democracies such as sexual harassment are beginning to make their way to the fore.
Posted by Joe | September 19, 2007, 6:24 amoh qui qui, since your learning arabic and are so down for the cause, you might be in a better position to enlighten me.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 6:34 amJoe and QuiQui,
You’re both pretty much right… you’re just arguing two different points.
For all sakes and purposes, Israel is a democracy – but only for the Jewish people (Like QuiQui alluded to).
The problem is, Israel is composed of only a population of Jews. 20% of its supposed citizens are Arab, and another 3-4% are a mixture of various ethnicities.
These non-Jewish citizens, however, aren’t treated as equals with the country’s Jewish majority – on both paper and in tradition.
It is this discrimination, along with many other factors (occupation, etc), that lead many to label Israel an “apartheid” state. And that’s hard to argue…
Whether Israel offers a democracy to the world Jewry or not is irrelevant… it still discriminates against non-Jews. And that is precisely what the BDS movement is focused on right now.
Posted by Nadeem | September 19, 2007, 7:42 amcorrection: “The problem is, Israel ISN’T composed of only a population of Jews. 20% of its supposed citizens are Arab, and another 3-4% are a mixture of various ethnicities.”
Posted by Nadeem | September 19, 2007, 7:43 amwhat can’t non-jews do in israel proper?
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 8:12 ammarry who they want to, receive equal funding for their schools as Jewish communities receive, etc. there are so many examples, just do a quick google search.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 8:29 am…buy certian land, live in certian neighborhoods.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 8:35 amnice try anonymous 8:35 – but that’s the dumbest retort i’ve ever heard.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 8:41 amHamas baffled, outraged that Israel considers Gaza an “enemy entity”. What? So now all it takes to be an “enemy” is a continuous bombardment with rockets? Talk about thin skin!
Posted by Roy | September 19, 2007, 8:59 amnon jews cant marry whoever they want? I don’t follow.
what land can’t non jews buy? What neighborhoods can’t they live in? And are these laws codified?
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 9:05 amRoy,
Can you comment on the article actual post?
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 9:15 amAre you serious? Like seriously serious?
Start here…
Israeli Marriage law: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3989
Better yet, I’m not going to do your research for you. Either google it, or go to Adalah’s website: http://www.adalah.org/eng/index.php
or Mossawa: http://www.mossawacenter.org/
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 9:20 amAnon 9.05
That is right, non Jews do not enjoy equal rights, while the technically can marry anyone, if that person is a non Jew, they will not have the typical rights of the Jewish spouse, gain citizenship for example. There are also several communities that are designated Jewish only where non Jews can’t buy land or a house. Not to mention that Israel’s citizenship laws officially discriminate on the basis of religion. Only Jews can acquire citizenship.
And it’s not only 20%, Nadeem, half of the population under Israel’s control is virtually without any or with discounted rights.
Posted by Eduardo | September 19, 2007, 9:28 amYes, its dishonest to only discuss the 20% who are given “citizenship” albeit, second class citizen, where codified laws discriminate against these non-jewish citizens. 50% of those under Israel’s control are not given any time of citizenship at all.
(The codified laws that discriminiate against Israel’s non jewish “citizens” don’t say “Jews can and non-Jews can’t”, but rather say something like “those who did or would benefit under Israel’s law of return” and the law of return only relates to jews.
One country, with full citizenship and equal rights for ALL those under Israel’s control.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 9:32 amToday, within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts (e.g., Ambassador to Finland) and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Laws dictated where they could live, work and travel. And, in South Africa, the government killed blacks who protested against its policies. By contrast, Israel allows freedom of movement, assembly and speech. Some of the government’s harshest critics are Israeli Arabs who are members of the Knesset.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 9:56 amBy contrast, Israel allows freedom of movement,
That’s what you call some 200 roadblocks and checkpoints, and near permanent curfew?
assembly and speech.
That’s why Israel shoots and Kills Palestinian and international protesters who protests its policies like the peaceful anti-wall demonstrations in Bil’in.
Some of the government’s harshest critics are Israeli Arabs who are members of the Knesset.
And that’s why Azmi Bishara feared for his life after criticizing Israel that he quit the Knesset and went into exile…
Posted by Eduardo | September 19, 2007, 10:17 am“That’s what you call some 200 roadblocks and checkpoints, and near permanent curfew?”
yes, let’s bring up the checkpoints while forgetting why they’re there in the first place. It’s really unbelievable. You have groups hell bent on Israel’s destruction so precautions have to be taken. I mean seriously,
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 10:21 amThe Azmi Bishara story is a little bit more detailed than you let on my friend. Ignoring facts that aren’t beneficial to your argument might fool a few, but in the end, that doesn’t make for a solid basis to assert anything.
