Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
This story hasn't been getting enough attention I think. The house of representatives passed a resolution this week, condemning the BDS/ Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. BDS is a movement by the Palestinian people, calling for an end to international support enabling Israel's occupation of Palestine. It endorses only nonviolent protest, such as not investing business in Israel. Some of the goals of BDS include deconstruction of the separation wall, and an end to violence and loss of property at the hands of the Israeli government. BDS cites as it's inspiration South Africa's anti-apartheid movement. Below is their website if you would like to read more about their purpose. https://bdsmovement.net
This comes in the wake of Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem. The United States also blocked the United Nations Security Council's vote to condemn Israel's demolition. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...lestine-un-vote-trump-homes-a9020906.html?amp
Benjamin Netanyahu has praised the U.S congress for passing a resolution opposing boycott of Israel.
What are your thoughts about all of this? My thumb is down for the U.S Congress on this. Violence is not acceptable. However, a peaceful protest for land should not be decried by the US government. I don't see how you can support this resolution and also believe in human rights for Palestinians too. I am saddened.
I am forced to point out that the source of BDS being involved with terrorists is the same government that the Palestinians live in fear of human rights violations from. The allegations of criminal activity come from Israel's Strategic Affairs Ministry, led by Gilad Erdan, who has sought to ban human rights groups such as Amnesty International from the country and deported investigative journalists. He champions the annexation that BDS is protesting. I do not think his intelligence findings are the most objective. This is an Associated Press article that showcases multiple areas where the accusations of terrorism are vague, not well substantiated and distorted.
Having seen the post from the Israeli newspaper about BDS being sinister, let's hear the voice of the Palestinians about the smear campaign against BDS that Israel's government has engaged in. I think it is only fair to consider their side, and not only the government of Israel. http://www.palestinechronicle.com/i...ign-labels-bds-activists-terrorists-in-suits/
I am forced to point out that the source of BDS being involved with terrorists is the same government that the Palestinians live in fear of human rights violations from. The allegations of criminal activity come from Israel's Strategic Affairs Ministry, led by Gilad Erdan, who has sought to ban human rights groups such as Amnesty International from the country and deported investigative journalists. He champions the annexation that BDS is protesting. I do not think his intelligence findings are the most objective. This is an Associated Press article that showcases multiple areas where the accusations of terrorism are vague, not well substantiated and distorted.
Of course you take the source into account, but are they wrong? Lets look at what the AP article says.
"Most of the cases were based on somewhat vague accusations of affiliation or expressions of sympathy for militant groups, in some instances connected to acts that took place years ago. A female Palestinian lawmaker cited in the report, for instance, has been jailed by Israel for over a year without being charged with a crime. At least two people on the list have received international recognitions for their human rights work."
They point out vague accusations of affiliations but do not list any, nor expressions of sympathy for militant groups. They list a female law maker, but neglect to say that she is Khalida Jarrar, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an internationally recognized terrorist organization, she also has called for the capture of Israeli soldiers to be used as bargaining chips. They list two people who have received international recognitions for human rights work, but do not list their names, nor do those recognitions negate any ties to terrorist organizations.
The only other name they list is Leila Khaled another PFLP member, who participated in a terrorist hijacking.
So, it seems that the AP is the one providing unsubstantiated or in the case of Khalida Jarrar distorted reporting.
Having seen the post from the Israeli newspaper about BDS being sinister, let's hear the voice of the Palestinians about the smear campaign against BDS that Israel's government has engaged in. I think it is only fair to consider their side, and not only the government of Israel. http://www.palestinechronicle.com/i...ign-labels-bds-activists-terrorists-in-suits/
Rani Sourani: He honestly is the only one I could not find any information on, but I will update if I do.
Either way it is important to get the other side, but equally important to see some of the names the Palestine Chronicle labeled and their history with terrorism, to further substantiate the report.
It's very disturbing indeed. People/organisations should be free to boycott whoever they like for whatever reason. The British government did something like this a few years ago which went under the radar.
It's very disturbing indeed. People/organisations should be free to boycott whoever they like for whatever reason. The British government did something like this a few years ago which went under the radar.
ALT, it's strange you make claims of "vague accusations", seeing as Trump's accusations of voter fraud, Hillary's criminal activities, accusations of Mexican invasions, and Obama's citizenship were completely made up. And those are just the most obvious ones.
Maedar, if you wish to tear down his argument, at least tear it down within the context of the topic being discussed. I do not feel like a cyclical and irrelevant discussion of 'Trump did this' and 'but Barack HUSSEIN Obama did that'.
I know, I just find his attitude hypocritical. He supports one person using "vague accusations" while condemning someone else who does it. It's getting old.
Although I must comment and say that the statement they made about all of this simply being a response to Congresswoman Omar's push is ridiculous. The US government clearly has an agenda lately, backed by billions of dollars and prejudice.
This is definitely a scary time for human rights, with the border wall funding being released partially from the Pentagon funds, as well as the 'trans ban' in the military, + the ICE holding centers. Denying this does no one any good. This bill goes to show there is a lot being done to ignore human rights along with what's been happening over the last few years, backwards progress.
