So why do people hate Israel? - Page 171




 
--
 
January 23rd, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Part two:
from the article "The Illegal-Settlements Myth"
"Concluding that Israeli settlements violate Article 49(6) also overlooks the Jewish communities that existed before the creation of the state in areas occupied by today’s Israeli settlements, for example, in Hebron and the Etzion bloc outside Jerusalem. These Jewish communities were destroyed by Arab armies, militias, and rioters, and, as in the case of Hebron, the community’s population was slaughtered. Is it sensible to interpret Article 49 to bar the reconstitution of Jewish communities that were destroyed through aggression and slaughter? If so, the international law of occupation runs the risk of freezing one occupier’s conduct in place, no matter how unlawful".
Yes it is sensible to bar the reconstruction of Jewish settlements in territory that is outside the nations agreed borders, good try but rather a poor diversion I am afraid as the settlements being in occupied territory are clearly not in the area given to the state of Israel and are certainly outside the area accepted by Israel at its formation.

Even if we were to accept the legality of the of the Israeli state they are not entitled to colonise areas beyond the area set aside for that state.

Might get the boys working on better responses as that one was just lazy and if they want to stick to it then one can only assume that Palestinians can reconstruct their villages within Israel using the same argument?



Lets look at those supposed Jewish settlements around Hebron shall we well for a start I see one glaring issue primarily Hebron is dead smack in the middle of the Arab state maybe that is sticking point?
Now here is the one big thing I remember from civics classes at school you can build all the settlements you like but only on land that is yours.

Quote:
The uncut video was shown in court and, to my knowledge, not yet posted on the internet.
This of course must lead us to wonder how you could possibly know what is in a video that hasn't been made public.
January 24th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Part two:
You lied a number of times. Show me were the Mandate speaks about "Palestinians". None of the yearly documents from the Mandate mentions "Palestinians" once. So here's your chance: give me the link were the mandate speaks of "Palestinians". Not crap from anti-israel wepages but from the official Mandate documents with link.
It's simple, the mandate itself was named, "The British mandate for Palestine" by default those living in Palestine are Palestinians, as pointed out numerous times previously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Prove it!
I don't have to. You already have, by your own actions.
Quote:
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
You fulfil all those criteria excellently. You are attempting to publicly help Israel, and you have denied any connection on several occasions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
really??
You are the first to imply that the video has been edited. Not even the IDF or Israeli courts made such an accusation and it was accepted as evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
The uncut video was shown in court and, to my knowledge, not yet posted on the internet.
So would you care to tell us how you can quote from the allegedly "cut" parts of a video that has never been on the internet. This in itself seem odd considering the stink that was raised over the allegedly "cut" video. I's sa this is another of you well known flights of fancy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Very simple. Let's look at the facts.
You show a hole in the shoe although the hole is not seen in every frame, but let's asume there is a hole, show me the moment were the hole was made, show me the impact of the bullet going through his foot. You cant. So the hole is either an optical illusion or it was there before the event.
Another fact, The person himself has testified before court that he had a blister on his toe. No mention whatsoever of a bullet going through his foot like you claim. Now who would know it better you think? You or the victim himself?
All dealt with several times previously, you're getting desperate aren't you? The hole is clearly visible at any time that the sole of the shoe is seen in sunlight (for more than 96 frames) Of course it cannot be seen when it is in shadow,as is your "miracle Frame 633" in which you claim you can see an uninjured foot, (still inside a shoe no less) andYou still have not posted this frame and given the explanation as to how it shows an uninjured foot.

The "statement" of the victim is known to have been given under duress in that he was given a Death threat by those who shot him. Whereas noting that it was an article of great interest at the time, no one ever took a photo of his wound be it a hole through his foot or a "Blistered toe". It was clearly all stage managed by his aggressors.

You stated and I quote,

Other than which you have not answered as to how you can claim in one post that the victim received a "Blistered Toe" as a result of the shooting of his foot, and now you state that the projectile hit the ground 6 metres away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VD
Abu Rahama testified in court that he was injured in his right side of his left toe, (there goes your story!) something Physician Nahum Shahaf determined unequivocally in his official affidavit that this could not have been the case because geometric analysis of the ricochet’s trajectory as spotted in several frames and the angel of the gun barrel. The convergence of both angels indicates that rubber bullet hit the sidewalk about six meters behind the Palestinian detainee and in a distance of about 30 to 40 centimeters from his left side of his body. Abu Rahma was standing at the time of the shooting on the road and the bullet hit the sidewalk which is higher than the road by about 15 centimeters. These facts exclude any possibility that Abu Rahama could have been injured in his right side of his left toe, as he claimed just after the shooting and testified in court.

Wow that must be some projectile,...
January 24th, 2014  
udaka
 
Bascially, many guys on this forum accused the war Israeli between Arabs are bullsh!t and nonsense.

If European got so many lands on the Earth, why the JEWS and Israeli can not got a small land from Arabs?you are the Angel, ha, ha,ha ?
it is their privilige of the Israeli . I support them on this issue.
--
January 25th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
[/INDENT][/I]Yes it is sensible to bar the reconstruction of Jewish settlements in territory that is outside the nations agreed borders, good try but rather a poor diversion I am afraid as the settlements being in occupied territory are clearly not in the area given to the state of Israel and are certainly outside the area accepted by Israel at its formation.

