Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

Boycott of Hiller's to End

12. January 2005 • Ari Paul
Email this article

The latest dispatch from the Jewish Witness for Peace confirms:

It is planned that January 30 will be the last Sunday spent at Arborland’s entrance protesting Hiller’s advertised policy of sending the profits from Israeli-made (Settlement-made?) goods back to Israel.

Manager John Beckius has confirmed that Jim Hiller plans no further advertising in the Detroit Jewish News and the Washtenaw Jewish News. Though no quid pro quo was established between the boycott and the advertising, Jewish Witnesses feels that our actions have netted a raised awareness of Israel’s occupation to the shopping public, and will move on to other Sunday actions.

Church venues are currently being discussed, including – but not limited to – the signatories to the clergy letter published in the Ann Arbor News December 15th.

  1. I was sort of neutral about the whole boycott thing, but I guess it’s true that the picketers could spend their time more profitably.

    I was concerned about possible escalation if picketing continued; e.g., thank G-d they didn’t start sloganeering
    “Hiller’s Should Be Called ‘Hitler’s’” or something. That would be too much.
       —David Boyle    Jan. 12 '05 - 06:42PM    #
  2. I can’t wait to see who they plan to annoy next.
       —Just a Voice    Jan. 12 '05 - 08:03PM    #
  3. I’m still horribly upset about the whole “money is fungible” argument being used to further some deep-rooted knee-jerk reaction against any and all things Israeli. There’s no reason to thank them for “deciding” to end a mean-spirited actions, not just against the Occupation, but against things with the word “Israel” in them.

    In a potentially poor showing of blog etiquette, I’m reposting something I wrote last month:
    “In April, The JWP picketed a benefit dinner honoring of a donor to JUVENILE DIABETES because of his donations to ISRAEL: Not a military organization, the JWP even acknowleged, but ISRAEL.

    Evidently, one member of the JWP defends the JWP’s boycotts of anything Israel-related, or local org’s that donate to non-military Israeli causes by stating, “Money is fungible.”

    Money is Fungible? Are you kidding me? Tell me you didn’t steal that line from one of those anti-drug Superbowl commercials that links marijuana usage to weapons purchase by terrorists in Afghanistan?

    When I’m in Israel over the break, no alleged level of “monetary fungibility” is gonna to stop me from buying a slice of pizza.

    Like I said earlier, endorsing or joining the JWP or its picketing is, at the very least, a mistake. Somebody please back me on this one.
    “Picketers protest award recipient for giving to Israel” (From the Oakland Press, May 2004)

    P.S. Here’s a link to Israeli research re: diabetes, b/c maybe “fungible money” finds its way to good causes, too.

    Please comment. Someone. Anyone decent.
       —Adam    Jan. 12 '05 - 08:45PM    #
  4. I don’t know if I’m “decent”: but I think the picketing of a juvenile diabetes donor is counter-productive, at very best.

    But some alarm news: Prince Harry in England is under fire after attending a party wearing a SWASTIKA ARMBAND. Ouch.

    One photo at,,2005020231,00.jpg , and one article at,2763,1389376,00.html .
    As the saying goes, I can’t believe he’s that stupid. (And he’s dating a white South African girl; maybe it all fits together…)

    I think we may see JWP picketing Buckingham Palace now! That would get some press, I tell you.
       —David Boyle    Jan. 13 '05 - 01:14AM    #
  5. I’m afraid that my boycott of Hillers is continuing, and will until their prices are lower.
       —js    Jan. 13 '05 - 04:08AM    #
  6. hiller’s may be pricey, but remember they’re food is really good…and the next time you are about to splurge and go to whole foods, just remember that hiller’s has a union and whole foods (to the best of my knowledge) does not (correct me if i’m wrong about that)...

    cooking minute rice in 30 seconds,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jan. 13 '05 - 02:09PM    #
  7. Ari,

       —Murph    Jan. 13 '05 - 02:14PM    #
  8. Whole Foods has an amazing corporate propaganda machine aimed at their employees. An associate related to me one question on an employees periodic review asks the employee to what degree they are committed to the goal of increasing company profitability.
       —Scott T.    Jan. 13 '05 - 02:29PM    #
  9. “to what degree”? Oh, maybe around 32 degrees Fahrenheit? Or would I be receiving the third degree for that answer?

