+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

American anthropologists wrong to boycott Israeli academia

Academic boycotts are fundamentally antithetical to academic freedom. Let’s start using anthropological forms of engagement for the sake of progressive change.

By Michele Rivkin-Fish

Supporters of academic boycott during the annual business meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Denver, Colorado, November 21, 2015. (photo: Alex Shams)

Supporters of academic boycott during the annual business meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Denver, Colorado, November 21, 2015. (photo: Alex Shams)

What is being described as an overwhelming vote for the boycott of Israel in the American Anthropological Association (AAA) mischaracterizes the scope of support for boycotts in the field and downplays the serious anthropology-based alternative presented at the conference to promote justice for Palestinians and Israelis, as well as academic freedom for Palestinian academics.

The passage of a resolution to boycott Israeli academia at the AAA’s business meeting two weeks ago represented the views of a well-organized and loud minority of anthropologists — less than 20 percent of the AAA’s membership was present. This group was focused on creating a spectacle rather than a scholarly forum one would expect at an academic conference, with BDS movement activists wearing black t-shirts declaring themselves “Another Jew Against Apartheid” and similar slogans.

As an alternative to the proposed resolution, a second resolution co-authored by 17 AAA members was presented calling for anthropologists to become engaged in Israel/Palestine in ways that applied anthropological insights and analytical frameworks to promote justice. It was supported by members of a growing anti-occupation/anti-boycott organization, Anthropologists for Dialogue on Israel/Palestine and was introduced by Gila Silverman, a recent PhD graduate from the University of Arizona. Acknowledging the divisiveness that the boycott debate has caused, Silverman stated, “By speaking here today I risk my future chances of employment in some anthropology departments. But the stakes are too high not to do so.”

The alternative resolution explicitly called on the Israeli government to follow UN resolutions and to adhere to the initiatives of many in the international community by:

Finding a way to end the siege of Gaza, reconstructing the Gaza strip after the damages inflicted on it in 2014, while safeguarding security for Israelis; Negotiating in good faith with the Palestinians towards a just and final settlement of the conflict, based on Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967; Recognizing the rights of Palestinian and Bedouin citizens of Israel to full equality, and doing everything necessary to fulfill this right; and Promoting and implementing a spectrum of dignified, just, and effective solutions to the tragedy of Palestinian refugees.

The alternative resolution also advanced concrete measures for the AAA to take that are consistent with its mission as a scholarly organization, including having the AAA “allocate 1 percent of its annual expenditure to Scholarly Endeavors in Conflict Areas, with an initial emphasis on Israel and Palestine,” including grants and scholarships for budding anthropologists, funding of anthropological courses, seminars, workshops and study programs, and developing curricula and research projects that focus on understanding conflict generally and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular.

Faced with the alternative resolution, and knowing it was backed by a majority at the AAA Business Meeting, boycott proponents cut off discussion and squashed dissent, allowing the bill to pass overwhelmingly. It will now be put before to the entire AAA membership of 10,000 in the electronic ballot on April 15th.

As the campaign continues, ADIP continues to stress two overarching arguments: that academic boycotts are fundamentally antithetical to academic freedom, and that a platform based on anthropological forms of engagement in the conflict offers the tools of the discipline to be deployed for progressive change. As Silverman stated, “The choice before us…is not only about Israel and Palestine. It is also about who we are as anthropologists, and how the tools of anthropology can be used to address injustice, oppression and state violence.”

Michele Rivkin-Fish is an Associate Professor and Associate Chair at UNC-Chapel Hill’s Department of Anthropology. She is a co-founder of Anthropologists for Dialogue on Israel-Palestine.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Dialogue is fine. Let’s have as much of it as proves useful. The world dialogued about Climate Change for many years and at last (if at last, that is) they are about to do something. Maybe it could happen again. Maybe dialoguing between Israeli and American anthropologists could bring on world peace or even merely Israeli-Palestinian peace. go for it!

      All the boycott of Israeli universities means is this: many American academics will refuse offers to dialog if the offers come from Israeli universities. So hold the dialogues in USA! And if, by some chance, Israeli universities experience a slow-down of international conferences held on their own campuses, it will remind them — which is the sole purpose of the boycotts — that I/P remains unresolved in all the ways that matter to the BDS program.

      What Israeli universities, or the professors that work in them, do with such reminders, is of course up to them. Perhaps they will merely feel injured. (Here we have such a splendid conference center and no-one will come to it!). Perhaps they will move Israeli society toward I/P peace with justice for Palestinians. Who knows?