This person (alt) is well known for just coming in and defending Trump stuff anyway. There is no use in arguing with them, in the first place.
Although I must comment and say that the statement they made about all of this simply being a response to Congresswoman Omar's push is ridiculous. The US government clearly has an agenda lately, backed by billions of dollars and prejudice.
This is definitely a scary time for human rights, with the border wall funding being released partially from the Pentagon funds, as well as the 'trans ban' in the military, + the ICE holding centers. Denying this does no one any good. This bill goes to show there is a lot being done to ignore human rights along with what's been happening over the last few years, backwards progress.
If the vote was not in reaction to Congresswoman Omar's bill, then why was it pushed and voted on just days after Congresswoman Omar submitted a bill to support BDS? It seems pretty clear Pelosi allowed it to come up to vote to keep Democrats from having to talk about Congressman Omar's bill.
Of course you take the source into account, but are they wrong? Lets look at what the AP article says.
They point out vague accusations of affiliations but do not list any, nor expressions of sympathy for militant groups. They list a female law maker, but neglect to say that she is Khalida Jarrar, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an internationally recognized terrorist organization, she also has called for the capture of Israeli soldiers to be used as bargaining chips. They list two people who have received international recognitions for human rights work, but do not list their names, nor do those recognitions negate any ties to terrorist organizations.
The only other name they list is Leila Khaled another PFLP member, who participated in a terrorist hijacking.
So, it seems that the AP is the one providing unsubstantiated or in the case of Khalida Jarrar distorted reporting.
Rani Sourani: He honestly is the only one I could not find any information on, but I will update if I do.
Either way it is important to get the other side, but equally important to see some of the names the Palestine Chronicle labeled and their history with terrorism, to further substantiate the report.
The citation of Salah Hamouri as proof of how BDS is run by terrorists rings an alarm bell for me. His case is one of many that serves as an example of why we need organizations like BDS that support palestinian rights. First, it should be understood before going into Hamouri's story that Israel has a policy of detention without trial that can be extended indefinitely, not unlike we have seen in the United States with the excesses of the Patriot Act and prisoners detained Guantanamo Bay. It is often applied to Palestinians or political activists and has come under fire by many civil liberties organizations, human rights groups, UN inspectors. Israel's military courts have a nearly a 100℅ conviction rate for palestinian people. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine
You have to accept without dispute another controversial branch of the Israeli government, their judicial system, one that routinely abuses Palestinians, in order to arrive at the conclusion that BDS is really run by terrorists just like the ministry says.
Hamouri was picked up and held for many years without trial while protesting his innocence. There is no proof that he tried to assassinate anyone. After years of being detained he accepted a plea deal to a lesser charge from the military court at the behest of his lawyers, saying it was his only chance to get out some day. The evidence that Hamouri isca criminal is Hamouri saying what he is told to say under duress and without anything resembling a due process. The French government petitioned for their citizen's release, with the foreign minister writing that Israel's accusations were not corroborated by any evidence. He has now been freed. https://electronicintifada.net/blog...nian-french-lawyer-salah-hamouri-freed-israel
This has similarities to Khalida Jarrar's situation as well. First she is a democratically-elected official who was instrumental in helping Palestine to join the International Criminal Courts. She has a history of involvement with women's rights groups and services for war refugees. She was leading efforts to prosecute Israel for war crimes at the time of her convenient arrest in 2015. So this isn't exactly Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi we're talking about. Her seizure provoked international outcry as an intimidation tactic and was seen as unlawful. She had no prior criminal history even according to the Israeli authorities. The court saying she wanted to kidnap Israeli soldiers does not mean she actually said anything of the sort. Again the proof that the ministry is correct often circles back to inside the government again without corroboration from objective sources. Below is Amnesty International's report on Khalida Jarrar whom they helped secure release for. Her trial has been described as gross miscarriage of justice, Kafkaesque, a joke and more by a number of sources below. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/9953/2019/en/
Jabarin's experience with the judicial system is similar to the previous horror stories from detention by activists. However, Jabarin being a director of the human rights institutes adds yet another layer of complexity to the situation. Jabarin was ultimately adopted by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience in 1990, and the UN declared his detention arbitrary by 1994. The BDS movement was not formed until 2005, by which time Shawan Jabarin was considered a philanthropist and human rights activist. He is involved in leadership with BDS while also working for the Human Rights Watch, Al-Haq, the Ivy league school Columbia and the International Committee of the Red Cross. These universities and humanitarian causes are not considered linked to terrorists because of his involvement, it should not be otherwise with BDS. If you believe that nonviolent activities not 40 years later under any circumstance be viewed separately from anything he may have done in the previous century than the schools, hospitals watchdog groups have terrorist connections as well.
Let's also remember that Nelson Mandela was part of the South African Communist party, which was banned as a political party in the 50s. It was illegal to be a communist. In his lifetime after attempting nonviolent protest he became the head of MK the military wing of ANC while fighting apartheid in South Africa, for which he spent nearly 30 years in jail for treason.