    Pox on both of’em. We just try to squeeze as much out of the Co-op and Arbor Farms as possible and then occasionally duck into the Kroger around the corner for two or three things a month. More expensive to go with the first two, but makes me feel better.
       —Marc R.    Jan. 13 '05 - 05:30PM    #
  10. I can’t believe Hiller’s is actually agreeing to any terms put forth by JWP. JWP is a just a group of chemically imbalanced, burnt out hippies with nothing better to do than picket and annoy Jews and other people in Ann Arbor. I can’t believe Jim Hiller is actually giving those wackos some legitimacy. But then again, he’s probably having the last laugh. I don’t think that executive decisions made at Hiller’s are actually made while taking these people into much account.

    Plus, it’s not about the whole anti-Semitism argument. Picketing anything just because it has to do with some national entity constitutes a form prejudice. I can’t own a store and post a sign saying that all people who are not Uruguayan may shop there. It’s like putting up a sign that says “No Dogs or Jews allowed.” I mean, either all pets are allowed or none at all. Okay, that was tasteless.

    JWP members are also out of their minds, but that’s another thing. Adam is right about how ridiculous their “money is fungible” argument is. It reminds me of one justification for suicide bombings that says that all Israelis are fair game since they either will eventually make a contribution to the Israeli army or have already done so. This is, of course, a crock of shit.

    I’m just going to post this already. If I spend any more time on this, I might end up showing that I actually give two shits about JWP.
       —Matt    Jan. 18 '05 - 01:30AM    #
  11. Couple things- Marc, while the PFC is a co-op and generally good, it treats its workers with barely concealed contempt. There’s a reason that the average worker lasts less than three months there, and it’s not because they’re giving up to work at communes. There’s a very clear delineation between upstairs (shift) workers and downstairs (salary) workers, and a very clear hierarchy which encourages the general abuse of shift workers. They’ve made some reforms since I left, but that was in part because the whole of the front end staff threatened a strike.
    The moral, I guess, is that there is no perfect place to shop.
    As for the boycott of businesses that deal with Israel- Right now the government of Israel is taking an odious ideological stance and engaging in illegitimate uses of military force. Any influence that can be exerted upon that ideology toward reforming it, so long as it does not become more evil than the evil it opposes, is to be welcomed. Ideally, the outgrowth should be a Jewish populace more critical of Israeli policies and more willing to speak against them. If boycotts achieve that, they are achieving a positive end and therefore justified.
       —js    Jan. 18 '05 - 01:25PM    #
  12. “Ideally, the outgrowth should be a Jewish populace more critical of Israeli policies and more willing to speak against them. If boycotts achieve that, they are achieving a positive end and therefore justified.” -js

    interesting point, but the israeli (jewish) population is becoming more and more right wing as a result of the intifada and the support of it…the more violence there is, and opposition to israel, more and more israelis become to be alright with violence against palestinians, even if there are peaceniks…

    as an israeli once told me, when hamas bombs a kibbutz (basically a commune where kids farm and sing koombiya), then even the most left-wing of israelis gets to be alright with occupation policies…so i don’t think that boycotts achieve this, or will in the near future that is…

    get sick, get well, hang around the ink well,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jan. 18 '05 - 01:33PM    #
  13. js-

    “Any influence that can be exerted upon that ideology toward reforming it”

    The goal of the JWP’s picketing is not reform of anything. It is to perpetually promulgate a characterization of Israel as an exclusively militaristic entity. In colloquial political discourse, such action has been coined “Demonization,” and will not bring about a peaceful resolution to any conflict.

    “Ideally, the outgrowth should be a Jewish populace more critical of Israeli policies and more willing to speak against them.”

    When their actions elicit comments like these, one should step back and realize that the JWP’s overly reactionary protests against any and all things with the word “Israel” in them (including synagogues during times of service) have left some with the impression that “the Jewish populace” isn’t doing enough to stop “the demon,” thereby placing the onus of change entirely on them.

    ” If boycotts achieve that, they are achieving a positive end and therefore justified.”

    Boycotts do breed criticism. But the goal here is change towards mutual, if not peaceful, coexistence. Demonization does NOT breed change, and therefore, boycotts are NOT justified.
       —Adam    Jan. 18 '05 - 01:48PM    #
  14. Is this Livshiz posting as Ari?

    By your logic above, people shouldn’t have divested from South Africa, and blacks shouldn’t have picketed Woolworth’s or whatever stores, or bus lines, discriminated against them. What?

