Germany Rules BDS movement as Anti-Semitic

[Proctopeo]

Why do you exhibit the mirror double standard; an Arab ethnostate seems to be fine and dandy in your eyes, but not a Jewish one.

Ethnostates are always bad. I was just noting the hypocracy

[x] doubt

The population of Gaza and West Bank are deeply antisemitic, giving them full control over the region would invariably lead to a second Holocaust, just with much more sand everywhere. This is not to mention that, in general, the Middle East, not just Gaza & West Bank, are very antisemitic.
It's also likely Christians, other sorts of non-Muslims, and likely whatever Shias and Ibadis and other non-Sunni Muslims live in the area too, would see similar treatment, just perhaps not as brutal to start with. GLBT+ communities would also probably find themselves very, very dead in such an event, and you sound like one very inclined to support that group.

First of all, stop pretending you give a shit about LGBT. Especially as I have only seen you bring them up as a way to demonise Muslims.

Bitch, I'm bisexual. It's not my fault Muslim countries, especially in the Middle East, have horrific human rights records when it comes to GLBT. It's your fault you get your underwear in a knot whenever this is brought up.

Secondly you seem to assume that all Arabs are a hivemind who all have the same beliefs. Again, do you think that Arabs are inferior?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Not an argument.

Stefan? Is that you?

You could try actually saying something of substance for once.

Care to explain why?

Are you serious? You think herding Palestinians into concentration camps and forcing them to live in abject squalor is OK? You think there are no Israelis who support BDS?

You still haven't explained why "everything in that paragraph is wrong".

The population of Gaza and West Bank are deeply antisemitic, giving them full control over the region would invariably lead to a second Holocaust, just with much more sand everywhere. This is not to mention that, in general, the Middle East, not just Gaza & West Bank, are very antisemitic.
It's also likely Christians, other sorts of non-Muslims, and likely whatever Shias and Ibadis and other non-Sunni Muslims live in the area too, would see similar treatment, just perhaps not as brutal to start with. GLBT+ communities would also probably find themselves very, very dead in such an event, and you sound like one very inclined to support that group.

Amusingly enough a number of Arab governments in the region, particularly Syria, are far better for Christians than Israel is.

Syria is generally an anomaly in most things.
What I do find interesting is, while Shias supporting al-Assad makes sense (given that he's one, specifically an Alawite), Christians in Syria tend to support him too.

[Aclion]

There were a lot less Jews in Israel in 1949, and were quite a few scattered about the middle east until the governments decided on some ethnic cleansing themselves. The region of Palestine itself pre-settlement had a pretty low population (700,000 in 1920, 70,000 of which were Jews).

And then Israel expelled 80% of the Palestinian Arab population from land they had lived on for over a thousand years.

Saying that Israel expelled them is pretty dishonest. Many fled during the civil war that followed the UN partition plan and the following Arab-Israel war.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

And then Israel expelled 80% of the Palestinian Arab population from land they had lived on for over a thousand years.

Saying that Israel expelled them is pretty dishonest. Many fled during the civil war that followed the UN partition plan and the following Arab-Israel war.

It does generally forbid the Palestinian refugees of '48 and their descendants from returning to their homes of origin though, which contravenes U.N. Resolution 194, which explicitly grants the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their residences at the earliest possible date, and hence why BDS specifically singles it out as a violation of international law. Whether the Palestinians were directly forced out by Israel or not changes nothing about the fact that they are generally blocked from returning, and since it contravenes UNGA Resolution 194 which grants them the right of voluntary return, it's violating the law.

[Jakker]

Bitch, I'm bisexual.

While I understand you were using that kind of language to drive your point, it is best to not directly or indirectly call another player names like that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No BDS is no anti-Semitic, and amusingly enough all the efforts to squash it across the western world only give anti-Semites more propaganda about how powerful the Jewish lobby really is.

^This, that Israel is so desperate to conflate itself with the Jewish people will only drive antisemitism because people will make that association.

[Druulis]

Ethnostates are always bad. I was just noting the hypocracy

[x] doubt

OHH a gamer meme! You sure told me!