Now whether you believe Mandela's leadership in MK or perhaps Jabarin volunteering as a reruit for PFLP was an acceptable way to resist their racial oppression is neither here nor there. My own ethical code is to win the way Martin Luther King, Buddha and Gandhi did with nonviolence rather than with physical force, which is what BDS advocates. Whether I personally am against violent overthrow isn't relevant however. The point regardless of our individual beliefs is that the way Mandela was viewed by the world transformed dramatically over the years. He received hundreds of awards, prizes, honorary degrees, citizenships during and after his time in prison, and became the president of his nation. He was celebrated as the father of Africa at the end if his life. You must consider full context of an organization's affiliation even if someone was deemed a criminal previously. Nelson Mandela, who was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights I might add also contributed to The Red Cross, churches, hospitals, universities, children's funds, art funds, poverty and hunger control, was involved with United Nations Development Programme, women's rights groups and more. If there can be no change in someone's identity over a period of decades then all of the aforementioned organizations have criminal ties. He was on the U.S Terrorist Watch List until 2008. We must consider context when we make a claim like an organization has criminal ties, and the Israel Security Ministry knows this. This is why it is an example of how they have distorted the facts to support their agenda to escape any economic or legal consequences for their country by framing the organization criticizing their history of human rights abuses as connected to terrorism. It distracts from the conversation of what they are doing right now to come under international attention like opening fire on thousands of people for trying to cross the Gaza border, engaging in torture practices and forcing different ethnic groups into ghettos and stealing their possessions.
I think we should apply a similar perspective with Leila Khaled as with Jabarin. This is somebody who committed a crime in the 1960s and has been long since released from jail. Her PFLP association doesn't negate the fact that she is a politician who is serving with the Palestinian National Council, this is a legal form of parliament. PNC is recognized by the United Nations and not considered a terrorist organization by The United States or Israel today. She appears at World Social Forum, schools, trade unions and workers associations, so again context is important. Her going to South Africa to lecture about BDS should not be conflated with PFLP or what she stole 50 years ago. BDS has no part in this ultimately, they are consistent in their message of nonviolence, and should not be condemned by the U.S government.
Bear in mind that BDS has received support from a diversity of respected people and organizations from all over the world from the late Stephen Hawking to Archbishop Desmond Tutu to the anti-poverty charity War on Want that supports everyone having access to food and efforts to end sweatshop labor. To simplify this movement into just terrorists in suits is really doing a disservice I feel to thousands of people.
You have alot of filibuster fluff in here so if you do not mind I am going to skip over the things that I do not feel are germane to the discussion, such as stuff on Israeli courts.
You have to accept without dispute another controversial branch of the Israeli government, their judicial system, one that routinely abuses Palestinians, in order to arrive at the conclusion that BDS is really run by terrorists just like the ministry says.
Hamouri was picked up and held for many years without trial while protesting his innocence. There is no proof that he tried to assassinate anyone. After years of being detained he accepted a plea deal to a lesser charge from the military court at the behest of his lawyers, saying it was his only chance to get out some day. The evidence that Hamouri isca criminal is Hamouri saying what he is told to say under duress and without anything resembling a due process. The French government petitioned for their citizen's release, with the foreign minister writing that Israel's accusations were not corroborated by any evidence. He has now been freed. https://electronicintifada.net/blog...nian-french-lawyer-salah-hamouri-freed-israel
If he was so innocent why did he say he did not regret his actions when interviewed after his release from prison? Note the original report said he wanted to Rabbi to die, and that was apparently in correct, but his original statement saying that he does not regret his actions remain.
This has similarities to Khalida Jarrar's situation as well. First she is a democratically-elected official who was instrumental in helping Palestine to join the International Criminal Courts. She has a history of involvement with women's rights groups and services for war refugees. She was leading efforts to prosecute Israel for war crimes at the time of her convenient arrest in 2015. So this isn't exactly Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi we're talking about. Her seizure provoked international outcry as an intimidation tactic and was seen as unlawful. She had no prior criminal history even according to the Israeli authorities. The court saying she wanted to kidnap Israeli soldiers does not mean she actually said anything of the sort. Again the proof that the ministry is correct often circles back to inside the government again without corroboration from objective sources. Below is Amnesty International's report on Khalida Jarrar whom they helped secure release for. Her trial has been described as gross miscarriage of justice, Kafkaesque, a joke and more by a number of sources below. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/9953/2019/en/
Jabarin's experience with the judicial system is similar to the previous horror stories from detention by activists. However, Jabarin being a director of the human rights institutes adds yet another layer of complexity to the situation. Jabarin was ultimately adopted by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience in 1990, and the UN declared his detention arbitrary by 1994. The BDS movement was not formed until 2005, by which time Shawan Jabarin was considered a philanthropist and human rights activist. He is involved in leadership with BDS while also working for the Human Rights Watch, Al-Haq, the Ivy league school Columbia and the International Committee of the Red Cross. These universities and humanitarian causes are not considered linked to terrorists because of his involvement, it should not be otherwise with BDS. If you believe that nonviolent activities not 40 years later under any circumstance be viewed separately from anything he may have done in the previous century than the schools, hospitals watchdog groups have terrorist connections as well.