    And how can you equate kibbutz-bombing with boycotting? Are they equally violent?
       —David Boyle    Jan. 18 '05 - 01:51PM    #
  15. Clarification: I’m not saying boycotting HILLER’S was a good idea, but boycotting is still not bad as kibbutz-bombing.
       —David Boyle    Jan. 18 '05 - 01:53PM    #
  16. no, that is not what i am saying at all…what i am saying is that i am very pessimistic in the political dispoition of the israeli populace…more violence is making more israelis turn to the right…and surely, i don’t think that boycotts will make many of them change their minds…perhaps it will, but if that happens, i’ll be surprised…

    that is all,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jan. 18 '05 - 02:30PM    #
  17. No it wasn’t ari posing as me. But for once i agree with him. THe differnce b/n South Africa and Israel – and the impact that international condemnation has (or can be expected to have) is the history.

    Israelis – who until at the earlierst 1980s were threatened with extinction (jews into the sea, etc) and they remember several instnaces where international actors did not come to their defense when they should have (1967, 1972 (Munich Olympics), 1973, and 1976 (Entebee)). Moreover, they clearly remember the Holocaust where the world stood by and let jews die.

    Have thigns chnaged – maybe. But Israelis dont’ feel it. what they see is a group of people (particularly Europe) who has tried century after century to exterminate them in one guise or another – and that now critisizes them from defending itself. So yeah – they are skeptical.

    Moreover, what winds up happening is that Israel is attacked by terrorists, and Israel responds – only Israel is critiszed. JS, sitting in AA, most likely having had no military trainig, can talk about “illegitimate use of force” becuase its not her kid that gets blown up on the bus.

    Until now – this has simply been a rant – but let me put it together for you. In South Africa – the regime that created apartheid had not been a victim of prosecution throughout history – in fact, they were the “bosses” so to say. Their reaction was simply a responce to pressure. With Israel, the memory of past injustice, and the feeling that “if we are not for ourselves, no one will be for us” – only leads to a hardening of lines. It is seen as the same antisemites (largely b/c there is a history, and b/c there is a sense that only Israel is critisized (it did take amensty 11 years to decide that suicide bombing of school buses is wrong). So yeah – they simply say—okay – there is no one who’ll play honest broker and see both sides – its up to us. and if its up to us, the history of Isreal teaches that only by giving the advesary a bloody nose to we get “peace,” temporary yes, but at least its there.

    So no – i dont’ see boycotss working. Particuarly, as discussed elsewhere, the Isreli economy is diversified enough, and penetrates important sectors in the way that South Africa in the 1980s didn’t.
       —David LIvshiz    Jan. 18 '05 - 02:52PM    #
  18. Not to change the subject entirely, but:

    Could and Should the city council’s recent condemnation of the JWP’s picketing outside of synagogue during religious services ever be legally binding?

    It’s pretty clear that molesting prayer-goers isn’t in the “spirit of boycotting,” no matter how effective/pointless/demonizing the JWP’s brand of boycotting may be.
       —Adam    Jan. 18 '05 - 06:22PM    #
  19. Lest there be any confusion, by molesting, I mean “pestering.” Ahh, the power of the e-pen.
       —Adam    Jan. 18 '05 - 06:22PM    #
  20. Adam, I believe the City Council could pass an ordinance preventing protests outside of a religious service, to a certain degree. They would have to set it up such that protest was not prevented altogether (for example, they could ban protests on the sidewalk in front of the synagogue, but not on the sidewalk across the street), and the limit would have to be based in some public health, safety, morals, or general welfare reasoning. (for example, having protests right in front of the synagogue could be physically intimidating to worship-goers, while mandating that the protesters stay on the other side of the street prevents contact between the two parties.)
       —Murph    Jan. 18 '05 - 06:34PM    #
  21. Thanks for the info, Murph.

    What frustrates me is that the JWP is well aware of the limits that the city can place on them—i.e., they know within how many hairs they may stand of a Jewish or Israel-friendly establishmen without the city being able to do anything about it.

