http://forward.com/articles/140140/

He's very good, but I put it here a few days ago.

Sorry Joe. You beat me to it!

By the way, where did you get your tag image from. I would like to copy you once more and use it myself. If you don't mind.

http://greenberg-art.com/.Toons/.Toons,%20Jewish/BoycottLaw.html

Oh dear.

Oh dear indeed!

So Jews wanting to live in Judea and Samaria are not only zealots not only scum but they are immoral too - unremitting hate speech. The stones are not celebrated but cherished - the promise however is celebrated hence the Promised Land. The only thing toxic is the hatred for fellow Jews posted by you on this website - but as Steven said you have a blind spot so we must, after all, pity you.

It is ironic that those who defend boycott advocacy on the grounds of freedom of speech are themselves guilty of undermining the human rights of others, particularly but not only Jews who live or wish to live in Judea-Samaria. Bloggers on this website advocate boycotting products made by Jewish firms in those areas, firms which hire Arabs as well as Jews.

Those who boycott settlement products because they believe that Jews have no right to live or conduct businesses or manufacturing in Judea-Samaria are taking a racist, apartheid position against Jews. Although they typically justify this position on the grounds of international law, the interpretations of int'l law that they brandish about are false. They typically claim that Geneva Convention IV, article 49, forbids "transfer" of population to "occupied territory." It does. However, recall that Germany, Austria and Japan were avowedly occupied by the US, USSR, UK, and France after WW2. Many civilians from the occupying powers voluntarily moved into those countries while they were occupied. Nobody complained that Geneva IV, article 49 [or whatever] forbid these civilians to move into occupied countries. Large parts of Japan are still occupied by Russia, that is, they were annexed in the Soviet Communist days by the USSR, although Japan never recognized that annexation and there is as yet no Russian-Japanese or Soviet-Japanese peace treaty as far as I know. Hundreds of thousands --if not millions-- of Soviets/Russians were moved into these formerly Japanese areas. Nobody gives a damn but the Japanese. Nor is the situation considered a threat to international peace. The same could be said for Turkey's occupation of Cyprus - no one says any Turks moving to occupied Cyprus are in breach of the Convention.

Now many of us would argue that Judea-Samaria are not occupied, and this on various grounds [such as the Jewish National Home principle]. Further, "transfer" means compulsory migration, whereas the Jews living in Judea-Samaria were willing migrants. Remember too that the word "transfer" was added by the Arabs in a closed session of the Red Cross and to this day the minutes of that meeting have not been opened to public scrutiny.
But even if J-S were occupied and even if Geneva IV, 49, applied to voluntary migrants [not persons subject to "transfer"] across the Green Line, the position demanding exclusion of Jews from Judea-Samaria would still be racist. Legal perhaps, but racist against Jews. Since when do advocates of liberty and human rights want to punish people who have flouted restrictive laws [if J-S were occupied and if Geneva IV, 49, applied legally]?? And BDS relies on these false interpretations of law and is a legalist-nativist argument as well, which humanitarians and human rights advocates should eschew. BDS falsely speaks in the name of human rights.

The bds campaign actively tries to prevent people --Jews-- from exercising human rights, the right to live where their long-time enemies don't want them to live. Hence it is BDS that is racist. Racist against Jews. This is the argument that should be made.

While the first cartoon is cute and entertaining, I'd like to comment on his points. While I understand that a cartoon cannot be like an essay, he uses many loaded terms and makes broad assumptions.

You see a liberal American Jew with a "Handbook on Social Justice". "Social Justice" is very overused and vague. There are many differences over what serves a more just society or world, and not just in terms of Israel. There are many facets of contemporary liberalism that I don't think are just. Ex. If a surgeon who made the grade through affirmative action brings tragic outcomes to his patients, does this liberal policy create a more just world?
In addition, all justice is social. Unless you live on a desert island, everything you do affects another person.

I think Peter Beinart is overquoted. He says says young liberal American Jews are turned off from Israel. I get the drift that his fans don't want to come out and be specific over what they expect Israel to be or do differently.

Eli Valley is assuming that ethics and deism are mutually exclusive, a pretty tall assumption. What he's saying is "Wow, who needs all those ancient Torah based values, when we have contemporary liberalism as our guide?".

As far as the anti-boycott law, its detractors should say if they could live with an amended version that only imposes possible civil penalties for compliance and excluded advocacy, or if they want no anti-boycott law whatsoever.

This guy is so good these people want to sign him up
http://www.woodstockinternational.us/

Suzanna, they just won't get it that just as it was right to boycott apartheid South Africa because of its immorality, so it is correct to boycott the immoral settlement enterprise because of the apartheid system it is encouraging and creating. What's more, it's worse than apartheid South Africa because it rests on some misguided messianic, idol-worshipping notion of celebrating stones. It is toxic because it has poisoned all debate within the Jewish world.
And it hits the edit button just like the person it claims it isn't.