First of all, stop pretending you give a shit about LGBT. Especially as I have only seen you bring them up as a way to demonise Muslims.

Bitch, I'm bisexual.

And?

It's not my fault Muslim countries, especially in the Middle East, have horrific human rights records when it comes to GLBT. It's your fault you get your underwear in a knot whenever this is brought up.

Muslim countries do not equate to all Muslims.

Secondly you seem to assume that all Arabs are a hivemind who all have the same beliefs. Again, do you think that Arabs are inferior?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I'm not seeing a no...

Stefan? Is that you?

You could try actually saying something of substance for once.

And you could try making an argument that isnt Alt Right bullshit.

Are you serious? You think herding Palestinians into concentration camps and forcing them to live in abject squalor is OK? You think there are no Israelis who support BDS?

You still haven't explained why "everything in that paragraph is wrong".

I have. It's not my fault you can't read.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, BDS is anti-Semitic in that it denies that Jews have the right to self-determination. That's anti-Semitism, per the Working Definition that the European Council and State Department agree on.

https://european-forum-on-antisemitism. ... sh-english

Having Israel not treat Palestinians like garbage to be pushed out of their homes is not antisemitism or denying them their self-determination (although it is denying the Palestinians same right).

You're not Evangelical, so you certainly have no obligation to lick Israel's boots.

[Proctopeo]

Bitch, I'm bisexual.

While I understand you were using that kind of language to drive your point, it is best to not directly or indirectly call another player names like that.

I'd imagine that constantly insinuating that people are racist for disagreeing with you is more severe than calling someone a bitch.

[x] doubt

OHH a gamer meme! You sure told me!

I guess they never miss, huh?

Bitch, I'm bisexual.

And?

Then quite obviously I'd give a shit about GLBT, since I am one? It's very simple.

It's not my fault Muslim countries, especially in the Middle East, have horrific human rights records when it comes to GLBT. It's your fault you get your underwear in a knot whenever this is brought up.

Muslim countries do not equate to all Muslims.

This is true, but nowhere have I made that equation myself.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I'm not seeing a no...

And it seems as if I'm not seeing one either.

You could try actually saying something of substance for once.

And you could try making an argument that isnt Alt Right bullshit.

I feel as if you're calling things "alt right" as an escape tactic when you get caught with your pants down.

You still haven't explained why "everything in that paragraph is wrong".

I have.

You very clearly haven't.

[United Gilead]

Excuse me but what? How is BDS antisemitic whatsoever? Is boycotting countries run by war lords racist against Africans?

[New Bremerton]

The closest South African analogy to the ZANU-PF, called the Economic Freedom Fighters, led by the notorious black supremacist Julius Malema, has drastically underperformed in the polls, gaining little more than 10.7% of the vote in this year's general election and holds no meaningful influence on the nation's government, and considering the ANC is built upon the legacy of Nelson Mandela (Who AFAIK never wanted to kill all the whites in his country and was in fact criticized by some of the more militant sections of post-Apartheid RSA for "selling out to the devilz!1!1!"), I strongly doubt they would ever want to genocide White South Africans, especially since that would almost guarantee them being completely embargoed from the rest of the world and face a possible UN-Sponsored invasion after it becomes clear a genocide is happening, so yeah, the chances of South Africa suddenly turning black supremacist, even if the EFF won 16% of the votes this year as some of the bolder polls predicted, is slim to almost nonexistent.

Nelson Mandela has since passed away, and his voice is no longer there to restrain the extremists who are calling for blood. He is the exception to the rule. There are voices within the ANC calling for the deaths of whites i.e. "shoot the Boers". While they are not entirely dominant, they are sufficiently influential enough to cause the South African government to respond much more leniently in cases of black-on-white racism and black-on-other minorities racism compared to white-on-black racism. The political situation remains fluid.

As for a UN-sponsored military intervention, I wouldn't count on it. The nations of the world, including the United States, have an abysmal track record of failing to prevent genocides when they happen. More recently, Trump and particularly Obama had a window of opportunity to take decisive action in Syria to deter further bloodshed from the murderous Assad regime and force a detente and they completely bungled it, all in the name of "peace" and anti-war isolationism. The international media also has a tendency to ignore black-on-white and black-on-other minorities racism and focus on instances of white-on-black racism in South Africa, the BBC being one such example.