      There is much we do not know. We do know one thing, howver: no I/P peace has come for 48 years (or is it 67 years ?) in the absence of boycotts or other pressure on Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Ben

      Readers can go to the essays by Hansen and Rosen and Weingrod, noted in the comments to the article by Haggai Matar, to which Rivkin-Fish links. Rivkin-Fish employs the same anodyne talking points that Rosen and Weingrod do, talking points more appropriate to 1985 than 2015. Certainly boycotting academics is a problematic and troubling measure, but as things have come to pass, or impasse we should say, the larger situation troubles too. With no solution in sight. Just openly admitted “managing” of the conflict by the side with all the power.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Ben

      Rivkin-Fish, for an anthropologist, seems strikingly naive. First, Rivkin-Fish knows how politicized and “engaged” all of academic humanities, especially Anthropology, has become, and how engaged anthropologists have become in supporting indigenes’ rights all over the globe. Secondly, one is prompted to recall Stalin’s cynical rejoinder: “How many divisions does the Pope have?” How many divisions–of soldiers, international lawyers, foreign ministry personnel, and financiers–does the AAA have? Rivkin-Fish has to know, or should know if she doesn’t, that the response by the Israeli academic-industrial complex that winks at or abets the occupation to the earnest sentiments in the statement above (“Finding a way to end the siege…Negotiating in good faith (!) with the Palestinians…full equality…”) will be: “yawn.” The response for the most part of non-academic Israelis will be one big sneer. The only weapon the AAA actually has, and it is a considerable weapon, formidable to the academics and likely to get their attention finally, is the effect on the promotions process that the move indirectly will cause.

      Lest we forget, Hansen reminds us: “In the 1980s South Africa, draconian emergency laws curtailed what academics and others could say and do in the public. No such strictures apply to Israeli academics. Yet, surprisingly few have come out in solidarity with their Palestinian colleagues, or in open protest against the systematic violation of Palestinian human rights by the Israeli state.”

      http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2015/09/22/two-views-on-anthropologists-and-boycotts/

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        BEN:” No such strictures apply to Israeli academics. Yet, surprisingly few have come out in solidarity with their Palestinian colleagues,”

        Could it be because they are aware of the whole picture? Because they are aware of the whole history of this conflict and doctronaire ideologues whose job it has been to fool the world into compartmentalized one sided thinking have not been able to fool them?

        So, they know what’s what and who is who and as much as they dislike many of the things that go on, they are also aware that such and even worse things inevitably are the outcome of wars. They also know that throughout history of this confictd the Arabs were the ones to wield the threat and actual violence in order to try to push their claims.

        Could that be the reason, Benny-leh?

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          …by claims, I meant unreasonable claims…

          …by unreasonable, I mean something for nothing along the lines of…

          …let’s get back to the way they were before 1967 (there was no occupation then but there was Arab agression) and we will just have to see what happens then. Maybe we will try to snuff you out again as we tried before…

          …a regular deal of a life time according to the Bennies of this world…

          Reply to Comment
    4. Israel has garnered, and grown, credible scholars in a variety of fiends; however Israel “skates” through the world of academe acting as if it is a “first-rate, important, significant” Nation State while continuing to ignore the 700-pound gorilla in the room: The Palestinians. So long as Israeli scholars are NOT held accountable for the nation’s behaviours, they will continue prancing about the academic world as if nothing were amiss. This boycott is nothing to do with “academic freedom”; it has a lot to do with Palestine Freedom.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Palestine’s freedom? What freedom? To have all the rights but no responsibilities?

        The problem with extreme leftist academics too (and they have less excuse for their behavior than ordinary people) is that they view the Palestinian Arabs as children rather than as responsible adults who have a responsibility to lift a finger to try and resolve this conflict which they started and continue to lovingly nurture. That means they don’t just sit back and make demands. It means that they too are pushed to make compromises.

        For instance, imagine the impact if they announce that they are willing to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It is only a symbolic thing yet imagine the impact on ordinary Israelis. Conversely. Imagine the impact on us that they steadfastly reject and refuse such a recognition after 100 years of fighting against us precisely because they were against the idea of an independent Jewish state in this region.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          A lot of claptrap about “compromises” and “responsibility” as if the Israelis have no responsibility to offer basic human rights. It’s the Israelis who are given a free pass on IHL and Geneva convention violations no one else gets. As if they were children who get in free while the adults pay.

