Boycotts of Israel are a protected form of free speech - LA Times

[Hooked]

How come people that criticize Israel aren't called racists like people who criticize mexico?

[Majestic12]

I gotta say, i don't believe you.
If you really lived in israel, you'd know there is no segregation.
and that there are israeli arabs everywhere.

and anyway, why should i "combat" any of your claims?
you haven't shown anything to support your claims.
you're just lying and saying "it's not about Muslims wanting to kill jews" while that's exactly what it's all about, and they are not shy in saying it.

so why should i try to prove someone so dishonest?

even israeli arabs can't prove there is segregation, cause there isn't.

There is, in the sense that Israelis rarely meet Palestinians. At least that was the case in Jerusalem where someone born and raised in predominantly Israeli neighbourhoods had never even met a Palestinian before. You don't live among each other like you used to.

Call it being dishonest if you like, I am sure the factual version of the six-day war where Israel attacked first isn't what is being taught in your schools. See, that's the beauty of being a third party - I am unbiased and can see facts very clearly. Israel is not a nation of saints. In fact, I think you all deserve each other down there. Until you learn how to live with each other you'll still live in conflict.

As long as Israel markets itself as a democratic western country, I will keep holding it to higher standards that it is currently fails hard in meeting.

Edit: Also, apartheid and segregation are not 100% the same. Apartheid is what was going on in South Africa. It is different from what you are doing in your Jewish state. Your video is irrelevant.

[Barendon]

Wrong. The goal is to stop illegal settlements which hurt the peace process.

It's obvious who's the one that needs to be stopped here.

Yep, it's very obvious when you link a biased and wrong picture to prove your point ^_^

[Majestic12]

Yep, it's very obvious when you link a biased and wrong picture to prove your point ^_^

Tell us how it is wrong, then, because from my end it looks 100% accurate. Or is it "wrong" because you simply don't like it?

[randprin]

There is, in the sense that Israelis rarely meet Palestinians. At least that was the case in Jerusalem where someone born and raised in predominantly Israeli neighbourhoods had never even met a Palestinian before. You don't live among each other like you used to.

Call it being dishonest if you like, I am sure the factual version of the six-day war where Israel attacked first isn't what is being taught in your schools. See, that's the beauty of being a third party - I am unbiased and can see facts very clearly. Israel is not a nation of saints. In fact, I think you all deserve each other down there. Until you learn how to live with each other you'll still live in conflict.

As long as Israel markets itself as a democratic western country, I will keep holding it to higher standards that it is currently fails hard in meeting.

what you are, honestly, is clueless.
all i have to do is raise my head from my keyboard and talk to samir who sits about 2 meters from me, or walk to the next office and talk to amir over at the QA dept to give lies to the claims of segregation within the borders of Israel.
The arab parties have about 10% of the seats on the israeli parliament, arabs are free to do anything in israel (including going to the same pizza place as me, studying in my Uni class, developing software in the cubicle next to me, and all without anyone being excited about it).

beyond the 67 lines, where the nuts, the religious fanatics and the general die hards live, yes, there is segregation, and that's because a not so small minority from both sides seems bent on killing their respective opposites. in that case, it's better to keep the idiots each on his own side of the fence and make sure they don't mix up.

(please note i'm talknig about us, the common folks. our leadership, unfortunately, has quite a few loose screws at the moment, and is actually very comfortable with the state of conflict as it allow them to deflect all sort of internal pressures and domestic issues)

[Barendon]

Tell us how it is wrong, then, because from my end it looks 100% accurate. Or is it "wrong" because you simply don't like it?

Huh.. no. I just countlessly talked about these maps in these discussions as it's always , always being brought up.
in the 1946 map, it's a complete lie. The Negev wasn't populated by jews or arabs, it was largly unoccpuied and was mostly the land of nomads and Bedouins. Also, those lands were conqured by britian in world war 1,which took the lands from the ottoman empire. So those are turkish lands, not arabian nor jewish lands.
If you cut the negev out of the picture in the 1947 map, you will see a more realistic picture of where most jews lived in and where most arabs lived at the time.
and it is as this map suggests divided by the UN in the partition plan, which the arabs disagreed with, attacked the jews and lost.
From 1949 till 1967, gaza was part of egypt and the west bank was part of Jordan.
During the 6 days war, israel conqured these part of Jordan and a larger area of egypt, and retrieved those lands right back to conflict because everyone missed it so.
the 1949-1967 is more like 1967-2001.
for the 2007 one, you gotta consider that the settlements in Gaza were completely shut down in 2006, and that in the west bank, it looks more like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ements2006.jpg than what's given to you. The Palestinians in the west bank contain most of it, while the jewish settlements are the minority. A minority that shouldn't be there, but still is.

