For instance, Jews have placed a higher value on education that almost anything else in their lives, including above their own religion and culture.

Obviously, one condition had to be the Palestinians ceased any form of terrorism until the handover process could be completed. I remember watching this on the news, that it would take 2 years. I believed that the Palestinians would keep the peace for 2 years, until they got their own state, and then they might continue with terrorism against Israel. I never for one moment thought they would shoot themselves in the foot.

As to questioning Israeli policies, and actions, that's certainly not anti-semitic, although that's often a charge leveled against anyone that does try to do that by some.

As expected, the prevailing Zionist response to this development has been a vitriolic denunciation of the individuals and organizations involved and a sustained attempt to bully them into silence. This usually involves an ascription of anti-Semitism as the motive for such action.

Zionist organizations continue to use intimidation in dealing with non-Jewish critics of Israel, however.

United Church of Canada to debate boycott, divestment, and sanctions for Israel

By Omar Barghouti and Sid Shniad

For several decades, the world has watched in frustration as the crisis in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory deepened. Confused by the details of what is alleged to be a highly complicated situation and loathed to be attacked for criticizing Israel lest they be vilified as anti-Semites, people who would otherwise be expected to play an active role in striving for an end to Israel’s occupation, colonization, and system of discrimination in accordance with international law have chosen to focus their attention elsewhere.

In recent years, however, this state of affairs has begun to change dramatically as a growing number of activists and intellectuals—including members of the Jewish communities in the West, who could once be counted upon by Israel to be either unquestioning supporters or silent in their acquiescence to its actions—have begun to find their voice on this matter. For example, it has recently surfaced that, consistent with its long tradition of engaging on matters of social justice, the United Church of Canada plans to debate its own version of a boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) resolution at its national conference, set for Kelowna in August.

The fact that Israel’s decades-old oppression of the indigenous people of Palestine defies the fundamental notions of justice and respect of the rule of law has informed this gradual transformation of people of conscience advocating social justice everywhere. The most recent scenes of Israeli jets and heavy armour mounting savage attacks on defenceless civilian populations—first in Lebanon in 2006, and then in Gaza at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009—compounded a growing perception among international civil society of Israel as a pariah state that is flouting international law and basic human rights with utter impunity.

There is a growing understanding of the fundamental issues that drive the crisis: the occupation of Palestinian land by Zionist Jews claiming a right to do so by virtue of an alleged historical-Biblical entitlement; the expulsion of masses of Palestinians from their homeland—first by Zionist militias and later the state of Israel—at the time of Israel’s establishment; the legalized and institutionalized discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel; and the ongoing military occupation and colonization of Palestinian and other Arab lands conquered in 1967.

As a result, a long-overdue determination has arisen in the ranks of civil society around the world, a determination to take concrete steps to generate tactics and strategies to bring a satisfactory resolution to this ongoing crisis by addressing its root causes. One of the most important manifestations of this new determination is the rise of an international movement endorsing the non-violent, morally consistent, universalist strategy of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against the state of Israel to compel it to comply with the international law and human rights principles. The struggle against apartheid in South Africa was one of the key inspirations behind this quickly spreading movement.

As expected, the prevailing Zionist response to this development has been a vitriolic denunciation of the individuals and organizations involved and a sustained attempt to bully them into silence. This usually involves an ascription of anti-Semitism as the motive for such action. In April 2009, however, when Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV) joined the growing number of organizations endorsing BDS to promote a just peace based on international law, the Zionist establishment chose to ignore the development—presumably because Jews endorsing the strategy strongly challenged the false notion of a monolithic Jewish voice in support of Zionism and Israel. From the Zionists’ perspective, engaging IJV on the subject would focus attention on the underlying substantive issues and neutralize their most powerful tools: brow beating and intimidation. Zionist organizations continue to use intimidation in dealing with non-Jewish critics of Israel, however. As was to be expected, they have aimed their big guns at the United Church, attributing all sorts of vile motives to it for even considering a BDS resolution.

We urge the United Church to ignore this thinly veiled smear campaign and to join this global movement in the pursuit of sustainable peace based on freedom, equality, and universal justice.

Omar Barghouti is a founding committee member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). Sid Shniad is a co-chair of Independent Jewish Voices Canada.

Questioning israel does not equal anti-semitism.

Those who rejcted Judaism and took on zionism as their new religion did so with the starry-eyed belief that the state of israel would be a "light unto the nations." Things have not turned out that way.

Nice spin. Most of the ceasefires etc are broken when Israel carries out one of their "targeted assassinations" (Illegal under Internation law). ...& the predictable reaction being that the Palestinians lob a few rockets into Israel. & the entire process starts all over again...

They could solve a lot of the problems if the US would just tell Israel "no more $$ ro weapons until you stop acting like a bunch of petulent children"

It is not just about Jews vs. muslims. There was historically no Israel. Even from the land that Jews were kicked out it was Palestine back then also. I don't know how you guys refer to Palestine in Bible and in Torah. However, in Quran the old place where Jews were kicked out had also been refer to as Palestine.

Muslims don't have problem with jews historically.

Jews and Muslims had always live together side by side in middle east for centuries.

If they can live back then together quite peacefully, then they can do it today as well.

Muslims don't want to kill Jews, but they do have an objection over the presence of Israel.

You can't just divide a country and make a new country out of it. People of that region never able to live in peace.

... criticising Israel's practices - namely the occupation, the settler movement, etc. is legitimate

So in many ways, the situation cannot be resolved, until both sides stop, take pause, realise that the conflict was contrived and continued by others, and ensure that the Jews who control Jewish land, are those who have enough in common with the Arabs who control Arab lands, that they can communicate agreements acceptable to both.