          By Noam Sheizaf:

          We Israelis have no right to deny Palestinians their freedom
          The ‘conflict’ is actually an Israeli problem – a regime that administrates different sets of rights for different ethnic groups. Palestinians shouldn’t need to depend on Israeli ‘concessions’ to the rights they were born with.

          http://www.haaretz.com/peace/1.688182

          “Nothing to offer Israel
          On a deeper level, the ongoing conversation about Israeli “concessions” toward the Palestinians deprives the term “rights” of its original meaning – something a person is born with. Instead, we end up in a dynamic in which Palestinian rights are becoming a political currency that is used to extract favors from the world and legitimize Israeli policy goals – the settlements being the most obvious example. […] The diplomatic process is failing, because this is not a diplomatic problem. Peace talks are meaningless because the Palestinians, like every population denied its rights, have nothing to offer Israel. Not land, nor resources. They don’t even have an army that Israel needs to worry about, like Egypt did.”

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Benny with his usual diatribe which sums up to this…

            1. There is no peace deal so Israel is the party responsible coz we did not make enough concessions.

            2. His favorite children are not responsible at all coz they don’t have to make concessions. All they have to do is make demands.

            By the way, Benny-leh, why are you responding to my post? I thought you wanted to divorce? Or was that one of your usual fibs? LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Yes, Israel did not make nearly enough concessions. That’s obvious to any non-fanatic. You carry, moreover, a deep misunderstanding. Rights are not a currency, or “concessions” to be granted by an overlord. The Palestinians have made huge concessions and as Noam says, they have nothing more to give.

            By “nation state of the Jewish people” do you mean continued but enhanced Jewish hegemonic control of politics, security, land ownership and the economy? Or something else, and if so, what? See:

            http://972mag.com/who-needs-the-right-when-we-have-isaac-herzog/107550/
            Who needs the Right when we have Isaac Herzog? What is the difference between warning about Arab hordes heading to the polls and warning of Arabs being democratically elected to parliament?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Still not keeping your pledge to divorce me, Benny-leh? Oh never mind, LOL…

            Different sets of tights? A typical dishonesty of those who take it upon themselves to be Palestinian Arab apologists. Let’s shove some facts down their throats. Here are the actors in this tragi-comedy…

            1. WB Arabs who have made war on the Jewish state since 1948. They were an outside entity who had the chance to form their own Arab state but Jordan did not give them the opportunity to do so when they took over the West Bank in 1948 and perhaps they were happy to be considered Jordanians. One thing is for sure, they were never Israeli citizens.

            2. After Jordan decided to attack Israel in 1967, those WB Arabs were subject to Israeli occupation and military law. Nothing unusual about that. That’s what happens in all occupations. That’s what happened to the Germans and Japanese at the end of WW2.

            3. While the Germans and the Japanese were under military occupation, no one blabbered about equal rights for Germans and Japanese, nor were they offered an opportunity to vote in elections in America, England, France while those countries occupied them. This sort of nonsense is only demanded of Israel…

            4. Sure, the Israeli occupation lasted longer. But that’s because the Germans and Japanese were sensible and agreed to the terms of surrender offered by the allies. That included surrendering German and Japanese lands. So there was no reason for the occupation to continue.

            5. Contrast that to the attitude of the Palestinian Arabs. They want Israel to surrender to their terms and they don’t even want to formally give up on their pre-war aim which was the eradication of the Jewish state. That’s why Israel’s occupation has been so long. Oh and also because Palestinian Arab violence against Israel never ended. It ebbed and flowed but never ended. All of which means that the Palestinian Arabs never ended their war with us. So yes, the occupation continues and no, “equal rights” are just a red herring because never in the history of mankind are agressors who continue their war, are granted the same rights as the citizens against whom they fight their war. The very idea is preposterous. Are you guys going to offer equal rights to ISIS?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The solution of course is conceptually very simple. It really isn’t rocket science.

            1. Negotiations.
            2. Secure borders are defined.
            3. Recognition of the Jewish and and Arab states by both parties.
            4. Security arrangements
            5. Israel ends the occupation.