    Don’t get me wrong: There’s nothing wrong with being an informed citizen. I encourage it. I just take issue with citizens that use their information to persist with disrespectful and demonizing activities.
       —Adam    Jan. 18 '05 - 06:55PM    #
  22. Livshiz- Don’t gimme any damn bullshit about how my lack of military training disqualifies me from arguing illegitimate use of force. That, despite what TJ says, is what an ad hominem fallacy is.
    The legitimacy of the government rests on the consent of the governed. Israel is the de facto government of the occupied territories (despite UN resolutions requiring them to withdraw to pre-’67 boundaries). They clearly do not have the consent of the governed (they might do better if they were secular, instead of an inherently religious state). People have a fundemental right of rebellion against an illegitmate government.
    Ari- Israeli politics are becoming more right wing because of the intifadah, not the Israeli populace as a whole, according to the most recent polling data that I’ve seen. It’s a function of parlimentary systems in which no majority can be attained that fringe groups pull parties to extreme positions. Most of the population wants a more peaceful solution, just as most of the Palestinean population wants a more peaceful solution. The violence isn’t popular on either side. But unfortunately, neither side has any ability to restrain its fringes as things stand now.
    Adam- While it’s nice for you to project a goal of demonization onto the JWP, that’s not really their stated goal, now is it? Why don’t you work with statements you can support, instead of emotional appeals? The argument is over whether these tactics are effective, not over what these tactics really are, because arguments over their true nature are unsupportable.
       —js    Jan. 21 '05 - 02:56PM    #
  23. Actually JS – you are talking about legal arguments – namely under Geneva Conventions – and every human rights tribuanl from teh European Court of Human Rights to the Intra AMerican Court for Human Rights and the International Court of Justice (as well as the statute of the ICC) has said that questions of military necessity are “inherently questions of expertise, to be proven by expert evidence.”

    So yeah – you can make all the arugmetns you want – but i dont’ find them legitimate.

    Now – in terms of “consent of the governed” and de-facto government. FIrst of all, not a SINGLE UN resolution calls for Israel’s unilateral withdrawls. In fact, UNSC resolution 338 (1973) which explicitly modifies UNSC 242 (1967) specifies that withrdrawl shoudl occur only after completion of negotiations between the parites. Therefore, Israel does not have to retreat in teh absence of agreement.

    Moreover, Palestinians just voted in elections – and have a representative to argue their cause – and he is trying to do that. Moreover, Israel has taken pains nto to engage in governance, just militayr security – and there is a differnce – even if not immideately clear.

    Lastly – i object to you claimign Israel is a religious state. Judaism can be a nationality as well as a religion. And the way Jews were treated in Eastern Europe the last 100 years would seem to proove that.
       —David LIvshiz    Jan. 21 '05 - 04:36PM    #
  24. js-

    You’re absolutely right. How foolish of me. Our president’s stated goal in sending troops to Iraq was to find WMD’s. Some would argue that there was more to this decision than meets the eye. But, in accordance with your reasoning, far be it from anyone to “project” an “unstated goal” onto this event or any other in a public forum of discussion.

    My argument is that their “stated goal” is not just inneffective. It is also a façade for a covert goal, which is demonization. To date, the JWP and its members have invoked images of the Klan and Nazism to refer to Israel’s supporters, have subsequently appealed to a Klan/Nazi publication, and have born pickets labeling Israel/supporters of Israel as racists,Nazis, and militants at apolitical venues featuring the word Israel or those who don’t share their view of Israel (e.g. Beth Israel synagogue during services, the Israeli Philharmonic, a juvenile diabetes benefit).

    Don’t take my word for it. The links are provided below.

    I encourage you and anyone else to comment on and to consider the actions of the JWP rather than attack my supported claims regarding what I believe to be their true and spiteful goal-demonization of Israel, Israeli institutions, and supporters of Is.

    For a list of links, refer to, post #6.

