babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Step 1: Cut teh bullshit, isolate the wackos from the movement and don't do anything that could be even remotely construed as being based on hating Jews or anything else that's gonna cost you support from the vast majority of "mainstream, reasonable" Canadians. So, no targetting individuals based on country of origin. No rallies where you yell at people to 'go back to the oven', no chasing Jews around university campuses and forcing them to barricade themselves in the Hillel lounge, no waving Hamas flags, no anti-apartheid posters where you indicate that someone is jewish and/or israeli by a crude caricature of a guy with a hooked nose that could have come from der Strumer.
Been tried already. The response was to make any critcism of Israel anti-semitic by definition and define it that way in dictionary.
Let's say that's correct (I don't think so but jsut for arguments sake).
Your logic is: we cut out the anti-semitism and jew-baiting and it still didn't end the occupation, ergo, let's go back to doing the anti-semitism and jew-baiting?
Tell you what. Why don't you let me tell you "what my logic is" and you can tell me yours. Fair?
Now we have idiots constantly muddying up the waters of what is a pretty cut and dried human rights issue, not unlike many other cut and dried human rights issues, with constant debates about the form of opposition, and optics.
What has priority: that a person is not barred from playing a game or that Palestinians are not barred from living in peace and dignity? Does justice for Peer, the individual, take precedence over the fate of an entire people? Peer has an opportunity, few people are so meaningfully presented in life, to sacrifice her love of playing tennis to bring attention to the plight of an oppressed people. Her silence about the plight of Gazans and her right to play tennis speak loudly....
What is a fundamental principle that favors the tennis playing rights of a woman while a people are slaughtered, even though she is not the slaughterer or that athletes from a nation that is a serial violator of international laws, practices open racism, carries out slow-motion genocide, and commits wanton violations of human rights with impunity are prevented from playing to stop the war crimes?
1. The star tennis player joined the Israeli military in 2005 and went through basic training.
2. Her induction was used for PR purposes by the military.
3. She served in the "IDF program for outstanding athletes."
4. The Israeli military is a belligerent occupying force that has violated international law consistently in various forms since its inception.
5. By willingly serving and putting her public image to the military's use, she abetted violations of international law.
6. The Israeli military recently killed more than 1000 Palestinians, the majority of whom were civilians.
7. There is an active, organized boycott movement that makes clear demands and is part of a political program. It was launched by Palestinian civil society in 2005.
8. She has shown no understanding for why people would be angry to see a former IDF soldier after the Gaza offensive. Her statement claims she is a victim of discrimination. She has not made any comment regarding the immobility of Palestinian athletes living under the occupation forces she served for.
She also claimed it is an "injustice," without any sense of irony for what upsets people about seeing her play -- to call missing a tennis tournament after the massacre perpetrated by the military she served perpetrated is a farce.
This is the kind of rank hypocrisy boycott movements MUST be directed towards -- this is the double standard that privileges Israel over the Palestinians and maintains its cruel occupation, dispossession, and robbery of them.
The New York Times and Shahar Peer both weep at the denial of any Israeli to compete in just one tournament. But does the Times and this self-entitled tennis player have any sympathy for those Palestinians denied to play in any tournament by Israel? Where is the Times’ self-righteous indignation for those Palestinians denied permission to leave the West Bank to they can compete? Zionist fanatics even launched an effort to prohibit the Palestinians from marching in the Olympics under their flag. They, the Zionist zealots, argued that allowing the Palestinians to march under their flag would be an endorsement by the International Olympic Committee of Palestinian sovereignty. At least Shahar Peer gets to compete somewhere. The Times’ sports columnist calls for a Dubai boycott; would he ever call for an Israel boycott because Israel doesn’t allows dozens of Palestinians the right to compete not only in overseas games but in Israeli games? No, of course they wouldn’t. For the Times, their sympathy extends only to one people due to their racism against Arabs.
Yes, it is ONE tennis tournament but so what? it's like saying that Arthur Ashe should ahve just shut the fuck up about not being allowed into SOME tournaments in Jim Crow states when he could still play OTHER tournaments...it's a red herring. Discrimiantion is discrimination, whether based on race or country of origin and whether something relatively benign like being barred from a tennis tournament or soemthing more serious like having your ability to leave your country restricted. I mean, before Canada legalized gay marriage, it wouldn't have been right to tell gay people "oh quit whining. you get the same benefits, even if it means being treated as second class. hell, gays in Iran are HANGED! jsut take your seat at the back of the bus and be thankful you have a seat at all."
SSC, that's what a sports boycott is. Disagreeing with this example means disagreeing with the whole tactic. Maybe you do, but it's not about one person, it's about whether sports events should be subject to the boycott.
In another thread someone discussed a Naomi Klien talk where she spoke about who frames the debate. Here is a good example. SSC is lecturing those opposed to Apartheid Israel on acceptable methods of protest. The jist is you can protest all you want, as long as it is ineffective and completely inoffensive to those whom you are protesting.