            To date, the Arabs have not agreed to this process in practice. They played games with it. So the occupation continues.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Oh geez Uncle Gussies at it with the German/Japanese surrender demagoguery again. Oy! Embarrassing. Please someone ask him to point us to the German-American green line. LoL. The Japanese-American green line. The American settlements in Schleswig-Holstein. The American settlements in Yokohama Prefecture. Moreover, admitting he expects surrender to blatantly illegal belligerent occupation. Embarrassing.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Why are you pretending to be ignorant Benny? We have been thrugh this before.

            FACT: At the Yalta conference, before the war even ended, the allies voted to confiscate German lands and hand those lands over to Poland and Russia. Yes, all the allies agreed to that, the USA and England too.

            Soooooo, Benny-leh. There you have it, the German equivalent of a creeping green line and they took it on the chin even though the lands that the Germans gave up were genuine German lands historically. While your so called Arab lands like East Jerusalem and Maale Adumim were not Palestinian Arab lands historically. They were just part of the lands that were the British Mandate in which BOTH Jews and Arabs lived.

            The Arabs and their apologists (like you Benny-leh) are just trying to use trickery to pretend that those lands are Arab lands by calling themselves Paestinians and pretending that only Arabs were Palestinians and that there were no Jewish Palestinians, none of whom held sovereignity over the land which was administered Britain on behalf of the UN.

            The net result, Benny-leh is that no matter how often you people pretend that the so called settlements are on Arab lands, it isn’t so. They are on lands which used to be part of the British mandate. Therefore BOTH Jews and Arabs can make claims on those lands since the British mandate of Palestine had BOTH Jewish and Arab citizens.

            Now Benny will sneer like a jackal but unlike me, he never justifies his claims. He just parrots other people’s propaganda. Benny has a lazy mind. He refuses to think for himself or look at history.

            Benny looks at the P-I conflict as a sporting contest which entertains him. He picked the side for which he is barracking, the Arabs, they can do no wrong in his eyes. While the opposing side, the Jews of Israel, are ALWAYS wrong according to Benny.

            Either that, or Benny gets paid lotsa money by some Arab oil sheik to promote Arab propaganda.

            Either way, Benny is a compulsive liar and a polemicist.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            The Palestinians, furthermore, have had the responsibility of being Israel’s security contractor in the occupied West Bank for many, many years now and carried through on it, like adults. Done it faithfully and well. What ever has Israel carried through on for them? Israel can’t even be counted on to hand over tax revenues they owe them and swore to deliver. Remarkable hypocrisy. Drenched in an occupation overlord mentality. Have a nice day. Looks like you miss me. But it’s over, Gussie. Try to move on. LoL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”The Palestinians, furthermore, have had the responsibility of being Israel’s security contractor …for many, many years now and carried through on it, like adults. Done it faithfully and well.

            Benny is kidding of course. The PA have had that responsibility that is true. But they have done a terrible job. Families like the Fogel family which was massacred and families of the three Israeli teenagers who were kidnapped and murdered and many other families can testify what a poor job they did.

            BEN:”What ever has Israel carried through on for them?

            WTF, we owe them what they dish out to us. Hatred, hostility, violence and deception.

            BEN:”Israel can’t even be counted on to hand over tax revenues they owe them and swore to deliver.

            Yes Benny-leh. Now why don’t you talk about the fact that the PLO charter was supposed to be amended as part of the Oslo accords, to reflect the undertaking which they wrote in letters to give up on their plan to take over Israel and expel Israeli Jews.

            Neither Arafat nor Abbas delivered on this undertaking. Or many other undertakings either.

            BEN:”Remarkable hypocrisy.”

            You are very good at describing yourself and your Palestinian Arabs, Benny.

            BEN:”Drenched in an occupation overlord mentality.”

            Get over it, Benny-leh. Time is on our side. You don’t believe me? Just look at how far we have come and how your Palestinian Arabs are getting nowhere. Tell them to get some sense into their dense heads of theirs and make peace with us so we can both move on.

            BEN:”Have a nice day. Looks like you miss me.”

            Yes Benny, I miss you like I miss a stomach ache, you delusional moron.

            BEN:”But it’s over, Gussie.”

            Promise? So you have decided to F – off, at long last? I doubt it, never mind. I know how to handle fools like you.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Ben

      Look up above, folks. Jeff Halper gets it right. ‘”Negotiating with good faith” — where does R-F live???!!!!….’

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        There goes Benny again mindlessly barracking. He is very short on logic but ready to assert things without justification.