[Deleted]

So the picture is not wrong, as you did not counter any of those pics, you only described them?

[Barendon]

So the picture is not wrong, as you did not counter any of those pics, you only described them?

Nope, I only described the partition plan one, and the one from 1949-1967 which were close to accurate, but still had minor mistakes. the 2007 and the 1946 ones are complete lies
the 1946 one is just including every non arab and jewish land as arab land. and in the 2007 one, it falsly shows you how the west bank and gaza are divided, which is also wrong. Gaza is untouched and the west bank is closely to how the picture I linked shows. It is mostly like the 1967 one.
Also! it doesn't include the Golan Heights for Israel in this map, such lazyiness from the creators.

[Seranthor]

Yes but state sanction to legitimate speech is unconstitutional.

So NY boycotting NC because of their bathroom law is unconstitutional? or the boycotts of IN because of their religious liberty law? Seems to me if those boycotts are legal then certainly the one that OP is bemoaning is.

[Mahourai]

Is this thread really the place for the same dozen posters from all the other Israel threads to rehash the same arguments, or can we just talk about the boycott stuff? You know, what the thread is actually about? Not whether Palestine is a real enough state or Youtube propaganda about how some girl can't think of examples of Israeli apartheid?

Here's another federal law about the issue, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015.

Commercial Partnerships.-

A) In general

With respect to an agreement that is proposed to be entered into with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership countries and to which section 3(b) will apply, the principal negotiating objectives of the United States regarding commercial partnerships are the following:

(i)To discourage actions by potential trading partners that directly or indirectly prejudice or otherwise discourage commercial activity solely between the United States and Israel.

(ii) To discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel and to seek the elimination of politically motivated nontariff barriers on Israeli goods, services, or other commerce imposed on the State of Israel.

(iii) To seek the elimination of state-sponsored unsanctioned foreign boycotts against Israel or compliance with the Arab League Boycott of Israel by prospective trading partners.

(B) Definition

In this paragraph, the term actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel means actions by states, non-member states of the United Nations, international organizations, or affiliated agencies of international organizations that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories.

- Source (not the final text afaik, the .gov server wasn't responding)

While the act appears to concern mainly state or international actors, section 2 enshrines into law that it's a priority for the US to discourage and eliminate BDS on a very broad level.

[Seranthor]

If people want to boycott a country committing violations and breaking international law, they should be allowed to. It's sad that they're being quashed by politicians.

No one is stopping you from your little boycott, they are just saying your actions have consequences. There IS a difference, even if YOU are incapable of seeing it.

[Tennis]

Yep, it's very obvious when you link a biased and wrong picture to prove your point ^_^

It really isn't. If anything it's much worse since they're stolen much more land since then.

[Mahourai]

No one is stopping you from your little boycott, they are just saying your actions have consequences. There IS a difference, even if YOU are incapable of seeing it.

The boycott is legally prohibited. You are harping on a ridiculous semantic distinction where getting taken to court for boycotting Israel still means "no one is stopping you".

[Deleted]

Nope, I only described the partition plan one, and the one from 1949-1967 which were close to accurate, but still had minor mistakes. the 2007 and the 1946 ones are complete lies
the 1946 one is just including every non arab and jewish land as arab land. and in the 2007 one, it falsly shows you how the west bank and gaza are divided, which is also wrong. Gaza is untouched and the west bank is closely to how the picture I linked shows. It is mostly like the 1967 one.
Also! it doesn't include the Golan Heights for Israel in this map, such lazyiness from the creators.

So you're not debating Israel's expansion, only details from the map itself.
Gotcha.