I believe it is important to understand the context of his previous crimes, as he was not just a member of a terrorist organization but an active recruiter, who could very well be responsible for the deaths of innocent people. A murderer remains a murderer for the rest of their life, no matter how many good deeds they have done.
Let's also remember that Nelson Mandela was part of the South African Communist party, which was banned as a political party in the 50s. It was illegal to be a communist. In his lifetime after attempting nonviolent protest he became the head of MK the military wing of ANC while fighting apartheid in South Africa, for which he spent nearly 30 years in jail for treason.
Yes and his organization engaged in terrorism activities at the time, however your comparison with Mandela is problematic, Mandela was in prison in the 1980s when the Umkhonto we Sizwe engaged in their acts of civilian terrorism. Meanwhile the PFLP engaged in terrorism before, during, and after his recruitment drive in the 80s.
I point you to the NBC article on the group.
In August of 1988, the State Department listed the ANC among "organizations that engage in terrorism." It said the group ''disavows a strategy that deliberately targets civilians," but noted that civilians had "been victims of incidents claimed by or attributed to the ANC."
"The publication referred to Mandela, who had once led the ANC's military wing, as part of the "leadership," though by then he had spent more than a quarter century in prison. It also accepted the apartheid regime's claim that "ANC's operations -- which heretofore had sought to avoid civilian casualties -- abruptly changed. Attacks became more indiscriminate, resulting in both black and white civilian victims." Five months before the report was issued, the ANC had taken responsibility for some attacks that resulted in civilian deaths but had pledged to prevent a recurrence."
Now whether you believe Mandela's leadership in MK or perhaps Jabarin volunteering as a reruit for PFLP was an acceptable way to resist their racial oppression is neither here nor there. My own ethical code is to win the way Martin Luther King, Buddha and Gandhi did with nonviolence rather than with physical force, which is what BDS advocates. Whether I personally am against violent overthrow isn't relevant however. The point regardless of our individual beliefs is that the way Mandela was viewed by the world transformed dramatically over the years. He received hundreds of awards, prizes, honorary degrees, citizenships during and after his time in prison, and became the president of his nation. He was celebrated as the father of Africa at the end if his life. You must consider full context of an organization's affiliation even if someone was deemed a criminal previously. Nelson Mandela, who was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights I might add also contributed to The Red Cross, churches, hospitals, universities, children's funds, art funds, poverty and hunger control, was involved with United Nations Development Programme, women's rights groups and more. If there can be no change in someone's identity over a period of decades then all of the aforementioned organizations have criminal ties. He was on the U.S Terrorist Watch List until 2008. We must consider context when we make a claim like an organization has criminal ties, and the Israel Security Ministry knows this. This is why it is an example of how they have distorted the facts to support their agenda to escape any economic or legal consequences for their country by framing the organization criticizing their history of human rights abuses as connected to terrorism. It distracts from the conversation of what they are doing right now to come under international attention like opening fire on thousands of people for trying to cross the Gaza border, engaging in torture practices and forcing different ethnic groups into ghettos and stealing their possessions.
Sorry but no, the PFLP was involved with bombings and shootings up to 2015, and has the blood of thousands of innocent civilians on their hands. Who knows how many people he recruited that ended up killing innocent men, women, and children.
We can laud or hate Mandela for creating a military organization that eventually led to terrorism, however in the end, Mandela was in prison during the worst acts of terrorism, thus denying a direct connection to those acts, while Jabarin knew exactly what kind of organization he was recruiting for and what kind of acts they carry out.
I think we should apply a similar perspective with Leila Khaled as with Jabarin. This is somebody who committed a crime in the 1960s and has been long since released from jail. Her PFLP association doesn't negate the fact that she is a politician who is serving with the Palestinian National Council, this is a legal form of parliament. PNC is recognized by the United Nations and not considered a terrorist organization by The United States or Israel today. She appears at World Social Forum, schools, trade unions and workers associations, so again context is important. Her going to South Africa to lecture about BDS should not be conflated with PFLP or what she stole 50 years ago. BDS has no part in this ultimately, they are consistent in their message of nonviolence, and should not be condemned by the U.S government.
No, in fact in 2015 she said this: "refusing to buy products in a store or cancelling a corporate contract will not liberate Palestine. Nothing but the Palestinian struggle and resistance in all of its forms, from refusing the orders of an occupation soldier to marching in protests to armed struggle, will liberate Palestine."
Bear in mind that BDS has received support from a diversity of respected people and organizations from all over the world from the late Stephen Hawking to Archbishop Desmond Tutu to the anti-poverty charity War on Want that supports everyone having access to food and efforts to end sweatshop labor. To simplify this movement into just terrorists in suits is really doing a disservice I feel to thousands of people.
In 2016, Jonathan Schanzer testified in front of Congress to explain how various organizations that were front groups for Hamas, now work for the BDS movement. Specifically The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and KindHearts for Charitable Development
So the adults should be detained but the children turned out into the streets without their parents? Weren't people rather upset about separating families? Give the kids to people who may not be relatives? Just sent back across the border alone?