        Notice too how he derails the discussion to a different track everytime he is cornered on a topic to which he has no answers. Our Benny is very transparent indeed. Transparent and shallow.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          I have news for you, Gussie: the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement OKing the occupation. Far from it. That blows your cheap little WWII analogy out of the water right there. But let’s continue. When Gussie gets really angry, which is all the time now, the ugly ad hominem and the illogic starts flying thick and fast.

          By Gussie’s throughly nasty and offensive comparison of the Palestinians to WWII Germany, with its sick blame externalizing, then, if we went with that appallingly misleading demagoguery, the Israelis come off as something like Joseph Stalin and the Soviet occupiers of Poland and East Germany. Not a sympathetic analogy you’re using, Gussie. And, we’d have to absurdly say that Russia and Poland were founded by displacing Germans from German lands prior to WWII; and that the invasion of Russia and Poland was a reaction; that WWII then left Germany with 22% of its historical land and that yet the Poles and the Russians were still not satisfied with that and just had to have more and…. That’s just for starters. So you see, when an absurd and deceitful analogy is employed for propaganda purposes, the absurdities only mount.

          Moreover, one could use the exact same distortion-wielding, reality-bending demagoguery to paint the Israelis themselves as WWII Germans. Whoah. How offended Gussie would be. But he gets to use the same such demagoguery against the very people his country at this moment is oppressing. That makes Gussie either very confused or a very dishonest person who will stoop to any rhetoric he can find no matter how offensive and false.

          Gussie’s patented and very offensive WWII analogies don’t work and they mainly show how bankrupt is the incessant occupation-rationalizing project he’s engaged in here.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”I have news for you, Gussie: the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement.”

            Sigh…
            Benny again tries to solve an embarrassing fact by just denying it. The bolder the denial, the more it holds, or so he thinks. But anyone can look it up for themselves, Benny-leh.

            From a Wiki account about the Yalta conference.

            “The final decision to move Poland’s boundary westward was made by the US, Britain and the Soviets at the Yalta Conference, shortly before the end of the war. The precise location of the border was left open; the western Allies also accepted in general the principle of the Oder River as the future western border of Poland and of population transfer as the way to prevent future border disputes.”

            Ya get it, Benny-leh? Population transfer okayed by all the allies. Maybe we should resort to such a solution too?

            (Aside: that’ll throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Watch Benny go off like a Roman candle with indignation about how eeeeevil dirty little Zionists are for even thinking such thoughts. Poor old Benny, he is so predictable…).

            Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          I’ve got the IDF Intelligence Corps, the Shin Bet, and the IDF Central Command on my side, Gussie. And Jeff Halper. You’ve got a pack of posturing, palavering, pandering politicians on your side, know-nothings, crudely pandering to a hypernationalistic street. Political shallowness in the extreme. “The dish is being cooked up daily in the Israeli political kitchen.”
          http://972mag.com/what-does-it-say-when-the-idf-is-the-sanest-voice-in-israel/114514/

          Reply to Comment
    6. Gustav

      BEN:”I have news for you, Gussie: the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement.”

      Sigh…
      Benny again tries to solve an embarrassing fact by just denying it. The bolder the denial, the more it holds, or so he thinks. But anyone can look it up for themselves, Benny-leh.

      From a Wiki account about the Yalta conference.

      “The final decision to move Poland’s boundary westward was made by the US, Britain and the Soviets at the Yalta Conference, shortly before the end of the war. The precise location of the border was left open; the western Allies also accepted in general the principle of the Oder River as the future western border of Poland and of population transfer as the way to prevent future border disputes.”

      Ya get it, Benny-leh? Population transfer okayed by all the allies. Maybe we should resort to such a solution too?

      (Aside: that’ll throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Watch Benny go off like a Roman candle with indignation about how eeeeevil dirty little Zionists are for even thinking such thoughts. Poor old Benny, he is so predictable…).

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Different sets of rights? A typical dishonesty of those who take it upon themselves to be Palestinian Arab apologists. Let’s shove some facts down their throats. Here are the actors in this tragi-comedy…

        1. WB Arabs who have made war on the Jewish state since 1948. They were an outside entity who had the chance to form their own Arab state but Jordan did not give them the opportunity to do so when they took over the West Bank in 1948 and perhaps they were happy to be considered Jordanians. One thing is for sure, they were never Israeli citizens.