It’s weird how people have this ridiculous notion that certain groups and individuals can do all in their power to destroy Israel, threaten its security, incite violence, and have that result in no consequences. It’s like my younger brother keeps hitting me so i shut the door to my room and then he complains on his blog how I’m being mean and unfair.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 10:24 am“yes, let’s bring up the checkpoints while forgetting why they’re there in the first place.”
It’s quite amazing. You justify Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, even those actions by Israel which punish an entire people, most of whom are innocent of doing any wrongdoing…but yet, if someone defended a palestinian for doing something against Israel for Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, you would say that nothing justifies it.
Israel bombs a village, kills civilians: You say, yes, but they had to because…and anything the family of an innocent Palestinian killed does in retaliation is never justified.
Palestinian kills Israeli civilian…you say, there’s no justification…and anything Israeli does in retaliation is justified.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 10:44 amRoy,
While your posted article is irrelevant to the current post, I couldn’t help but comment on two things:
1) Hamas is not really surprised or baffled by Israel’s comments. I think Hamas is merely implying that who the hell is Israel to call us “enemy” when they are involved in targeted assassinations and then complain about rockets being fired at them in response?
2) I seriously laughed when I read in the article that Israel is trying to find a way, through international law, to impose sanctions on Gaza. Ha! First of all, since when did Israel give a flying shit about international law? Second, what other sanctions can Israel possibly add to the already isolated strip?
Posted by Nidalio | September 19, 2007, 11:40 amEverything in the world is relative.
Are the Israeli Arabs treated better than:
1) Inner city blacks in the US
2) French muslim slum dwellers
3) The Brazillians living in slums
A resounding yes.
1) Israel does not gerrymander voting regions to supress the Arab vote. It uses the most fair PROPORTIONAL system. Can the French or Americans come close to this?
2) There is an Arab in the Israeli high court and there are Arab judges throughout the system and it is FAIR to everybody.
3) There is freedom of speech. Any Arab MK can stand (and they do) and call Sharon a Nazi and Israel an illegal state from within the parlaiment. This is tolerance that is not avaliable in any other democracy. Who in his right mind would let his enemies have rights by abusing the democratic system?
And the simple solution that the Arabs reject of course is: Make all Israeli Arabs citizens of Palestine and they can have all their rights there. They can of course stay in Israel if they wish as permanent residents. What will the Europeans say? If it is good for Belgium, Yugoslavia and Cechoslovakia, why isn’t it good for Israel?
So wake up kabobfesters and understand that this is where you naive strategy is leading. Loss upon loss for the Palestinians.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 11:59 amI’m not going to do your research for you.
I love it when people who make a claim then insist that it’s “your job” to back up their claim.
Posted by Roy | September 19, 2007, 11:59 amwhen they are involved in targeted assassinations and then complain about rockets being fired at them in response?
You have mixed up cause and effect. Israel targets militants because those militants have been and are plotting attacks.
Second, what other sanctions can Israel possibly add to the already isolated strip?
I guess we’ll see. Then you can laugh out loud some more.
Posted by Roy | September 19, 2007, 12:03 pmBut to address the greater stupidity of Nidalio’s remark:
who the hell is Israel to call us “enemy” when they are involved in targeted assassinations and then complain about rockets being fired at them in response?
Even if you blame Israel for the animosity, is it not still accurate to say that they’re enemies? Shouldn’t Hamas be saying “You’re damn skippy we’re enemies!”?
Or is this kind of a “You didn’t break up with me! I broke up with you!” moment for Hamas?
Stay classy.
Posted by Roy | September 19, 2007, 12:10 pmComplaining about Israeli marraige law is a red herring – which all honest (read: virtually none) Kabobers should acknowledge.
They know that each religion is in control of their respective marriage laws, meaning that the same issues they complain about with respect to Jews also exist within the Muslim and Christian Israeli citizenry.
But stating that fact, of course, cuts against the “narrative.” Can’t have that.
if that person is a non Jew, they will not have the typical rights of the Jewish spouse, gain citizenship for example.
Not true. They don’t fit under the right of return, but they can gain citizenship – there has been a fairly controversial exception of a temporary law that I don’t know if it’s still in affect re: Palestinians – but that is a response to the “shaking up.”
Maybe when the “shaking up” is officially over, it will become less of an issue.
But if you’re so worried about equal rights in the Middle East (yeah right), then you’d be writing post after post, for example, about prohibitions in Jordan against Jewish citizenship or selling land to Jews (let alone Saudi Arabia).
Whatever.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 12:24 pm1) Israel does not gerrymander voting regions to supress the Arab vote.