There should be no anti- boycott laws, Steven. It's down to an individual's conscience if they want to boycott or call for one. Only authoritarians and fascists legislate against conscience.

Yes Millis down to one's conscience so why do you publicly call for a boycott?
So Jews wanting to live in Judea and Samaria are not only zealots not only scum but they are immoral too and you compare them to Apartheid South Africa - unremitting hate speech. There is no comparison because if the armchair Zionists would get up off their collective backsides and came on aliya instead of telling us who actually made the move how we should run our lives there would be no demographic problem with which you continually threaten us. The stones are not celebrated but cherished - the promise however is celebrated hence the Promised Land. The only thing toxic is the hatred for fellow Jews posted by you on this website - but as Steven said you have a blind spot so we must, after all, pity you.

Joe, in that case, I'll refuse to play my Elvis Costello records until he rescinds his boycott of Israel.

His wife, jazz musician Diana Krall, does tour Israel.

By the way Millis I made aliya with my family in 1988 - now call me a liar and risk breaking the JC rules.

I was glad to read that punk rocker John Lydon tours Israel. His stage name was Johnny Rotten when we was with the Sex Pistols in the late 1970s and possibly 1980s. He even gave a spirited defense of his decision.

http://www.spinner.com/2010/07/13/john-lydon-public-image-ltd-israel/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/21/john-lydon-pil-pales...

The quotes below are from The Guardian article.

{Lydon has vowed to go ahead with a PiL concert in Tel Aviv, scheduled for late August. "If Elvis-fucking-Costello wants to pull out of a gig in Israel because he's suddenly got this compassion for Palestinians, then good on him," Lydon told the Independent. "But I have absolutely one rule, right? Until I see an Arab country, a Muslim country, with a democracy, I won't understand how anyone can have a problem with how they're treated."}

Steven, bevakasha, as you wish. Elvis Costello hasn't had anything decent since Imperial Bedroom. But again, he's boycotting a whole country, not an immoral section which has been appeased by successive Israeli governments and which is too blinded by messianism and idolatry that they fail to see that thy are destroying the state.

By the way, Steven, what do you call someone who lifts entire pieces without attribution? Like from this piece here?
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html
(Hint: there's a long piece above this one that has been posted and reposted by some wannabe)
And then they claim not to be someone else, too. What would you call that?

Also, did Mr Lydon give renditions of Belsen Was A Gas or Holidays in the Sun at his Tel Aviv concert?

I didn't attribute it because Millis you rubbish anything that does not agree with your world view but happily I am pleased you wasted valuable time looking for it and ended up criticizing me instead of the piece, which was the object of the exercise.
So am I a liar?

The legislation is only against those who call for a boycott - no one who wants to make a personal decision to boycott is stopped from doing so. Stop misrepresenting the legislation Millis.

On John Lydon, I don't know if he did. I guess the context matters. Maybe it was just shtick. John Lydon says he's anti-government. Just the name Johnny Rotten is shtick.

As far as the long piece, I really don't think highly of anyone appropriating an entire piece without attribution. I'd call it plagiarism and misrepresentation.

So Steven, let's consider the evidence.
Cutting and pasting (badly) - check
Hitting the edit button - check
OCD-like postings - check
Claiming to be someone he isn't - check
Non-attribution - check
Coming up with feeble and pathetic excuses - check
Waddles like a duck and quacks like one too, dontca think?

More baseless accusations from suzanna. This is the tactic of the haters - throw a baseless accusation, wait for it to be disproved, then move on to yet another accusation.

but then, what do we expect from suzanna, who has expressed her support for the genocidal antisemitic terror organization Hamas?

Cut and pasted from Wikipedia
Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, ... It may include false accusations, ... or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.

Exactly, Steven, plagiarism and misrepresentation. The one who said he isn't who he is did a lot of that, too.
Quack, quack.

Someone should explain to suzanna that a blog usually constitutes more than a link.

Try thinking for yourself - just once.

Let's see if the JCWebmaster now takes action.

millis, glad you are cozy with a Hamas supporter.

I wouldn't hold your breath adviser.

Hello, here comes the other sock puppet

Every one of suzanna's "blogs" is an attck on the Jewish state, occasionally on its very existence.

This is bigotry.

millis, get a job. You're here all the time.

Actually, you're on holiday at the moment aren't you?How sad is that - that you spend your holiday on the JC blogs?

And that you put your time to such excellent use - cozying up to Hamas supporters?

Comments for this page are now closed.