I'm commenting on what might reasonable people might actually consider "effective" and I think most people would be put off by seeing people waving the flags of organizations like Hamas and hezbollah, thus rendering such an action "ineffective."
Answer this question honestly, Cueball: Do you consider Hamas to be an "anti-Semitic" organization?
If you answer yes, then my follow up would be: Is it an "effective" tactic to wave the flags of anti-Semitic organizations at rallies? Does this help win people over to the cause? Or does this turn people off from what might otherwise be a compelling message? If people are waving the flag of anti-Semitic organizations, could "reasonable people" possibly conclude that they, themselves, might be anti-semitic?
No. I don't. No more than I think that Zionism is anti-Arab. So, if you are going to ban Hamas flags (is there such a thing) we might as well ban the Israeli one too.
Short of that we could just make up posters with the Star of David, using the signature blue colour used in the Israeli flag, and put a red line in a circle over it.
Are they a "progressive" organization with which you'd be proud to be affiliated? Do they support equal rights for women? Basic human rights for gays? Can you not honestly see why an average canadian not quite sure where they stand might be turned off by seeing the flags of such an organization and question the motivations of the people who wave such flags?
I can't say that I'm super familiar with netenyahu's social policies but my understanding was that he was quite secular. I know there was a scandal right before the election when a paper published a picture of him eating in a non-kosher restaurants on shabbos.
I can't say that I'm super familiar with netenyahu's social policies but my understanding was that he was quite secular. I know there was a scandal right before the election when a paper published a picture of him eating in a non-kosher restaurants on shabbos.
Did you know that the previously disolved Palestinian parliment actually had more female MP's from the Hamas slate than those from Fatah, and that more women voted for Hamas than Fatah, and that his parliment had similar numbers of women MP's as does the Israeli Knesset?
Here is what one of those hindbound religious freakazoid Female Hamas members of parliment had to say upon being elected:
Quote:
"A lot of things need to change," she said. "Women in Gaza and the West Bank should be given complete rights. Some women and girls are made to marry someone they don't want to marry. This is not in our religion, it's our tradition. In our religion, a woman has a right to choose.
"As a woman and an MP, there are areas I want to concentrate on but that does not mean we have forgotten our struggle for our homeland, and preparing our children to die when the homeland calls for it."
Good thing we put an end to her political career by supporting blockade, enforcement of sanctions and the withdrawal of support funding for the PA and so encouraged Mamoud Abbas to exceed his presidential authority by disolving the parliment.
A gratudate of the crazed Islamic nutzo "Islamic Univeristy of Gaza" we can be thankful that this institution has ceased to educate women in such backward ideas, since it was recently blown up by the forces of secular enlightenment.
21% of Israeli exporters have been directly affected by the boycott movement since the beginning of 2009. So reports today (29 March) The Marker, a Hebrew-language economic newspaper.
This number is based on a poll of 90 Israeli exporters in fields such as high tech, metals, construction materials, chemistry, textile and foods. The poll was conducted in January-February 2009 by the Israeli Union of Industrialists.
If you answer yes, then my follow up would be: Is it an "effective" tactic to wave the flags of anti-Semitic organizations at rallies? Does this help win people over to the cause? Or does this turn people off from what might otherwise be a compelling message? If people are waving the flag of anti-Semitic organizations, could "reasonable people" possibly conclude that they, themselves, might be anti-semitic?
Yes, a lot of people are turned off by these protests even if they disagree with Israeli policies. That's why you don't see Peace Now at these rallies, for instance.
Yes, a lot of people are turned off by these protests even if they disagree with Israeli policies. That's why you don't see Peace Now at these rallies, for instance.
It's nothing to do with the fact that Peace Now is a Zionist organization and a member of Canadian Jewish Congress, of course!
I support the BDS strategy for Israel because it will work again, and it will work because it cuts to the heart of something that is so important to so many Israelis. And that is the idea of normalcy, the idea that Israel is really an honorary adjunct to North America and Europe - even though it happens to be located in the Middle East.
At the moment, it is possible to lead a very comfortable, very secure, very cosmopolitan life in most parts of Israel-despite the fact that Israel is at war with neighbors. I don't think Israel has a right to simultaneously rain bombs and missiles on Gaza, to attack Lebanon in 2006, to massively expand the settlements, and also have this state of normalcy within its borders. For justice to come, the status quo will have to first become uncomfortable.
When concerts are canceled in Tel Aviv, when tourists don't come to Israel, then, I believe, many Israelis will start putting pressure on their political leaders to finally negotiate a lasting peace. So I don't buy the argument that they'll just feel isolated and become more right wing. The threat of isolation can be a very powerful tool for progressive change in a country like Israel.
"It's an extraordinarily important part of Israel's identity to be able to have the illusion of Western normalcy," the Canadian writer and activist said.
"When that is threatened, when the rock concerts don't come, when the symphonies don't come, when a film you really want to see doesn't play at the Jerusalem film festival . . . then it starts to threaten the very idea of what the Israeli state is."