Exactly ... if Israel were not doing anything illegal, then there would be by far less criticism ... it would really appear then that Israel wants peace, but that's not what is going on.

The problem with that statement is that Israel (or to use the above words ... the Jews) is controlling more than just "Jewish land" ... they are also controlling "stolen land" and steal more and more land daily.

Just when is that supposed to stop? Just when are they going to give back the stolen land so that it can be determined at some point just who has rights to what?

But in here ... if one brings that up ... it's considered antisemitism.

Questioning Israel isn't necessarily antisemitism.
Questioning only Israel usually is.

So in many ways, the situation cannot be resolved, until both sides stop, take pause, realise that the conflict was contrived and continued by others, and ensure that the Jews who control Jewish land, are those who have enough in common with the Arabs who control Arab lands, that they can communicate agreements acceptable to both.

The problem with that statement is that Israel (or to use the above words ... the Jews) is controlling more than just "Jewish land" ... they are also controlling "stolen land" and steal more and more land daily.

Just when is that supposed to stop? Just when are they going to give back the stolen land so that it can be determined at some point just who has rights to what?

If any other country were acting as abominably as Israel, those same posters would be screaming their heads off for justice.

1. Debating the Jews' right to self-determination and a state is antisemitism.

2. Saying that Israel is an illegal state is a ridiculous statement because on the same grounds, so are most countries in the Middle East and Africa that were drawn according to British and French interests due to colonialism. And let us not forget - America was taken from the natives.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I agree with the statement that there is very little dispute nowadays amongst serious historians and rational people about the facts. There is pretty much a consensus on what happened during what you can call the foundational period, from the first Zionist settlements at the end of the 19th century ’til 1948. There, there is pretty much of a consensus. And I think Mr. Ben-Ami, in his first 50 pages, accurately renders what that consensus is.

I would just add a couple of points he makes, but just to round out the picture. He starts out by saying that the central Zionist dilemma was they wanted to create a predominantly Jewish state in an area which was overwhelmingly not Jewish, and he cites the figure, I think 1906 there were 700,000 Arabs, 55,000 Jews, and even of those 55,000 Jews, only a handful were Zionists. So that’s the dilemma. How do you create a Jewish state in area which is overwhelmingly not Jewish?

Now, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, at one point, he said there are only two ways you can resolve this dilemma. One, you can create what he called the South African way, that is, create a Jewish state and disenfranchise the indigenous population. That’s one way. The second way is what he calls the way of transfer. That is, you kick the indigenous population out, basically what we did in North America.

Now, as Mr. Ben-Ami correctly points out, by the 1930s the Zionist movement had reached a consensus that the way to resolve the dilemma is the way of transfer. You throw the Palestinians out. You can’t do that anytime, because there are moral problems and international problems. You have to wait for the right moment. And the right moment comes in 1948. Under the cover of war, you have the opportunity to expel the indigenous population.

I was kind of surprised that Mr. Ben-Ami goes beyond what many Israeli historians acknowledge. Someone like Benny Morris will say, “Yes, Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948.” That’s Benny Morris’s expression. But he says it was an accident of war. There are wars, people get dispossessed. Mr. Ben-Ami, no, he will go further. He said you can see pretty clearly that they intended to expel the Palestinians. The opportunity came along, and they did so. Now, those are the facts.

So where do we disagree? I think where we disagree is on responsibility. It’s not just a question of moral responsibility. It’s not simply a question of tragedy or sadness. It’s a question of law, international law. What are your obligations if you are a member state of the United Nations, for example? Now, under international law, refugees are entitled to return to their homes once the battlefield conflict has died down. And Mr. Ben-Ami was absolutely correct. He said the key moment comes in the Israel-Palestine conflict, not when the Palestinians are expelled, but when, after the war, Israel refused to allow the Palestinians back.

At that point, he says, here is a problem, or a problem arises, and the way he puts the problem is we have two conflicting issues. On the one hand, there is what he calls the Zionist ethos. They want a Jewish state. On the other hand, you have the Palestinian refugees, who have a right to return. And for Mr. Ben-Ami, this is an intractable conflict: the Zionist ethos versus the refugees.

But there is a third factor. The factor is international law. And under international law, the Palestinians have the right to return. Now, I am not arguing now for a right of return. I acknowledge it’s a complicated problem. But we have to be honest about the rights and the wrongs and the question of rights and wrongs. It was a wrong inflicted on the Palestinians, and it was their right, their right. This is not a tragedy, and this is not about morals. It’s about legal rights. Their right to return was denied. How do you resolve that problem? I admit, it’s difficult. But we have to be clear about rights and wrongs, because that’s going to become, in my opinion, the main problem when we come to Camp David. Whose rights were being denied during the Camp David/Taba negotiations? .................

...........Borders. The principle is clear. I don’t want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, “occupied Palestinian territories.”........................

..........Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines I’m not going to get into now — they are complicated, but I’m sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.

And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it’s not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about — which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That’s the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact — I’m not going to get into the numbers, because it’s very hard to pin it down — other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. That’s well short of six million. On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book — he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants it’s willing to give up. But that’s not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it’s a very, very different picture......

There are plenty of Jews living in Israel who do not agree with the actions of their government. And plenty more Jews living around the world who do not agree with the actions and policies of the Israeli government.

Exactly. So are they also "Anti-Semite"? If not, then surely those of us who question policies of the Israeli government can't be labeled as such either ... eh?

No need to drag all that other crap in like you're always trying to do to draw the attention away from the actual topic ... okay? The Native Americans have nothing to do with it.