    1. Michigan Friends of the IDF []
    2. Letter seeking support from White Power publication & its readers (*WARNING: Offensive Content, including numerous racial/ethnic epithets against Black, Jewish, and Muslim people):
    3. Reference to A2 City Council as KKK (From AA NEWS on 1/21/2004) []
    4. SAFE’s Vice-Chair cites work with JWP (From the Michigan Daily) []
    5. Local Religious Leaders Condemn JWP’s Picketing at Beth Israel
    6. “Picketers protest award recipient for giving to Israel� (From the Oakland Press, May 2004)
       —Adam    Jan. 21 '05 - 04:58PM    #
  25. Adam- Well, what have we got in your links? I didn’t bother with the Friends of the IDF, as their bias seemed rather apparent. Your white power link just had some unsourced letter from some guy named Bill, and didn’t involve any anti-semitism aside from the point of origin (again, an ad hominem fallacy). Your link to the A2 News article on the AACAW was a reference to the JWP as similar to the KKK by a member of the Council, which is very different than what you represent it to be.
    So what have we got? We’ve got you saying that their real goal is to demonize, on the strength of people who are open in their support of IDF policies as supporting evidence. Whether their goal is to demonize or not, you’ve done a terrible job in proving it, and I think that your take represents your own feelings on this more than it represents any concrete case one way or another.
    You can argue that the boycott is ineffective and causes more trouble than it’s worth, and that the picketting is in poor taste, but those are things on which reasonable people can differ.
       —js    Jan. 22 '05 - 02:52PM    #
  26. Livshiz- You wacky Likudnik, your interpretation of 242 and 338 are at best deranged.
    First off, 242 calls on both sides to negotiate a settlement, and for the return of land acquired by force. It does not call for all of the land in English (another one of those zany Britishisms), though it does seem to say that in French. The difference in the translations was intentional. But under 338 the return of the land is to be “immediate and concurrent with negotiations.” It is not predicated upon a peace pact, no matter how much you want it to be.
    And your defense of the occupation as something only a military mind can decide whether is appropriate is flawed on its face, as both the casual observer and the expert can agree that Israel has violated the Geneva conventions in its treatment of the Palestineans. Allowing only Israel to decide whether Israel’s policies are justified is fundementally flawed. It’s like letting South Africa decide whether the Bantustans were necessary for civil order.
    People have a right to resist occupation by force. The territories taken in ‘67 are not Israel except in a Biblical sense, and the people who are not Israeli there have a legitimate right to use violence against the occupation.
    Read your Locke.
       —js    Jan. 22 '05 - 03:15PM    #
  27. * Protest Israeli Atrocities.

    * 12:30 this Sunday afternoon.

    * Outside the Jewish Community Center; Ann Arbor.

    The JCC is at 2935 Birch Hollow Drive; Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Meanwhile, the JCC’s “Celebrate Israel” festival will be proceeding inside.

    I personally think the genocide of indigenous Palestine is nothing to celebrate.

    The protesters, outside, will be remembering “Al-Nakbeh” (the Catastrophe: When Israel was formed by violently destroying Palestine, by massacring villagers).

    The official protest flyer, by Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, is on the Web at:

    Until ArborUpdate chooses to run an article on the protest, there’s always the Michigan Indymedia article, including charming comments, at:
       —Blaine (Palestine Protest this Sunday)    May. 14 '05 - 12:59AM    #
  28. Blaine,

    Nice to see you put your announcement in a more appropriate place on the site. I noticed it because your posting brings this discussion back onto the New Comments list, which I hope you can accept as an adequate method of bringing attention to your group’s activities.

    I’m 51, and the Israelis and Palestinians have been at each other’s throats my entire life. For a good part of that time, the dispute was a potential flashpoint between the U.S. and the Soviets. It remains to this day near the crux of the issues between the west and the Arab and Moslem world. I’ve always thought that should we have WWIII, it’ll probably be sparked by this conflict.

    Because of the danger that the Israelis and Palestinians bring to the world—and because of the massive distraction they’ve been to such worthy issues as hunger, education, and poverty—I’ve never understood why we haven’t been more critical of both parties for failing to come to terms. It seems we’re always bribing them to be nice, rather than sanctioning them for their failure to do so. I wonder if our willingness to be dragged in by one side or another isn’t enabling and perpetuating the conflict.

    There are certain facts—in particular, the number of deaths—that make both parties’ claims of victimization undeniable. Yet no future can be invented out of this past. Forgiveness is indispensable. Both parties’ focus on their own victimization amounts to recalcitrance. This is why I believe it’s up to the outside world to impose sanctions—and perhaps even a quarantine—on both until the parties sort this out.

    I’d never want to minimize the issues in this dispute. I’m always grateful that I wasn’t born a party to it. But no matter how tragic the past, I don’t think these two parties can justify the harm they bring to the world’s present and future.
       —Al Braun    May. 14 '05 - 01:35PM    #
  29. Thanks, Al,

    I hope the discussion of Palestine—what’s happening to it—will be furthered by this Sunday’s protest outside the Jewish Community Center.

    It’s very simple to solve: the U.S. should stop giving billions to Israel every year, and stop blocking every international effort to sanction and boycott Israel.

    South Africa was sanctioned out of existence as an apartheid state.

    I have no doubt the same fate awaits apartheid Israel.