But I feel like we're beginning to veer off-topic here. This thread is about whether BDS is antisemitic or not.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

The closest South African analogy to the ZANU-PF, called the Economic Freedom Fighters, led by the notorious black supremacist Julius Malema, has drastically underperformed in the polls, gaining little more than 10.7% of the vote in this year's general election and holds no meaningful influence on the nation's government, and considering the ANC is built upon the legacy of Nelson Mandela (Who AFAIK never wanted to kill all the whites in his country and was in fact criticized by some of the more militant sections of post-Apartheid RSA for "selling out to the devilz!1!1!"), I strongly doubt they would ever want to genocide White South Africans, especially since that would almost guarantee them being completely embargoed from the rest of the world and face a possible UN-Sponsored invasion after it becomes clear a genocide is happening, so yeah, the chances of South Africa suddenly turning black supremacist, even if the EFF won 16% of the votes this year as some of the bolder polls predicted, is slim to almost nonexistent.

Nelson Mandela has since passed away, and his voice is no longer there to restrain the extremists who are calling for blood. He is the exception to the rule. There are voices within the ANC calling for the deaths of whites i.e. "shoot the Boers". While they are not entirely dominant, they are sufficiently influential enough to cause the South African government to respond much more leniently in cases of black-on-white racism and black-on-other minorities racism compared to white-on-black racism. The political situation remains fluid.

As for a UN-sponsored military intervention, I wouldn't count on it. The nations of the world, including the United States, have an abysmal track record of failing to prevent genocides when they happen. More recently, Trump and particularly Obama had a window of opportunity to take decisive action in Syria to deter further bloodshed from the murderous Assad regime and force a detente and they completely bungled it, all in the name of "peace" and anti-war isolationism. The international media also has a tendency to ignore black-on-white and black-on-other minorities racism and focus on instances of white-on-black racism in South Africa, the BBC being one such example.

But I feel like we're beginning to veer off-topic here. This thread is about whether BDS is antisemitic or not.

It's worth noting that Jacob Zuma (The guy behind the whole "Shoot the Boers" nonsense) has been forced to resign under threats of impeachment for being involved in massive corruption scandals, systematically plundering the country's economy and public resources (It's thanks to him RSA is in such a desolate state today, and is a reason why many South Africans hate him) and abuse of power, and the ANC is now being led by a reformist called Cyril Ramaphosa, who has been especially strengthened after the ANC won yet another landslide victory in spite of some polls predicting they could fall below the 50% threshold for the first time and thus lose their majority, and many attribute it to his efforts to clean the party from Zuma's cronies and his genuine attempts at reform, thus consolidating his rule, and while it is still uncertain whether or not he will manage to thoroughly de-Zumaize the party now, it is highly implausible he is the type to consider massacring non-black citizens.

[Tarsonis]

Why do you exhibit the mirror double standard; an Arab ethnostate seems to be fine and dandy in your eyes, but not a Jewish one.

Ethnostates are always bad. I was just noting the hypocracy

There's nothing wrong with an ethnostates in theory. If a group of ethnic nationalists had their own nation and that was the way they operated, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Even if they were wildly xenophobic, had closed borders and never contacted the outside world, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. The problem is when they start murdering their citizens and their neighbors because they're not of the same ethnicity, which isn't and inherent ideal of the ethnostate but rather fascist ethnostates.

[Novus America]

I think Germany is right to condemn BDS as inherently antisemitic, not because of any legitimate criticisms BDS supporters, not all of whom are antisemitic, may have against the State of Israel, but principally because of the third stated objective of the movement, which guarantees that "Palestinian refugees" should have a "right of return" to all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea, thereby giving rise to the creation of an Arab-Muslim nation-state next to another Arab-Muslim nation-state (their twisted version of a two-state solution).