        2. After Jordan decided to attack Israel in 1967, those WB Arabs were subject to Israeli occupation and military law. Nothing unusual about that. That’s what happens in all occupations. That’s what happened to the Germans and Japanese at the end of WW2.

        3. While the Germans and the Japanese were under military occupation, no one blabbered about equal rights for Germans and Japanese, nor were they offered an opportunity to vote in elections in America, England, France while those countries occupied them. This sort of nonsense is only demanded of Israel…

        4. Sure, the Israeli occupation lasted longer. But that’s because the Germans and Japanese were sensible and agreed to the terms of surrender offered by the allies. That included surrendering German and Japanese lands. So there was no reason for the occupation to continue.

        5. Contrast that to the attitude of the Palestinian Arabs. They want Israel to surrender to their terms and they don’t even want to formally give up on their pre-war aim which was the eradication of the Jewish state. That’s why Israel’s occupation has been so long. Oh and also because Palestinian Arab violence against Israel never ended. It ebbed and flowed but never ended. All of which means that the Palestinian Arabs never ended their war with us. So yes, the occupation continues and no, “equal rights” are just a red herring because never in the history of mankind are agressors who continue their war, are granted the same rights as the citizens against whom they fight their war. The very idea is preposterous. Are you guys going to offer equal rights to ISIS?

        Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        Now if that just does not take the proverbial cake for lameness. Gussie actually expects to be accorded a “win” for this argument by resorting to this amazingly shameless maneuver:

        Take : “I have news for you, Gussie: the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement OKing the occupation.”

        Lop off: “OKing the occupation.”

        It’s magic! Magically transport us halfway around the world and 70 years back in time and to an utterly different situation. Through the looking glass! Wonderland!

        LoL. Unbelievable. Gussie you have great entertainment value.

        Put a fork in it. You lost the argument. Move on. And give up at long last on the incredibly facile, misleading WWII analogies.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Benny replaces what I understood him to say by even a bigger lie. He emphasises what he really said…

          BEN:”I have news for you, Gussie: the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement OKing the occupation.”

          …that is even a more blatant lie. Despite Germany’s unconditional surrender, Germany had American, British Russian and French occupation troops for years. Is it ignorance? Is it obfuscation? Is it plain old lying by Benny? I say all of the above.

          Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Benny replaces what I understood him to say by even a bigger lie. He emphasises what he really said…

          BEN:”I have news for you, Gussie: the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement OKing the occupation.”

          …that is even a more blatant lie. Despite Germany’s unconditional surrender, Germany had American, British Russian and French occupation troops for years. Is it ignorance? Is it obfuscation? Is it plain old lying by Benny? I say all of the above.

          And on top of it, this stupid little man is congratulating himself with an imaginary victory. Talking about lame…

          Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Benny says the two things are not related. But this shows that they are related…

          Different sets of rights? A typical dishonesty of those who take it upon themselves to be Palestinian Arab apologists. Let’s shove some facts down their throats. Here are the actors in this tragi-comedy…

          1. WB Arabs who have made war on the Jewish state since 1948. They were an outside entity who had the chance to form their own Arab state but Jordan did not give them the opportunity to do so when they took over the West Bank in 1948 and perhaps they were happy to be considered Jordanians. One thing is for sure, they were never Israeli citizens.

          2. After Jordan decided to attack Israel in 1967, those WB Arabs were subject to Israeli occupation and military law. Nothing unusual about that. That’s what happens in all occupations. That’s what happened to the Germans and Japanese at the end of WW2.

          3. While the Germans and the Japanese were under military occupation, no one blabbered about equal rights for Germans and Japanese, nor were they offered an opportunity to vote in elections in America, England, France while those countries occupied them. This sort of nonsense is only demanded of Israel…

          4. Sure, the Israeli occupation lasted longer. But that’s because the Germans and Japanese were sensible and agreed to the terms of surrender offered by the allies. That included surrendering German and Japanese lands. So there was no reason for the occupation to continue.

          5. Contrast that to the attitude of the Palestinian Arabs. They want Israel to surrender to their terms and they don’t even want to formally give up on their pre-war aim which was the eradication of the Jewish state. That’s why Israel’s occupation has been so long. Oh and also because Palestinian Arab violence against Israel never ended. It ebbed and flowed but never ended. All of which means that the Palestinian Arabs never ended their war with us. So yes, the occupation continues and no, “equal rights” are just a red herring because never in the history of mankind are agressors who continue their war, are granted the same rights as the citizens against whom they fight their war. The very idea is preposterous. Are you guys going to offer equal rights to ISIS?