- - - Updated - - -

No one is stopping you from your little boycott, they are just saying your actions have consequences. There IS a difference, even if YOU are incapable of seeing it.

At an individual level? Not at all.

- - - Updated - - -

The boycott is legally prohibited. You are harping on a ridiculous semantic distinction where getting taken to court for boycotting Israel still means "no one is stopping you".

How do you take people to court for not buying Israeli goods?

[Barendon]

So you're not debating Israel's expansion, only details from the map itself.
Gotcha.

- - - Updated - - -



At an individual level? Not at all.

- - - Updated - - -



How do you take people to court for not buying Israeli goods?

Yep, I just think that it shows a false image. Israel is expanding, the current government of Israel is trying to annex as much lands as possible. But that's due to it being the superpower in the region, and the justification the citizens give due to continous terrorist attack and the dehumanization extreme right wing parties and stakeholders do to the palestinians based on said terrorist attacks.

- - - Updated - - -

It really isn't. If anything it's much worse since they're stolen much more land since then.

I'll be happy to debate with you on your opinion on this matter , after you answer and respond to the points I mentioned on the map.

[Tennis]

Yep, I just think that it shows a false image. Israel is expanding, the current government of Israel is trying to annex as much lands as possible. But that's due to it being the superpower in the region, and the justification the citizens give due to continous terrorist attack and the dehumanization extreme right wing parties and stakeholders do to the palestinians based on said terrorist attacks.

- - - Updated - - -


I'll be happy to debate with you on your opinion on this matter , after you answer and respond to the points I mentioned on the map.

Day after day more land is being seized.



A peaceful boycott is what citizens are allowed to do by the law.

[Deleted]

Yep, I just think that it shows a false image. Israel is expanding, the current government of Israel is trying to annex as much lands as possible. But that's due to it being the superpower in the region, and the justification the citizens give due to continous terrorist attack and the dehumanization extreme right wing parties and stakeholders do to the palestinians based on said terrorist attacks.

- - - Updated - - -


I'll be happy to debate with you on your opinion on this matter , after you answer and respond to the points I mentioned on the map.

I'm confused, you're dismissing the picture shown for what are minor details and yet you agree on the expansionistic nature of Israel?

[Mahourai]

How do you take people to court for not buying Israeli goods?

It wouldn't take that form, unless they had openly agitated for BDS so that the state's lawyers could demonstrate a political motive in refusing economic business with Israel.

The principle violation of the law - according to my exhaustive perusal of some public law sites for about 30 minutes - is that Arab League nations will submit requests to companies in contracts or work orders asking them to certify that their goods are not manufactured in Israel. Under US law, complying with this certification request is illegal, even if politics had nothing to do with the fact that your good are not made there, and even if you never had any business in Israel to begin with. In fact you are required to report any requests along this line to the Department of Commerce, and violations of any kind (either accepting the contracts with the offending requests or failing to report them even if you reject the contract) can trigger penalties of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars as well as prison time.

EDIT:

- Source

[Deleted]

It wouldn't take that form, unless they had openly agitated for BDS so that the state's lawyers could demonstrate a political motive in refusing economic business with Israel.

The principle violation of the law - according to my exhaustive perusal of some public law sites for about 30 minutes - is that Arab League nations will submit requests to companies in contracts or work orders asking them to certify that their goods are not manufactured in Israel. Under US law, complying with this certification request is illegal, even if politics had nothing to do with the fact that your good are not made there, and even if you never had any business in Israel to begin with. In fact you are required to report any requests along this line to the Department of Commerce, and violations of any kind (either accepting the contracts with the offending requests or failing to report them even if you reject the contract) can trigger penalties of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars as well as prison time.

EDIT:

- Source

Oh right ok I get you now.

- - - Updated - - -

Having said that, it still is up to personal choice. I mean X group will assign contracts to the companies they see fit. How do you regulate that?

[Stelio Kontos]

This BDS stuff is still going on?

I heard about it when it started a few years back. It helped me to begin paying attention to the products I buy so I can ensure I do buy Israeli products when available.

Has it had much of an impact on Israel's economy? Or is it mostly disgruntled Arabs and leftie university students sitting around talking about fighting the power?