The Jews in Israel would lose their only nation-state and live in fear of a largely intolerant Arab-Muslim majority in their own homeland, where they would be made to recognize the supremacy of Islam and Muslims over the infidel dhimmis, which is practically the case across the entire Muslim world to varying degrees. This so-called "right of return" would effectively enable Arabs and Muslims in all of historic Palestine to persecute Jews, Christians, atheists, LGBT people and other minorities in the region with impunity as they have been doing across the entire Muslim world for centuries.

There are over 50 Muslim-majority countries and over 20 Arab-majority countries where minorities continue to suffer in silence, and BDS would only encourage Arab/Palestinian racist ultranationalists and Islamist extremists to extend their oppressive rule to all of historic Palestine and subjugate the Jews in their midst. BDS is only interested in allowing millions of Arab "refugees" to flood into Israel unchecked and eliminate the Jewish state through sheer demographics alone, and BDS supporters have the nerve to accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing and genocide. This alone is why BDS is inherently antisemitic, even if many BDS supporters are not. The first two objectives are merely a smokescreen.

The vast majority of Israeli Jews, many of whom were born in Israel and are not descended from European Jews, will never accept this. Last I checked, the Muslim world has a piss poor track record of respecting the rights of minorities compared to Israel. Conversely, Israel's treatment of its minorities, while far from perfect, is such that Arab-Israelis and the Jewish descendants of those who were already residing in historic Palestine prior to 1948 and 1917 would rather live in Israel than in a racist Palestinian state that will not accept a single Jew within its borders.

Having said that, I abhor any attempts by Germany to outlaw any vocal support for BDS, recognition of a Palestinian state, criticism of Israel (whether legitimate or veiled antisemitism), Zionism, Judaism, and even outright Holocaust denial and antisemitic hate speech, or outright ban boycotts of Israel by private citizens, as a step too far, but it has every right to determine its official foreign and trade policy with Israel and restrict BDS activities along those lines. European governments do tend to go too far in restricting freedom of expression, which is what sets them apart from America and will only serve to play into the antisemitic narrative of an all-powerful Jewish lobby, a view held by many BDS supporters.

Even I have my criticisms of Israel and Netanyahu, particularly with regards to its foreign relations, and domestic issues to a lesser extent. But the motion passed by the German parliament is an act of censure, not censorship. The motion simply states that BDS is antisemitic and the government will have nothing to do with it. While the insinuation that Zionists are attempting to conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism is not entirely unfounded, the line separating anti-Zionism from antisemitism is often frequently blurred in practice, and the condemnation of BDS, which explicitly denies Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, is long overdue.

Was abolishing Apartheid in South Africa and declaring fully equal rights between coloureds and whites anti-white by this logic? Because RSA too under a National Party government was supposed to be a state "solely for the white man and christian civilization", and to maintain their hegemony, they needed to restrict and segregate the indigenous black population as much as possible, while maintaining the "purity" of their community. Once Mandela was freed, Apartheid was abolished, and the ANC fell, South Africa was no longer a state just for whites, but I didn't see any state-sponsored genocides against Caucasians or other non-african races occur there, nor did it become an black supremacist dictatorship the likes of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. BDS would be far more likely to support Fatah and the more leftwing palestinian organizations (Which are in overall more tolerant towards Jews as an ethnicity) than Hamas (Which is basically Palestinian ISIL), so the canard that all Jews are suddenly gonna be massacred and ethnically cleansed if Arabs are allowed the voluntary right of return or full emancipation is unfounded at best and ridiculous at worst.

Except that more Palestinian Arabs support Hamas, which won the last election by a large margin.
Why do you think it would end up like South Africa instead of Zimbabwe?

Also the SA analogy is bad because Israeli Arabs have full rights.

Palestinians Arabs should be able to return to their state, that is the State of Palestine.

The idea of a tolerant rainbow nation in the region is cute and all, but not realistic.

There will have to be two separate states, clearly one is not going to work in this case.
It would immediately implode into a Civil War anyways, which take us right back the the late 40s and square one.

You want the best analogy for what would happen?
The British Mandate of Palestine in the late 40s.

[Novus America]

Saying that Israel expelled them is pretty dishonest. Many fled during the civil war that followed the UN partition plan and the following Arab-Israel war.