You’re one dumb motherfucker….:-)
What do you call the wall, expansion into land while pushing the people off of it. Or denying large percentage of the population to vote inthe fiorst place, or pushing them into exile all together.
I love how the zionists try to explain Israel is not like all those evil regimes in the world, but when they are presented with the facts, they justify Israel’s actions in the name of security.
Have you heard of the Ploice state? Security is a relative thing, and dusturning it is Illigal, but if the laws are immoral, then it is a must.
Posted by Eduardo | September 19, 2007, 12:36 pmterrorist groups trying to kill Israeli civillians. Hmm.. what to do.. these groups are pretty big.. what a dilemna.. possible solutions?
Targeted assasinations – No, can’t do that. Might kill innocent civillians. Agreed.
Targeted assasinations that only kill the intended target — hmm… no, people yelp about this as well.
Well okay, how about checkpoints and roadblocks to ensure that no suicide bombers or assailents are able to cross into Israel with ease and murder as many civilians as they can? — umm.. no, how dare Israel do such a thing. Restricting right of travel? Abhorrent.
Hmm.. how bout a wall just to create a barrier. Two sides minding their own business — No, that’s an apartheid wall you moron and Israel should have never built it.
Well what about just arresting known militants — this is an outrage! how dare israel violate international law and do whatever it pleases.
Solution? I guess nothing. Letting in thesuicide bombers is the only acceptable Israeli response. Okay, that’s something we can work with. Problem solved.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 12:56 pm“You’re one dumb motherfucker”
Wow. What a professional level of discourse by one of the “narrators”
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 2:37 pm“Jesus Hates Zionists”
Duh.
“Mohammed Hates Zionists”
Duh.
“Kabombers Hate Zionists”
Ok.
What me worry? I hate all three back. We’re even.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 2:40 pmSays anon 12:56:
“Well okay, how about checkpoints and roadblocks to ensure that no suicide bombers or assailents are able to cross into Israel with ease and murder as many civilians as they can? — umm.. no, how dare Israel do such a thing. Restricting right of travel? Abhorrent.
Hmm.. how bout a wall just to create a barrier. Two sides minding their own business — No, that’s an apartheid wall you moron and Israel should have never built it.”
How ’bout building it on the internationally recognized border? Nope, can’t do that, it might leave a viable Palestinian state.
How ’bout ceasing the relentless expansion of Israel’s colonies in another people’s country? Nah, Israel needs lebensraum.
Metastasizing apartheid states are metastasizing apartheid states, and no amount of whitewashing will make that not so.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 3:13 pmanon 3:13
“relentless expansion” — you’ve got to be kidding me. Yes, the expansion is moving an an appalling rate. What technology the israeli’s have! They are able to give back land, offer more land, while relentlessly expanding at the same time! Puh-leeze. And into what country is israel expanding? Do tell. As always, it’s easier to blame Israel for everything gone awry then to maybe, gasp! (absurd suggestion alert), take a look inwards. But you do get a lot of pretension points for working the word “metastasizing” into your comment.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 3:26 pmAnon: 3:26,
Way to ignore what anon 3:13 said.
Good job anon 3:13…these racists can’t stand up to facts.
Just admit it, you want Israel for Jews only and until the Palestinians submit to Israel’s control without gaining equal rights under the law, Israel will continue its tyranny.
Posted by Pali-American | September 19, 2007, 3:37 pm3:37 wow, classic projection you have going on. Says more about what you think than you probably want to let on. I could care less who lives in Israel. Is it too much to ask, though, to not have people coming in and blowing innocent civilians up?
And if I recall, palestinians selling land to Jews are deemed collaberators and killed in cold blood. So toss the word ‘racist’ around like it aint no thing, but take a look in the mirror homie.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 4:01 pmProjecting? Nah, playboy. Speaking the truth, you know it and all the obfusication in the world can’t change that.
Create one country, encompassing Israel, the west bank and Gaza. Give equal citizenship to all and equal treatment under the law. If someone kills someone, try them for murder.
Posted by Pali-American | September 19, 2007, 4:13 pmEduardo,
Thanks for the compliment.
You are merely an ignoramus that does not uderstand the difference between the Arabs of 48 who are Israeli citizens and the Arabs of 67 that are not.
Whoever said that there is democracy in the occupied territories? There is occupation and the sooner the Pals come to their senses the sooner the occupation will end.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 7:28 pmRoy,
“You have mixed up cause and effect. Israel targets militants because those militants have been and are plotting attacks.”
Says who? Fox News or grandma?
“I guess we’ll see. Then you can laugh out loud some more.”