    See you at the Sunday protest, if you’re interested.
       —Blaine. (Protest this Sunday, for Palestine and its occupied people)    May. 14 '05 - 08:07PM    #
  30. Blaine,

    Please allow me to draw your attention back to this thread. I think those of us interested in the Israeli-Palastinian conflict can write here without interrupting other conversations. I must admit that even I find myself a bit annoyed by your repetitious insertion of this issue in discussions where it’s tangential. Perhaps other regulars at Arbor Update can be drawn into this conversation if we keep it here on this thread. Further, perhaps it’s possible for this discussion to actually make a difference in this tragic situation.

    I’m deeply interested in this conflict because of the danger it represents to the world at large, and because of its ostensible intractability. I think the source of the intractability is that the personal and group social imperative of all of the parties shapes their perspectives toward irreconcilable differences (sorry for the mouthful). This is why we can count on “experts” to continue to fail resplendently until one party or the other is annihilated.

    Here’s an article in the Washington Post that says, “In presidential elections, Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources.” It goes on to say that the Republicans are hot after the same cash. So both the Democratic and Republican Parties—and consequently the U.S. Government—are bound by their social imperative to support Israel. So expecting them to discuss the issue on it’s merits—rather than predisposed toward Israel—is naive.

    It’s only “ordinary” citizens who are unbound by social imperative on this issue that can conceive a breakthrough. So we must patiently and persistently seek a transcendent point of view, and the world at large must assert this view if we’re ever to have peace.
       —Al Braun    May. 18 '05 - 03:16PM    #
  31. Al, maybe we can start by examining your term, “social imperative”. Could you explain it a bit, in particular what makes it “imperative”? (Sounds like a euphamism for payoff, the way you described it.)
       —Steve Bean    May. 18 '05 - 03:33PM    #
  32. Blaine,

    Here are a couple of asides:

    There’s an interesting footnote on page 12 of this State Department document that says the U.S. is phasing out its aid to Israel over 10 years. I haven’t researched it further, but thought you might be interested.

    Here’s a study that shows that Americans think we spend 20% of the federal budget on foreign aid rather than the actual number which is just under 1%. It shows just how uninformed we are about how our government spends our money in foreign affairs.
       —Al Braun    May. 18 '05 - 03:33PM    #
  33. Steve,

    Here’s a link to a short essay about social imperative. Thanks for asking.
       —Al Braun    May. 18 '05 - 03:42PM    #
  34. Steve,

    You’re right—as long as the media makes no issue out of aid to Israel, the overwhelming majority has no idea we even send money to Israel.

    Voila—no imperative, no issue!

    This situation will continue only as long as Israel’s cheerleaders scare the living daylights out of any Palestine rights advocates inside the peace and Green and liberal groups who are otherwise against war.

    But the Greens are not so easily silenced.

    The anti-war people are less easily silenced every year.

    So the War on Palestine will become an “imperative”, whether you relish the prospect or not, hand in hand with the War on Iraq.

    This is only the beginning, like 1965 in Vietnam.


    You may remember what would happen to any major public figure who crusaded against the Vietnam War in 1965. It was very “controversial” then.

    As late as 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. was crucified in the mass media for speaking against the war, and for calling the U.S. “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”.

    But the Greens, the peace groups, the liberals, will be driven by meltdown in Iraq, and by related failures we can’t foresee now, to address what 200 million Arabs see quite clearly:

    that ending the War on Palestine (which we largely fund) really is a social imperative.

    200 million people count.
       —Blaine (Palestine Demolished by Dems and Republicans Equally.)    May. 18 '05 - 04:24PM    #
  35. Blaine,

    There’s not going to be an anti-war movement in the United States unless there’s a draft.

    If there’s anything the world has demonstrated this past century, it’s that we’re plenty willing to ignore atrocity.

    What inspired the world to support the black South Africans was their non-violence.

    1967 amply demonstrated that 200 million Arabs don’t count militarily.

    No one has ever been annoyed into doing the right thing.

    The Palestinian’s only hope is others doing the right thing.

    Palestine needs friends.

    What are you doing to help Palestine?
       —Al Braun    May. 19 '05 - 04:13AM    #
  36. OK,

    You’ve convinced me.

    I’m ready to watch you get liberation for the occupied people of Palestine by “making friends” for them.

    Which, as you’ve taught me, means avoiding comment which might be “annoying”.

    So let’s start!

    First, we avoid those things that are annoying to Zionists:

    * Anything that describes the torture they are putting Palestine through, and

    * Anything demanding sanctions or divestment from Israel.