.....Wait, isn't this the wrong thread for this argument?
Edit:
Thoughts on the anti-BDS resolution. I support it. I've never been a fan of the BDS movement. It oversimplifies a complex issue while placing the blame on one side.
You have alot of filibuster fluff in here so if you do not mind I am going to skip over the things that I do not feel are germane to the discussion, such as stuff on Israeli courts.
Wow... what you just dismissed derisively as some old "filibuster fluff" refers to the recorded instances of torture, holding people indefinitely without charges to extract their confessions, children at the mercy of military courts, violations of the Geneva convention, not recognizing the legal rights of other human beings because of their religion and ethnicity, conducting trials with secret witnesses and evidence you can't examine or just denial of a trials altogether. This is perfectly relevant to the discussion because you are the one who made assertions about people who support BDS being involved in murder, kidnappings and all sorts of horrible things. It is important to recognize that the charges come from said courts that have a 100% conviction rate if you are palestinian. A number of these irregularities were documented and called out by human rights groups and governments outside of Israel in the cases of the very individuals we discussed. This might give some folks a twinge of doubt as to the reliability of the criminal records being pointed to by the government and skepticism as to the inherent fairness of their legal process. You have made it clear that the "stuff on court" is of no interest to you. If you don't think what kind of justice system they have is even relevant to the discussion then by all means, there is no need for you to respond to this part.
If he was so innocent why did he say he did not regret his actions when interviewed after his release from prison? Note the original report said he wanted to Rabbi to die, and that was apparently in correct, but his original statement saying that he does not regret his actions remain.
Hamouri is not quoted anywhere in this article as saying that he felt no regrets over attempting to assassinate someone. Nothing on the page implies this.It says in the article plainly that he always claimed his innocence.
Him saying he has no regrets doesn't show that he was ever guilty of trying to kill someone. You would have no reason for regret if you were innocent of the crimes you were accused of.
The most Hamouri said was, "I am certain of the path I have chosen and the choices I have made." He said this in a completely different context though. When asked about his conditions of imprisonment, Salah Hamouri, whose French mother had called France for help, said he had had trouble separating from friends and family. But he added, "I am certain of the path I have chosen and the choices I have made."
I appreciate at least the acknowledgement that the original report saying that he wanted the rabbi dead was incorrect. The person who is cited as wanting people dead in the particular page you linked to was actually the bigoted rabbi. It was written that, "Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had repeatedly made anti-Palestinian statements and wanted the Palestinians dead."
That isn't what I said at all. The links didn't only document her humanitarian activities, they also examined the injustice of her incarceration and trial. You stated as fact that Jarrar advocated kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Is it immaterial to you whether the charges you had said she was guilty of are even true? A government is not justified in falsifying charges against you no matter who you are. This is really disturbing comment because it reads as though you are saying that the end justifies the means. I want no part of PFLP, and hope that is clear to you. I support nonviolent resistance like BDS. We are all repulsed by terrorism, this why you should know that when you abuse the law like this rather than fighting terrorism it ultimately pours kerosene on the fire, and makes people feel there can be no justice in the world, and take up armed resistance-- which I don't want, and you don't want.
Trying to find out more about whether her conviction was fair or not would at least make a difference to me. The impression I am getting however is that nothing that happens to these people matters if you say the word terrorist enough times to instill a knee-jerk reaction. That kind of rationale can lead to laws like the Patriot Act that erode our civil liberties.
Laws should be fair and just. It's not okay for people who are supposed to be officials of the law to abuse it to take someone down.
Because Jarrar and many of these individuals were considered to be condemned unfairly they were viewed sympathetically by the international community. Whether you personally sympathize or not, you have to take into account that she has a great deal of support behind her worldwide and is considered a human rights activist and victim of persecution to many. Any work she may have done with BDS unconnected to being in PFLP needs to be put into that context.
That he was arrested without trial or charges and held for years and tortured doesn't matter? You said it is immaterial to his actual crimes or actions, but what when there are no crimes and actions? The man was not charged here! Hence why his detention was declared arbitrary internationally. No sir, that is is a perversion of the way the law is supposed to work.
I believe it is important to understand the context of his previous crimes, as he was not just a member of a terrorist organization but an active recruiter, who could very well be responsible for the deaths of innocent people. A murderer remains a murderer for the rest of their life, no matter how many good deeds they have done.
There is a lot to unpack here, even though you just wrote 1 paragraph. You are making a leap on top of a leap by saying that a murderer remains a murderer for the rest of their life, no matter how many good deeds they have done. First you have no idea if this man is responsible for the deaths of any innocent people. That is a heavy thing to hold someone accountable for based on a "what if" scenario you imagine. We don't know that he or a single person you named killed anyone. There doesn't appear to be evidence of that.