You didn’t answer my question. And no Roy, I won’t be laughing at the suffering of a people by a Nazi-like regime.
“But to address the greater stupidity of Nidalio’s remark…Even if you blame Israel for the animosity, is it not still accurate to say that they’re enemies?”
Anyone with half a brain knows that for the most part, Palestinians and Israelis are enemies. Is that all what you got out of the article you posted? Roy, do you actually read more than the title of the stuff you post? The article says that Israel brands the Palestinians their enemy and that they need to take action in the form of sanctions against this enemy. The implication here is that the “poor” Israelis with their F-16s and tanks are concerned about the enemy that is surrounded by air, land, and sea, and who’s already suffering economic and healthcare hardships. So anyone would be baffled at the implication that Hamas causes a greater threat to Israel as if Hamas were as powerful as Iran.
Posted by Nidalio | September 19, 2007, 8:18 pmpali-american, you really think creating one big country is going to solve anything? Honestly? You use big words playboy, so I imagine you’re smarter than that.
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007, 9:55 pmSays anon 3:26-
“But you do get a lot of pretension points for working the word “metastasizing” into your comment.”
By “pretension”, I assume you mean “Using precisely the correct metaphor to represent the the deadly and unremitting expansion of the Zionist enterprise into the land of another people, with the predictable dire results”.
Idiosyncratic way to use the term, but thanks for the props.
That is what you meant, right?
Feel free to look up any of the words in this post that you’re unfamiliar with before you get down on all fours and call them “pretentious”.
How about, “You’re an asshat”? That down-to-earth enough for you?
Posted by Anonymous | September 20, 2007, 5:17 amno, by pretension i mean pretension, crybaby. has your way of thinking accomplished anything for the people you supposedly want to help? didn’t think so, sucker
Posted by Anonymous | September 20, 2007, 7:41 amSays who? Fox News or grandma?
What a fantastic, logical argument, Nidalio. Well played. The facts say that Israel targets militants because they’re militants. And militants are militants because they plan and carry out attacks. You’re not familiar with the existence and behavior of Palestinian militants?
You really want to contend that the indiscriminate attacks Palestinian militants do are justifiable and reasonable responses to Israel’s unreasonable violence? Really? Or is there something you need to clarify about your position on this?
The article says that Israel brands the Palestinians their enemy and that they need to take action in the form of sanctions against this enemy.
It doesn’t say anything about “need”. Israel is simply acknowledging the enemy status and treating them accordingly.
The implication here is that the “poor” Israelis
There’s no such implication.
are concerned about the enemy that is surrounded by air, land, and sea, and who’s already suffering economic and healthcare hardships.
Hardships of their own making. They can stop being the enemy at any time. They choose not to. You always ignore that.
Posted by Roy | September 20, 2007, 9:15 am“Hardships of their own making.”
Agreed. Palestinians can end the war. Palestinians should simply remove their troops from Israel and back into their borders of Palestine, out of Israel.
And next time I want to visit Palestine, I will apply for a visa directly from the Governtment of Palestine, and not Israel – since Israel does not control Palestinians or Palestine.
Posted by Pali-American | September 20, 2007, 9:20 amyou clearly make fun of the fact that there is no government or nation of palestine, yet claim that israel moves into its borders.. idont get it?
Posted by Anonymous | September 20, 2007, 9:27 amAnon 9:27 am,
There is an entity, a nation-state, Israel. That entity has an army. That entity uses its army to control the lives of millions of people. Of those millions of people, 50% of them are denied citizenship to this nation-state, yet are subjected to its control. This has gone on for over 60 years.
The Palestinians who are under the control of Israel are subjected to constant tyranny and oppression.
I hope you get it now.
Posted by Pali-American | September 20, 2007, 9:32 amAgreed. Palestinians can end the war. Palestinians should simply call off their terrorist hordes.
Fixed that for you, trolli-american.
Posted by Roy | September 20, 2007, 10:54 amIsrael should abandon its racist idea for a state and call of its IDF terrorists.
Fixed that for you, Zionut bitch.
Posted by Pali-American | September 20, 2007, 11:00 amso the very idea of the israeli state angers you i see… fancy that,
Posted by Anonymous | September 20, 2007, 11:21 amNo bitch. The very idea of a state built on the backs of an indiginous people, where the state controls yet denies people equal rights based on their religion angers all sensible people who demand justice, for all.
On a personal note, it angers me when my cousins are beaten in the streets, shot at, when my grandmother can’t get to the hospital, when my father’s land is taken and a settlement is built on top of it, and I have to beg the Isralie govt. to give me a visa to visit my homeland and family…
Fancy that.
Posted by Pali-American | September 20, 2007, 11:26 am