    I’m ready now, to watch you get some liberation for Palestine.
       —Blaine. (Palestine Enslaved, with Democrats & Republicans both tightening the chains.)    May. 19 '05 - 04:36AM    #
  37. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Those of you who are Jewish are an embarassment to
    the Jewish community.

    I don’t see Moslems picketing mosques because of atrocities committed against people of native religions in oil-rich areas Africa with armaments funded by Moslems. I don’t see protest about the mistreatment of Moslem women in numerous countires nor anything about polygamy which is a denigration of women. Those How about all the oil-money funded suicide bombers. There’s plenty of atrocities, including 9/11, that have been committed by religious extremists.

    Religious extremists of all religions are the source of much evil in the world. Find something better to do with your time and leave poor, beseiged Israel alone.

    If you don’t like Israel and want all the Jews to leave (or is that don’t care about whether they live or die) lobby to have a large section of europe made into a European jewish nation given to the European Jews in exchange for all the property and assets confiscatedand/or driven out by the nations of Europe who were responsible for this.

    Switzerland, which has reaped the most of the benefit of stolen Jewish money and art, would be a prime area to be given to the Jews and let the Swiss be relocated in other areas of Europe.
       —Carole Bennett    May. 19 '05 - 12:37PM    #
  38. Carole, you seem to be arguing that people here shouldn’t oppose injustice simply because people elsewhere aren’t opposing other injustices. Is that your position or would you care to restate what you mean?
       —Steve Bean    May. 19 '05 - 12:46PM    #
  39. Blaine,

    I wish I’d convinced you. I can only imagine the pain you feel.

    Unfortunately the plight of the Palestinians isn’t going to end this September with massive anti-war protests and world divestment from Israel. I don’t know when you’d mark the beginning, with the Balfour Declaration or what, but this is a very long-term problem. As painful as the situation is, you’re not going to solve it in months, but years.

    I’m not saying stop annoying the Zionists, but rather people who might otherwise be sympathetic to your cause. The Palestinians need to back off a level. They’ve got to move back from threatening the Isrealis to annoying them, and from annoying the rest of the world to enrolling them. The Palestinians haven’t elicited enough sympathy in the Arab world to accept their refugees.

    According to Bread for the World about 19,000 children will die today of hunger-related causes. Compared to this, the Palestinians’ suffering is small-scale. Why should the world attend to the Palestinians?

    Read Carole’s post above. She opens with an insult, “You people should be ashamed of yourselves.” Who’s she talking to? She jumped in the conversation without regard to what others are discussing. She did exactly what I’ve heard several people criticize you for on other threads. It’s a lack of consideration for others while demanding their consideration. What’s wrong with this picture?

    Like the Palestinians, Carole seems to think that the world owes the Israeli’s something for past injustices. It’s a nice idea, but it’ll never happen. Tragically, the world will respond to her insults…and so the cycle continues.

    I can’t fathom why both the Israelis and the Palestinians feel they can harass and harangue the rest of the world with impunity. All of history shows that doesn’t work.

    Let’s slow down, back up, get some perspective, and see if we can come up with some new ideas.
       —Al Braun    May. 19 '05 - 01:48PM    #
  40. Israeli soldier murders Israeli citizens, today, because they are Palestinian:


    4 more innocent Palestinians, killed on their own land by another Israeli soldier.

    Add that to 4,000 more innocent Palestinians, also killed on their own land, also by Israeli soldiers, in the last 5 years.


    Is it still too early for ArborUpdate to consider divestment from Israel as a serious campus issue, as a serious City Council issue, worthy of serious discussion?
       —-Blaine. (Palestine)    Aug. 5 '05 - 01:45AM    #
  41. I believe that soldier has been called a “Blood Thirsty Terrorist” by Sharon. He was also a deserter and an obvious lunatic. He may have been the product of a fucked up world, but did not represent the Israeli mainstream.
       —Parking Structure Dude!    Aug. 5 '05 - 01:38PM    #
  42. Do you know what Sharon did to Sabra and Shatila in 1982?

    Do you know how many thousands of women and children, and helpless old men, Sharon and his “mainstream” Israeli army killed?

    Israeli journalist Amnon Kapelliouk wrote a book on it; he was the first journalist on the scene who lived to tell what he saw.

    I cite his book because I wonder if anything that any Arab says, or anything that happens to Arab people, has any impact on your thinking.

    I wonder if you will ever jump to defend an Arab general the way you jump to approvingly quote Sharon, and to defend his “mainstream”.