Second, people do pay debts to society and re-entry it, whether you like it not. If Jabarin was elected to the International Criminal Court as an official to advisory committees for selecting judges then clearly he is not viewed internationally as a terrorist today. The United Nations is certainly not a group affiliated with terrorism. For a nonviolent organization like BDS to be connected to Jabarin would not be evidence of a group having terrorist ties because his standing in the community changed, this is why Nelson Mandela is not an odd comparison at all. When BDS, Columbia University or the Red Cross works with Jabarin they are nevertheless working with an official who was chosen by The United Nations, not a terrorist, just as The Princess Diana Memorial Fund or St. Mary's hospital would be working with the President of South Africa when Mandela funded them, and not a terrorist.
The reality is that the United States condemnation of BDS, an organization that has committed no terrorist activities and promotes an agenda of nonviolence, has nothing to do with concerns over terrorism, nor does it have anything to do with Ilhan Omar as I noticed you have told members many times. It is really about ourr policy that always favors Israel over every country in the east. The point is simply to discourage people from boycotting Israel because we're friends with them.
I want to say for the record that while I don't necessarily agree with the actions of the Israeli government, I still love the people of Israel. I understand why after the persecution and genocide that Jewish people suffered during the holocaust that they want a home of their own. At the same time the Palestinians also have rights that are not being protected by the Israeli government, and my heart goes out to the Palestinians who are perishing. We're all created equally.
BDS is often criticized as not a two-state solution. I actually want a two-state solution as well, but I think BDS still does important work by exerting economic pressure in the form of say deciding not to buy something from a company in Israel to show disapproval. While I don't agree with every one of their ideas or tools--I don't like sanctions for instance, I think BDS ultimately provides some useful methods that can at least help bring Israel in compliance with international law. We could use BDS as a partial solution to halt the expansion of settlements considered illegal into more territory, stop the demolition of Palestinian homes and prevent Israel from purchasing more weaponry. A country can't sustain these activities without the money, and I think this would bring us a step closer to rights full rights for Palestinians. I don't think there needs to be a shift so dramatic that we end up with a reversal of policy that Israelis have nothing, but the Palestinians deserve far more than they have now. BDS may not be perfect, but there should be some incentive for Israel to discontinue their harshest policies. We can't just keep doing ignoring the human rights abuses that occur against the Palestinians, and continue to fund Israel billions without any conditions, just as the American government should not be funding and arming Saudi Arabia after they dismembered a Washington Post journalist and are engaged in acts starvation tactics and genocide against the people of Yemen. https://theintercept.com/2019/04/15/saudi-weapons-yemen-us-france/
This week a bill progressed that would reward Israel with more funding. I hope you don't think Israel should now get joint investments in technology and science to keep expanding their military while thousands of Palestinians have been killed, children shot and the country stands accused of war crimes. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1837/text?r=11
We are giving our ally money indiscriminately no matter what activities they engage in, which is why we need peaceful protest from BDS or a similar organization to cry out across the globe the word NO. Every country must be held accountable, nobody is above the law.
To pass a resolution condemning BDS is an assault on a nonviolent means of expression. If BDS is not the option where are the oppressed going to go? Some might turn to violent means of expression, and I don't want see more violence befall anyone, that's why I support the boycott. We need an non-violent alternative so that not all of the world has turned their back on them.
Yes and his organization engaged in terrorism activities at the time, however your comparison with Mandela is problematic, Mandela was in prison in the 1980s when the Umkhonto we Sizwe engaged in their acts of civilian terrorism. Meanwhile the PFLP engaged in terrorism before, during, and after his recruitment drive in the 80s.
MK still became militarized while Mandela was leader. Mandela indeed began advocating nonviolence and civil disobedience, but after the Sharpeville massacre where the police killed 69 nonviolent protestors the tactics changed. By 1962 he armed himself. MK was funneled weapons from the Soviet Union, they engaged in some guerilla warfare tactics under his leadership. Mandela was very forthcoming in court that he was involved in sabotage crimes like blowing up power plants.
Mandela is one of his own harshest critics and has been candid about how he finally engaged in activities that he had wanted to avoid. I'm not pointing to Mandela to imply "Mandela did it, they should too." Mandela was a figure with human flaws, good and bad in him that I think is recognized by those who study his life. I am on a personal level opposed to violent resistance outside of an immediate situation of self-defense. This is why I would be willing to support BDS, a non-violent organization, but not PFLP. I am not here to condemn or praise Mandela, the reason I am talking about Nelson Mandela is as an example of how we reconcile someone's early and late life. Even though there was sympathy at the time for Mandela turning to armed struggle to resist the racist regime, ultimately even if you cannot advocate this, undoubtedly support for Mandela grew during his time in prison and by the time of his release from prison he was a beloved figure, and there was not the same political stigma. Nelson Mandela in his early life and at the end of his life were two different people, and any organizations and charities he was apart of after his release from prison would not be considered as having terrorist ties. Nor is it appropriate to consider schools, medical aid organizations or BDs as run by terrorists because Jabarin is involved with them.
We are listening to a false narrative framed by the government's prime minister Erdan of BDS being connected to terrorism, not because there is any terrorist activity known of going on in the organization itself, but because the success of BDS would be counter-productive to business interests in the country. At the end of the day The United States, who is an ally with companies outsourced there is only looking at this from a perspective of self-interest.