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Gott im Himmel. You’re playing games to save face. You know full well that

            “…the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement OKing the occupation”

            was intended to mean

            “…the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement OKing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.”

            Had it meant “…no “Yalta” agreement OKing the Allied occupation of Germany” I would obviously not have used the present perfect tense–“the Americans have signed no”–connoting connection with the past but continuing in the present. That would make no sense. I would have instead used the simple past tense–“the Americans signed no….” As in:

            “…the Americans signed no “Yalta” agreement OKing the Allied occupation of Germany.”

            I did not say that. You are fatally tripped up in the difference between “have signed” and “signed,” buddy. LoL. So let me repeat so you cannot pretend to misunderstand me:

            “I have news for you, Gussie: the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement OKing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.”

            Whew! My god you’re tiresome. Aside from that, the American occupation of Germany lasted all of 10 years and of course not one American civilian settlement was ever established in Germany!!!!! Why do you waste our time with such ridiculousness??!! Yet another dismantlement of your incredibly facile, utterly misleading WWII analogies! Stick a fork in it!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”…the Americans have signed no “Yalta” agreement OKing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.”

            …what has the above to do with what I said below, Benny-leh?

            GUSTAV:”Different sets of rights? A typical dishonesty of those who take it upon themselves to be Palestinian Arab apologists. Let’s shove some facts down their throats. Here are the actors in this tragi-comedy…

            1. WB Arabs who have made war on the Jewish state since 1948. They were an outside entity who had the chance to form their own Arab state but Jordan did not give them the opportunity to do so when they took over the West Bank in 1948 and perhaps they were happy to be considered Jordanians. One thing is for sure, they were never Israeli citizens.

            2. After Jordan decided to attack Israel in 1967, those WB Arabs were subject to Israeli occupation and military law. Nothing unusual about that. That’s what happens in all occupations. That’s what happened to the Germans and Japanese at the end of WW2.

            3. While the Germans and the Japanese were under military occupation, no one blabbered about equal rights for Germans and Japanese, nor were they offered an opportunity to vote in elections in America, England, France while those countries occupied them. This sort of nonsense is only demanded of Israel…

            4. Sure, the Israeli occupation lasted longer. But that’s because the Germans and Japanese were sensible and agreed to the terms of surrender offered by the allies. That included surrendering German and Japanese lands. So there was no reason for the occupation to continue.

            5. Contrast that to the attitude of the Palestinian Arabs. They want Israel to surrender to their terms and they don’t even want to formally give up on their pre-war aim which was the eradication of the Jewish state. That’s why Israel’s occupation has been so long. Oh and also because Palestinian Arab violence against Israel never ended. It ebbed and flowed but never ended. All of which means that the Palestinian Arabs never ended their war with us. So yes, the occupation continues and no, “equal rights” are just a red herring because never in the history of mankind are agressors who continue their war, are granted the same rights as the citizens against whom they fight their war. The very idea is preposterous. Are you guys going to offer equal rights to ISIS?”

            … SIGH…. and this idiot, Benny, calls me tiresome…

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            If you can’t follow me, I’m sorry. Life isn’t fair.
            This is a pointless “debate.” Any possible insight or illumination was reached a long time ago. You’re just trying your best to bury it now. I’ve got better things to do. But you go ahead fellah. You move that pile of dirt shovelful by shovelful from one spot to the next, and then when you’re done, move it back again. You must have been something in the army. I bet your drill sergeant devised just such pointless drills to keep you occupied. LoL. Speaking of the army, as I said above but you ignored, I’ve got the IDF Intelligence Corps, the Shin Bet, and the IDF Central Command on my side, Gussie. And Jeff Halper.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            My army career is just fine, Benny-leh. It sure beats your cowardly big mouth which makes you an obsessive little internet warrior posting from the comfort of your armchair in your lonely little bachelor apartment.

            But even on that score you fail, Benny-leh coz for the life of you, ya can’t defend your position. You keep on ducking, weaving, sidestepping, pretending but you never effectively counter any of the points that I make. You have a thousand figurative cuts on your body, Benny-leh, I have wounded you so often. Now you are just resorting to fake flippancy and nonsensical irrelevancies. But you are bleeding, Benny-leh, heavily bleeding…heh, heh, heh…

            Reply to Comment
    7. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter