The ‘Stop the war coalition’ ran a blog a coupe of days ago entitled:
Time to go to war with Israel as the only path to peace in the Middle East
I have left this headline in bold because I figure if people misinterpret what the actual article says from this ridiculous headline then so be it – it is there fault for putting such a stupid headline up in the first place.
You see, by going ‘to war with Israel’ what they actually meant was (and again I quote) ‘a legitimacy war’ with Israel. Crystal clear? No not exactly.
By legitimacy war (you find out deep into the quite long article) what they actually meant was a grass-roots movement involving the BDS campaign against interaction with Israeli settlements (that are illegal under IHL).
It takes quite a dedicated reader though to get to the last few paragraphs of this article where it finally explains what it means by ‘war’ and then ‘legitimacy war’. Most people will come away from this article thinking one of two things:
1) Stop the war now backs a one off war against Israel
2) Stop the war now wants a ‘peaceful war’ against Israel’s legitimacy (right to exist).
To put this into a little context, the biggest gripe that most people who are broadly pro-Israel has with the BDS movement is that they feel it sometimes calls into question Israel’s legitimacy. It’s right to exist. This fear is based on a real danger. There are those who would gladly see the state of Israel disappear of maps altogether.
It is curious then that this article decides to refer to BDS as a ‘legitimacy war’.
Is this sloppy language or purposeful provocation?
Even for those who bothered to skip down to the conclusion would have been met with the phrase:
“It is important that world public opinion reject as meaningless the diplomatic charade of peace talks while the fate of a people continues to be daily sacrificed on the altar of geopolitics.”
They must be able to see how this would be interpreted can’t they? It sounds like a justification for walking away from peaceful negotiations and to resort to other means.
As I say, I reading the article I couldn’t decide if the language was just sloppy or a purposeful provocation.
That was until I got to the very bottom and saw the author.
Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, was, from 2008 to 2014, United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.”
I can’t believe that he would have been unaware of the context I have described or the consequences of his words. Which, worryingly, leads me to the only conclusion I can see available – it was a form of purposeful provocation.
Hynd's Blog 
In the middle east the only people who practice ethnic cleansing are the Muslims.
Check out Beit Lehem. It used to be a Christian city, now its Muslim
Check out Alexandria. It used to have a huge Jewish center. Its Jew free now
Check out Saudi arabia. It used to have a Jewish and Christian presence. Now both are illegal
Check out Homs. as soon as the jihadis took over they gave the Christians three days to leave.
So dont put the Jews in that category. Muslims have been doing better here under jewish laew than anywhere else – that is why they hate them so much
LikeLike
Actually Yuval, as I’m guessing you know and I know Steve here definitely knows, for all the horrors inflicted on various people globally and historically, The State of Israel is the only state in the world whose existence is predicated on a recent, current and on-going campaign of colonial settlement and ethnic cleansing. That is why many of us deny its so-called “right” to exist. Of course, if Israel was to grant the right of return to the ethnically cleansed Palestinians and treat all of its people as equal then it could be legitimate but then its name would be a lie instead of its propaganda.
LikeLike
I simply noticed that the UKIP tweet was an amusing coincidence with your promotion of the legitimacy of a state, Israel, based as it is on colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws and on Harry;s Placed of all places. Even now, I’m not sure if you’ve simply latched onto to that to distract from the main point of my comment which is that you are now all but openly claiming that to condemn the majority of Palestinians to exile is somehow conducive to peace.
Re evasion, I’m referring to your claim that supporters of the one state solution make you suspicious but you didn’t say what they make you suspicious of nor why. The context was you having an appeasing moan about “antisemitism”. Surely you remember.
LikeLike
If you had any pretensions to being taken seriously you would not put your shit on the racist cess pit Harrys Place
LikeLike
On facebook someone asked me what the main point of this article is. This is my response:
‘is when engaging with BDS I think it only really productive if done with care. I read an analysis somewhere that said grass-roots peace movements to do with Israel/Pal will only work if they make Israelis feel strategically secure but morally insecure (in terms of the occupation). Hamas firing rockets at them does the opposite (makes Israel feel insecure but morally secure). I would argue that the BDS campaign has the potential to fall down either side of this divide and that articles like this play into the hands of those who wish to discredit it by sitting to close to those who wish to deny Israel’s right to exist.’
LikeLike
Ha one of Sarah’s ” the acceptable face ” boy toys. C’est clair
SarahAB Mod Daniel A. • 41 minutes ago
Steve is not really an ardent supporter of BDS – AFAIR he is actively opposed to some aspects of BDS.
LikeLike
Mazel tov, Steve. Your voyage of degeneracy is complete. You used to support the Palestinians and now you support their ethnic cleansers. And what a place to announce your conversion. The day after you hat-tipped Nigel Farage for name-checking the Greens, you cross-post to the racist sewer, Harry’s Place. And when challenged, what do you do then? Evasion of course. We’ve been here before with you, Steve.
A cruel irony is that when Theodor Herzl told the Brits about his “colonial” idea they offered him Uganda. I wonder what you’d be waving goodbye to in your rearview mirror if the zionist movement had have ethnically cleansed Uganda instead of Palestine. I mean apart from your integrity. Maybe palliative care for Ugandans wouldn’t be such an issue for you if 93% of Uganda was reserved for Jews only. Maybe you’d been hinting and then evading about support for palliative care for Ugandans being antisemitic.
But the zionists didn’t take Uganda, they took Palestine, so why don’t you focus on palliative care for Ugandans and leave Palestine to honest, consistent anti-racists and stop pretending that appeasing racist war criminals is the best way forward.
LikeLike
Sigh. Where to start. UKIP…you think that tweet suggests that I have some sympathy with UKIP/Farage or the politics they represent? Despite the countless number of articles/tweets/conversations I have every day attacking UKIP and their small-minded policies? Come on….
My affiliation to Harry’s Place goes as far as I have said that they are welcome to cross-post from my blog when they wish. Nothing more, nothing less! I stand by my comments on Fawk’s article that it is not constructive to peace (I am still not sure where I stand on BDS as a whole but these are some thoughts I wrote a while ago – https://stevehynd.com/2014/02/06/the-third-intifada-and-the-role-of-boycott-disinvestment-and-sanctions-bds/ – I add it in here because of this idea of making Israelis feel strategically secure but morally insecure about the on-going occupation. I feel like this conceptual approach has weight). In light of that, I felt like Fawk’s article could do the opposite in terms of making Israelis (which whether you like it or not, are sitting on one side of this conflict/peace negotiations) insecure!
I offer no endorsement or support to the other article’s on the blog let alone the comments beneath (which btw continue to refer to me as a wolf in sheep clothing).
Finally, your accusations that I have somehow lost interest in, or no longer care about Palestinians. I find this offensive. I care about Palestinians because I care about people. This is a group of people going through shit (and have been for a very long time now). I am trying to honestly work and contribute in the small way I can to bringing about a better quality of life for them (and I think this is connected to ending the occupation and this is best done through human rights language).
Actually lastly, on this issue of evasion….when, where?
LikeLike