...
She pointed out that her visit coincided with court hearings in Quebec in a case where the villagers of Bilin are suing two Canadian companies, accusing them of illegally building and selling homes to Israelis on land that belongs to the village.
The plaintiffs claim that by building in the Jewish settlement of Modiin Illit, near Bilin, Green Park International and Green Mount International are in violation of international laws that prohibit an occupying power from transferring some of its population to the lands it occupies.
"I'm hoping and praying that Canadian courts will bring some justice to the people of Bilin," Klein said.
Here's another reason to Boycott Israel and for our US friends to do the same - seems the mainstream media dome of silence has descended on the outrageous Israeli piracy against the 'Spirit of Humanity' carrying humanitarian aid for Gaza and the holding of activists including Cynthia Mckinney. Where are the Delta force sharpshooters now?
Another Example of US Censorship of Mainstream Media:
Been tried already. The response was to make any critcism of Israel anti-semitic by definition and define it that way in dictionary.
Let's say that's correct (I don't think so but jsut for arguments sake).
Your logic is: we cut out the anti-semitism and jew-baiting and it still didn't end the occupation, ergo, let's go back to doing the anti-semitism and jew-baiting?
Tell you what. Why don't you let me tell you "what my logic is" and you can tell me yours. Fair?
Now we have idiots constantly muddying up the waters of what is a pretty cut and dried human rights issue, not unlike many other cut and dried human rights issues, with constant debates about the form of opposition, and optics.
Blah blah. Bullshit.
Has Stockholm been giving lessons in posting style?
Why not?
In another thread someone discussed a Naomi Klien talk where she spoke about who frames the debate. Here is a good example. SSC is lecturing those opposed to Apartheid Israel on acceptable methods of protest. The jist is you can protest all you want, as long as it is ineffective and completely inoffensive to those whom you are protesting.
"Reasonable people" and other fantasies of subjective viewpoint. I thought you were some kind of "scientist".
"Framing" is dead on. Frame jobs such has creating a definition of anti-semitism that includes any criticism of Israel, whatsoever.
Sung to the tune of "Rah! Rah! Rasputin" by Bonnie M.
Answer this question honestly, Cueball: Do you consider Hamas to be an "anti-Semitic" organization?
If you answer yes, then my follow up would be: Is it an "effective" tactic to wave the flags of anti-Semitic organizations at rallies? Does this help win people over to the cause? Or does this turn people off from what might otherwise be a compelling message? If people are waving the flag of anti-Semitic organizations, could "reasonable people" possibly conclude that they, themselves, might be anti-semitic?
No. I don't. No more than I think that Zionism is anti-Arab. So, if you are going to ban Hamas flags (is there such a thing) we might as well ban the Israeli one too.
Short of that we could just make up posters with the Star of David, using the signature blue colour used in the Israeli flag, and put a red line in a circle over it.
Looking forward to Benjamin Netanyahu's affirmation of his support for gay right in Israel, lover.
So your answer to the question "Is Netanyahu homphobic?" is that "he eats non-Kosher food"?
Did you know that the previously disolved Palestinian parliment actually had more female MP's from the Hamas slate than those from Fatah, and that more women voted for Hamas than Fatah, and that his parliment had similar numbers of women MP's as does the Israeli Knesset?
Here is what one of those hindbound religious freakazoid Female Hamas members of parliment had to say upon being elected:
Women MPs vow to change face of Hamas
Good thing we put an end to her political career by supporting blockade, enforcement of sanctions and the withdrawal of support funding for the PA and so encouraged Mamoud Abbas to exceed his presidential authority by disolving the parliment.
A gratudate of the crazed Islamic nutzo "Islamic Univeristy of Gaza" we can be thankful that this institution has ceased to educate women in such backward ideas, since it was recently blown up by the forces of secular enlightenment.
21% of Israeli exporters have been directly affected by the boycott movement since the beginning of 2009. So reports today (29 March) The Marker, a Hebrew-language economic newspaper.
This number is based on a poll of 90 Israeli exporters in fields such as high tech, metals, construction materials, chemistry, textile and foods. The poll was conducted in January-February 2009 by the Israeli Union of Industrialists.
SourceYes, a lot of people are turned off by these protests even if they disagree with Israeli policies. That's why you don't see Peace Now at these rallies, for instance.
It's nothing to do with the fact that Peace Now is a Zionist organization and a member of Canadian Jewish Congress, of course!
Naomi Klein, in a debate with Rabbi Arthur Waskow on the BDS strategy:
Naomi Klein takes the BDS campaign to the West Bank
Here's another reason to Boycott Israel and for our US friends to do the same - seems the mainstream media dome of silence has descended on the outrageous Israeli piracy against the 'Spirit of Humanity' carrying humanitarian aid for Gaza and the holding of activists including Cynthia Mckinney. Where are the Delta force sharpshooters now?
Another Example of US Censorship of Mainstream Media:
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2009/07/another-example-of-us-censorship-...
Closing for length.