It does generally forbid the Palestinian refugees of '48 and their descendants from returning to their homes of origin though, which contravenes U.N. Resolution 194, which explicitly grants the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their residences at the earliest possible date, and hence why BDS specifically singles it out as a violation of international law. Whether the Palestinians were directly forced out by Israel or not changes nothing about the fact that they are generally blocked from returning, and since it contravenes UNGA Resolution 194 which grants them the right of voluntary return, it's violating the law.

UNGA 194 is in contravention of the treatment of other refugees.
Why do Palestinians Refugees get special rights not given to other refugees?

[Nakena]

Except that more Palestinian Arabs support Hamas, which won the last election by a large margin.
Why do you think it would end up like South Africa instead of Zimbabwe?

Also the SA analogy is bad because Israeli Arabs have full rights.

Palestinians Arabs should be able to return to their state, that is the State of Palestine.

The idea of a tolerant rainbow nation in the region is cute and all, but not realistic.

There will have to be two separate states, clearly one is not going to work in this case.
It would immediately implode into a Civil War anyways, which take us right back the the late 40s and square one.

You want the best analogy for what would happen?
The British Mandate of Palestine in the late 40s.

The only way a multi-ethnic single state solution could work, would be under a atheist or secular totalitarian Saddam Hussein tier Dictatorship who oppresses even the slightest notion of religious or nationalist sentiment with an iron fist.

[Novus America]

Except that more Palestinian Arabs support Hamas, which won the last election by a large margin.
Why do you think it would end up like South Africa instead of Zimbabwe?

Also the SA analogy is bad because Israeli Arabs have full rights.

Palestinians Arabs should be able to return to their state, that is the State of Palestine.

The idea of a tolerant rainbow nation in the region is cute and all, but not realistic.

There will have to be two separate states, clearly one is not going to work in this case.
It would immediately implode into a Civil War anyways, which take us right back the the late 40s and square one.

You want the best analogy for what would happen?
The British Mandate of Palestine in the late 40s.

The only way a multi-ethnic single state solution could work, would be under a atheist or secular totalitarian Saddam Hussein tier Dictatorship who oppresses even the slightest notion of religious or nationalist sentiment with an iron fist.

Yes, Yugoslavia only held together when it was ruled by a half Serb half Croat dictator with an iron fist. And it imploded after he died.
Something like that is the only way you could possibly (not guarantee as many such rulers still fail) delay (but probably not stop long term) a return to the Mandate of Palestine circa late 40s.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I don't think anyone has the right to national self-determination, Israel included. People have a right to exist. Nation-states do not.

^

[Novus America]

I don't think anyone has the right to national self-determination, Israel included. People have a right to exist. Nation-states do not.

^

But without a state to protect you, how do you actually enforce your right to exist?
The two issues are not completely separate.

Sure you can say “you do not need an ethnic nation state to protect your right to exist”.
Okay but then we need a viable way they are protected without their nation state.

[Bear Stearns]

Except that more Palestinian Arabs support Hamas, which won the last election by a large margin.
Why do you think it would end up like South Africa instead of Zimbabwe?

Also the SA analogy is bad because Israeli Arabs have full rights.

Palestinians Arabs should be able to return to their state, that is the State of Palestine.

The idea of a tolerant rainbow nation in the region is cute and all, but not realistic.

There will have to be two separate states, clearly one is not going to work in this case.
It would immediately implode into a Civil War anyways, which take us right back the the late 40s and square one.

You want the best analogy for what would happen?
The British Mandate of Palestine in the late 40s.

The only way a multi-ethnic single state solution could work, would be under a atheist or secular totalitarian Saddam Hussein tier Dictatorship who oppresses even the slightest notion of religious or nationalist sentiment with an iron fist.

Are we just admitting that multiculturalism doesn't actually work unless you have an authoritarian state to keep nationalists in line?

[Novus America]

The only way a multi-ethnic single state solution could work, would be under a atheist or secular totalitarian Saddam Hussein tier Dictatorship who oppresses even the slightest notion of religious or nationalist sentiment with an iron fist.