The resolution is not about denouncing a group for terrorist ties. HR246 does not to it's credit even pretend to be an anti-terrorism measure or anything of the sort. There is no language in this bill about terrorist activities if you read it. It is entirely a condemnation of the political viewpoint of BDS and how unfair BDS is to Israel supposedly for just asking people around the world not to participate with Israel, and how bad that would be for Israel.
The House is going on the record just to express outrage over an idea, the simple idea that an organization dare say don't visit Israel or give them money.
That is wrong of our government. They should not condemn a philosophical opinion over Israel. Our policy is decidedly pro-Israel, but there should be nothing wrong theoretically with an organization that criticizes the government of Israel so long as that opposition remains peaceful, which is what BDS does.
We don't need a resolution from the government telling us how much they disapprove of an opinion.
The American government has not made having this opinion illegal nationwide ...yet, but this resolution is part of a disturbing trend in that direction.
There are more than a hundred different measures seeking to undermine boycotts of Israel. We have adopted such laws in 27 states that punish individuals for expressing this political position that the government does not approve of. https://palestinelegal.org/righttoboycott
It is untrue that this resolution just appeared isolated in response to Congresswoman Omar. It would still be a concerning vote by the house if that had been the case, but the fact is that anti-boycott resolutions and bills have come up before, and will keep on coming.
In New York for instance an executive order made it part of policy that the government won't do business with you if you boycott Israel.
A teacher in Texas was asked to take an oath not to boycott Israel. This should have had absolutely nothing to do with this woman's job qualifications as a speech pathologist for people with disabilities. Nevertheless she was stripped of her government contract when she was unwilling to sign a loyalty pledge pertaining to her personal political views.
The reason Ilhan Omar introduced a resolution affirming our legal rights to participate in boycotts as protected by the 1st amendment was in response to the laws our country is enacting which erode our free speech rights.
Omar's resolution I am fairly certain is in response to an even more dangerous bill than HR 246 that Marco Rubio introduced to the Senate known as S.1 which received a lot of backlash from the American Civil Liberties Union. S.1 contained the "Combating BDS act"
Before S.1 Rubio also sponsored a bill by Ben Cardin with an Israel Anti-Boycott Act that would actually make it a felony to boycott, and threatened jail sentences of up to 20 years for holding this position.
Resolution Hr 246 is non-binding and using tamer rhetoric as a test of the waters, but as Roxy says and Tigetron is getting at as well, it is a very troubling signal from the government.
It is not about America wanting to condemn terrorism, and it isn't about Ilhan Omar. Nothing could be a bigger distraction from the real issues.
No, in fact in 2015 she said this: "refusing to buy products in a store or cancelling a corporate contract will not liberate Palestine. Nothing but the Palestinian struggle and resistance in all of its forms, from refusing the orders of an occupation soldier to marching in protests to armed struggle, will liberate Palestine."
Then I think she's wrong. I am not willing to say I am for what she is advocating. I hope I have been clear in my message of non-violence, and that I do not support PFLP. What I do think is that there are genuine human rights injustices that spur people to go out and do desperate things like this that ultimately only hurt themselves and other people, and set a movement for liberation back by lowering ourselves to the level of the oppressor. I think it is possible to recognize this and still condemn violence on all sides.
"An eye for an eye leaves us all blind." -Ghandi
I think non-violent protest is not only the most honorable, but also the most effective form of protest. It was the boycott of South Africa that ultimately ended the apartheid, just as the bus boycott in the United States in the civil rights movement was a powerful tool. I think boycott in Israel is also the way to go. Not violent opposition.
Leila Khaled is ultimately disagreeing with the official position of BDS, and removing herself from their ideology with those words. BDS is very clear in its commitment to nonviolence. It has clearly defined that only non-violent protest is acceptable, writing thus:
Spoiler:
One year after the historic Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found Israel's Wall built on occupied Palestinian territory to be illegal; Israel continues its construction of the colonial Wall with total disregard to the Court's decision. Thirty eight years into Israel's occupation of the Palestinian West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights, Israel continues to expand Jewish colonies. It has unilaterally annexed occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and is now de facto annexing large parts of the West Bank by means of the Wall. Israel is also preparing - in the shadow of its planned redeployment from the Gaza Strip - to build and expand colonies in the West Bank. Fifty seven years after the state of Israel was built mainly on land ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian owners, a majority of Palestinians are refugees, most of whom are stateless. Moreover, Israel's entrenched system of racial discrimination against its own Arab-Palestinian citizens remains intact.
In light of Israel's persistent violations of international law; and
Given that, since 1948, hundreds of UN resolutions have condemned Israel's colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal and called for immediate, adequate and effective remedies; and
Given that all forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince or force Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine; and
In view of the fact that people of conscience in the international community have historically shouldered the moral responsibility to fight injustice, as exemplified in the struggle to abolish apartheid in South Africa through diverse forms of boycott, divestment and sanctions; and Inspired by the struggle of South Africans against apartheid and in the spirit of international solidarity, moral consistency and resistance to injustice and oppression;
We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace.
These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
Lets look into some of it's Hamas links then?