    If Sharon is not a “mainstream” politician, maybe you can explain why he’s stayed in power so long, even after the Nazi war crimes now known as Sabra and Shatila.
       —-Blaine. (Palestine)    Aug. 5 '05 - 03:47PM    #
  43. Typical, Blaine. You didn’t address anything I said. You’re such an infant.
       —Parking Structure Dude! (Parking Structures, Dude)    Aug. 5 '05 - 04:03PM    #
  44. Yes, it is true that Sharon is publicly saying that one soldier, acting without orders, should not have acted on his own.

    The same Sharon is fully using his power to kill thousands of Palestinians.

    And yes, Sharon is now calling that soldier, who was created by the same Zionism as Sharon, armed by the same Zionism as Sharon, using the same methods as Sharon, a “lunatic.”

    And yes, mainstream Israelis tolerate the Israeli Army killing 4,000 Palestinians under official orders, but random murders in view of the media are treated as an embarrassment, as out of the “mainstream”.

    In that way, Hitlerism and Zionism are quite similar: mass murders of “untermenschen” away from the media, and the appearance of public order when the media are on the streets.
       —-Blaine. (Palestine)    Aug. 5 '05 - 04:50PM    #
  45. Thank you for answering me, Blaine. And I’m sorry I called you an infant. But i do think you’re over simplifying things. Do you actually believe that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland in the Middle East? Or would you disolve Israel entirely and leave those people to defend themselves, or deport them? I’m just curious what your goal is.
       —Parking Structure Dude!    Aug. 5 '05 - 06:33PM    #
  46. OK, I’ll try to answer your questions.

    Asking for a “homeland” always sounds nice.

    But then you look at history.

    What does it mean to ask for a “white homeland”, or for an “Aryan homeland”?

    In reality, it means ethnic cleansing to make room for the new occupants.

    And the expellees’ kin still remain close by, with the memories of all that nastiness.

    So there’s a constant re-expulsion, sometimes a wholesale mass murder, to wipe out the memory of the expellees.

    The occupying power often conducts a constant racial education, in schools and media, in church and synagogue, to satisfy the new occupants that they have a God-given right to those newly stolen homes, to the newly stolen land.

    That message of your racial superiority, that message of the worthlessness of the expellees, happens at all levels in Israel.

    It happened in the U.S. up to 1890, when the last genocidal war on Indians was finished.

    For good measure, dime novels and movie “Westerns” kept driving the message home for 80 more years, until the end of the 1960’s.

    A similar process happened in South Africa, creating a mystical “Afrikaner” homeland, church, and “volk”, with the divine right to expel, kill, rob, and erase all of Black Africa if they felt it to be necessary.

    The occupying power often wages a low-level, or high-level, war to convince the expellees, the oppressed, and the occupied remnants to just give up and leave.

    The war is waged with armies, with TV, with everything.

    Most Palestinian Christians, with their connections to family and church outside Palestine, have gotten the message. They have run for their lives.

    Actually, most Palestinains, Muslim and Christian, ran for their lives in 1948, like anybody would, due to bombardment, massacres, etc.

    Now the remnants of Palestine resist leaving, because that would really be the end, for all time.

    You and I could never understand how the remaining Palestinians manage to stay.

    They stay despite siege, starvation, thousands of deaths, constant army humiliation, the air force raining death from the sky, etc.

    I think the Palestinians’ right to stay, and their families’ right to return, has to be respected.

    I’m not the only one who thinks that. Ethnic cleansing is also a crime, and it was enough reason for Clinton to bomb Serbia to smithereens, until the Kosovars were allowed to return home.


    So, to create a new “homeland”, in a world where all the good land is already taken, and most of the bad land, too, that is how Israel did it.

    It’s not worthy of your support.

    The way to save Jews was to stop supporting Mussolini, who inpsired Hitler, in the ‘20’s and ‘30’s.

    The way to save Jews was to stop supporting Hitler in the early and mid-’30’s, and even later.

    The way to save Jews was to let them escape to the U.S., but as late as 1939, Rabbi Stephen Wise was testifying AGAINST that to a U.S. Congressional committee. The U.S. and almost the whole planet (except Shanghai) refused entry to escaping Jews from Europe.

    Instead, Zionists were concerned with building what they called a “Jewish National Museum”—in Palestine, where nobody wanted to go.

    Today, as thousands of Palestinian bodies pile up, you see the practical result of all this “homeland” talk.
       —-Blaine. (Palestine)    Aug. 5 '05 - 07:30PM    #