Are we just admitting that multiculturalism doesn't actually work unless you have an authoritarian state to keep nationalists in line?

Depending on how one defines ”multiculturalism” yes.
There has to be something to get people to live together peacefully and tolerably.
A common sense of identity can do that.
Or fear/force.

It should be noted a society need not have complete monoculture either.
There can be differences in culture that do not conflict with the greater culture.

After all a Yemeni Jew, a German Jew, a Ethiopian Jew and German Jew do not have the exact same culture. But they do have enough a common identity to unite them.
Even Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs have enough of a common Israeli identity to mostly work, though there are problems there.

Extreme “multiculturalism” in which there is no common culture whatsoever will not work of course.
There has to be at least some unifying factors.

[Nakena]

The only way a multi-ethnic single state solution could work, would be under a atheist or secular totalitarian Saddam Hussein tier Dictatorship who oppresses even the slightest notion of religious or nationalist sentiment with an iron fist.

Are we just admitting that multiculturalism doesn't actually work unless you have an authoritarian state to keep nationalists in line?

I am admitting that the plebeius shouldn be in power and that popular sovereignty as a concept can lead to genocide, civil war and ethnic cleansing.

I am not the greatest fan of multiculturalism either ^^

[The South Falls]

Are we just admitting that multiculturalism doesn't actually work unless you have an authoritarian state to keep nationalists in line?

I am admitting that the plebeius shouldn be in power and that popular sovereignty as a concept can lead to genocide, civil war and ethnic cleansing.

As can letting the violet rule, as a small group's whims can easily be changed towards detrimental aims.

[Novus America]

I am admitting that the plebeius shouldn be in power and that popular sovereignty as a concept can lead to genocide, civil war and ethnic cleansing.

As can letting the violet rule, as a small group's whims can easily be changed towards detrimental aims.

Which is why we developed democratic constitutional republics and democratic constitutional monarchies rather than pure democracy.
It is designed as a balance between top down and bottom up rule.
Between dictatorship and true democracy.

[Nakena]

The only way a multi-ethnic single state solution could work, would be under a atheist or secular totalitarian Saddam Hussein tier Dictatorship who oppresses even the slightest notion of religious or nationalist sentiment with an iron fist.

Yes, Yugoslavia only held together when it was ruled by a half Serb half Croat dictator with an iron fist. And it imploded after he died.
Something like that is the only way you could possibly (not guarantee as many such rulers still fail) delay (but probably not stop long term) a return to the Mandate of Palestine circa late 40s.

I do not believe a single state solution is going to happen anytime soon. More likely even Israel going to outright annexing whats left of Palestine and turning their population into helot status of a subjected people. Which I believe, they will do some day one way or another. Palestine would, if it continues to exist as own entity, become sort of a middle eastern bantustan.

(hadn read your post)

[Novus America]

Yes, Yugoslavia only held together when it was ruled by a half Serb half Croat dictator with an iron fist. And it imploded after he died.
Something like that is the only way you could possibly (not guarantee as many such rulers still fail) delay (but probably not stop long term) a return to the Mandate of Palestine circa late 40s.

I do not believe a single state solution is going to happen anytime soon. More likely even Israel going to outright annexing whats left of Palestine and turning their population into helot status of a subjected people. Which I believe, they will do some day one way or another. Palestine would, if it continues to exist as own entity, become sort of a middle eastern bantustan.

(hadn read your post)

Well with the exception of Gaza. Palestine will possibly be basically reduced to Gaza. Pretty much nobody in Israel wants Gaza.

But the annexation of area C of the West Bank, which would leave the remaining Palestinian Arabs territory a Bantustan type mess is being considered.
What happens to the remaining Palestinians Arabs is the real question.

I do not expect anything too decisive though.
Israelis are very divided on what exactly to do with the West Bank.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaret ... -1.7047313
Slowly eating away at Area C is going to continue though.

There is no foreseeable way to get any Israeli majority to agree to a comprehensive final peace deal.
Let alone getting the Palestinian Arabs to agree to one.
Let alone each agreeing internally to a deal acceptable to the other.