In 2016, Jonathan Schanzer testified in front of Congress to explain how various organizations that were front groups for Hamas, now work for the BDS movement. Specifically The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and KindHearts for Charitable Development https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20160419/104817/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-SchanzerJ-20160419.pdf
Do you know who Jonathan Schnanzer even is? I think you saw that someone testified before congress, and posted the link, without vetting who the source . These are not expert findings from our intelligence community. I didn't immediately respond to you because I wanted to take some time to investigate who this is. Jonathan Schnanzer's just a writer who shills for a neoconservative think tank. The pressure group he is founder of known as Foundation for Defense of Democracies pushes a nonstop agenda of military intervention in the middle east and pro-Israel policies. His tank FDD has come under criticism for their alarmist, National Inquirer-esque rhetoric, deep bias and lack of coverage of the human rights abuses suffered by Palestinians, despite Schnanzer saying he is running a nonpartisan group. They are war mongers who often use allegations of terrorism as a pretense for military intervention.
FDD ran a crusade of propaganda to take us into the war on Iraq, a war that was built on completely false pretenses that there were weapons of mass destruction there that never existed. A war where nearly half a million people perished under lies. This shady advocacy group is not even supposed to be involved in political activities because of their nonprofit status, but that didn't stop them from creating their own fronts to mask their identity so they could fill the airways with ads lobbying for legislation to give retroactive immunity to telecomunication companies that carried out surveillance of American citizens without warrants.
Schnanzer's testimony would be a joke if his Salem witch trial-like accusations of terrorism everywhere he turns did not have serious repercussions for our country's foreign policy.
Jonathan Schanzer has made claims that gained no traction that even pro-Palestinian students groups on U.S, Canada and New Zealand campuses were really backed and financed by terrorists.
In the link above Schanzer was also caught on audio expaining how he tried to link the BDS movement with "terrorism," but admitted he no real evidence to support these stories.
Schnanzer's think tank's "scholar" is really Michael Ledeen who rehashes discredited theories, such as Iran chiefly supporting attacks on U.S soldiers in Afghanistan. This crackpot accused Iran of bombing the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and also perpetuated the debunked allegation that Russia was behind attempting to assassinate the pope. He literally took the idea from a book, over the intelligence of the CIA that saw no evidence of this! He published a conspiracy theory that our allies France and Germany "struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs" to use "extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice" to weaken the United States. This fellow gave foreign policy advice to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove during the Bush administration. We can truly grasp his great wisdom by the well-informed decisions they made with regards to his project the Iraq war. https://web.archive.org/web/20121017013854/http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/
Joining this team of brilliant scholarship for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is Andrew McCarthy. He is literally part of the birther movement conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not really born in America. He also has peddled islamophobic propaganda that Obama was secretly a Muslim. He has a history of publishing misleading claims that Obama is really funding the Egyptian government, and a lot of other salacious headline grabbers like the "The President Stands with Sharia," arguing that our former president is aligned with Muslim brotherhood, and is against family members of victims who perished in the 9/11 attacks. MCarthy's tablets also have a history of smear attacks on any news organization that questions foreign policy of the Israeli government as Anti-Semetic, including Glenn Greenwald, despite Greenwald's family being Jewish! These are statements that he has more than once had to walk back. McCarthy even stooped so low as to smear Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was brutally murdered and torn to pieces, implying that this poor victim is a cooperative for the Muslim brotherhood!
The The leadership council of Schnanzer's Think Tank are mostly Fox news advisors such notably Bill Kristol, who promoted the invasion of Iraq, the war in Lebanon and championed the invasion of Libya, another war based on lies. He aggressively pushes the policy of Israel's government through another of lobbying groups and pacs and tanks, and sits on Emergency Committee for Israel.
He is joined on the council by the Christian religious nutcase Gary Bauer, who equated the Islamic religion to fascism, and in his bigoted rant proclaimed that, "There is a need for Western civilization to confront this evil. The things they demand of us would require us to change who we are." Bauer was not talking about terrorism, he was taking about a religion this way. He also supported Michelle Bachmann's claims that the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over the department of Justice and Homeland Security. He has even perpetrated the Donald Trump yarns that Muslim people ran out into the streets to ding and dance during 9/11.
Another mind behind this team is Richard Perle, a lobbyist for Israeli arms manufacturers, who spearhead the invasion of Iraq, and is cheerleading that we attack Iran now too. Perle is still busy promoting pre-emptive strikes like we did in Iraq and has set his sights on Iran and North Korea.
You are allowed to hold a pro-Israel foreign policy opinion, and to support the resolution condemning the boycott. That's what is great about America, everyone's opinion is allowed. I hope you will not make the choice however to continue to peddle claims about BDS being infiltrated by groups that are fronts for Hamas. Anyone can make a mistake, but you know where these allegations come from now, do what that information as you wish, that is on you.
Here is HR.246 if you would like to read it. Again, you can believe that this policy is the way to go and that this is the right vote, and we can respectfully disagree, but be aware that at no point in the text of the resolution did even our congress say their anti-BDS resolution had anything to do with terrorism.