Even if we were to accept the legality of the of the Israeli state they are not entitled to colonise areas beyond the area set aside for that state.
Why is Israel not allowed to do what the international community did? The British were the occupying power of a part of the Ottoman Empire because of a defensive war and the US was the occupying power in Iraq. The allies were the occupying power in Germany and Japan after WWII. The only difference is that Israel does not occupy a country. It was land not yet allocated that was illegaly annexed by Jordan and lost to Israel in a defensive war.

Quote:
Might get the boys working on better responses as that one was just lazy and if they want to stick to it then one can only assume that Palestinians can reconstruct their villages within Israel using the same argument?
Wrong comparison. In order to be able to do that they must occupy Israel through a defensive war. One problem though, they do not officially have a country.

Quote:


Lets look at those supposed Jewish settlements around Hebron shall we well for a start I see one glaring issue primarily Hebron is dead smack in the middle of the Arab state maybe that is sticking point?
Now here is the one big thing I remember from civics classes at school you can build all the settlements you like but only on land that is yours.
The Arabs refused their part, that means the proposed Arab state (read that very well, it does not say Palestine!) is not created and became unallocated land.
Everyone can build something everywhere as long as he has the approval of the authorities that are responsible for that land. The land where the settlements are build reside under the authority of Israel as agreed in the Oslo accords.

Quote:
This of course must lead us to wonder how you could possibly know what is in a video that hasn't been made public.
The video was not made public but was filed as evidence so the accused were able to view it, hence the remark that the impact of the bullet was not seen in the movie and since the victim was only superficially wounded the defense argued it was from a ricochet bullet and not a direct hit. Not the victim nor B'Tselem said he was shot through the foot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
It's simple, the mandate itself was named, "The British mandate for Palestine" by default those living in Palestine are Palestinians, as pointed out numerous times previously.
It was a mandate not a country. It was an administrative measure. Everyone living there (legally or illegally) at the start of the mandate became a Palestinian citizen. They got British Palestinian passports. This citizenship has nothing to do with a future "Palestine". The british Palestinian passports became invalid with the termination of the British mandate on 15 May 1948.

Quote:
I don't have to. You already have, by your own actions.
You fulfil all those criteria excellently. You are attempting to publicly help Israel, and you have denied any connection on several occasions.
You cannot become a citizen from another country by your action. If that were true then you are affiliated with Jihadists.

Quote:
You are the first to imply that the video has been edited. Not even the IDF or Israeli courts made such an accusation and it was accepted as evidence.
"Lawyer Shlomo Tzipori announced on behalf of his client Lt. Col. Borberg that he intends to officially ask the legal adviser of the Israeli government to open an investigation in order to find who is responsible for doctoring the videotape. Btselem told Channel 10 that these arguments are “groundless and hallucinatory” and that the organization “is willing to cooperate with any professional and independent investigation of the video tape.”"


Quote:
So would you care to tell us how you can quote from the allegedly "cut" parts of a video that has never been on the internet. This in itself seem odd considering the stink that was raised over the allegedly "cut" video. I's sa this is another of you well known flights of fancy.
It would expose that the video was tampered with.
This content of the conversation between Salam and her brother does not appear in the short video clip that Btselem published. It clearly supports Lt. Col. Borberg’s testimony that he was furious and hit the soldier after the shooting and that he never gave any order to shoot at the Palestinian detainee. From unknown reason, the reaction of Lt. Col. Borberg that was filmed by Salam, is not seen in the videotape submitted by Btselem to Military Investigative Police.

Another peculiar issue is related to Salam contradicting versions given in an attempt to explain the short break in the video after the shooting. She is heard in the videotape saying that she turned off the camera out of panic. In her testimony in court, she argued that the camera fell out of her hand and in an interview he said that she kept filming with shaky hands and later gave the camera to her brother. All three versions may have different affect of the filming: immediate cut, capturing the way till the camera hit the floor and shaky pictures.



Quote:
All dealt with several times previously, you're getting desperate aren't you? The hole is clearly visible at any time that the sole of the shoe is seen in sunlight (for more than 96 frames) Of course it cannot be seen when it is in shadow,as is your "miracle Frame 633" in which you claim you can see an uninjured foot, (still inside a shoe no less) andYou still have not posted this frame and given the explanation as to how it shows an uninjured foot.
Show me the the moment of impact of the bullet in his foot. It was filmed, wasn't it? Unfortunately that split second was not recorded! Pallywood! The dust cloud generated by the hit of the bullet was cut.
It should be noted that Dr. Arik Baltaskia, who was summoned to check Abu Rahma at the scene, noted that he did not find any signs of fracture, bleeding or irreversible damage and determined that the blow couldn’t have been a direct result of the shooting. The Israeli court described Abu Rahma’s testimony regarding the event as “confusing and embedded with contradictions”


Quote:
The "statement" of the victim is known to have been given under duress in that he was given a Death threat by those who shot him. Whereas noting that it was an article of great interest at the time, no one ever took a photo of his wound be it a hole through his foot or a "Blistered toe". It was clearly all stage managed by his aggressors.
An opinion disproved by facts. B'Tselem would have cried foul.

Quote:
You stated and I quote,

Other than which you have not answered as to how you can claim in one post that the victim received a "Blistered Toe" as a result of the shooting of his foot, and now you state that the projectile hit the ground 6 metres away.
You have a short memory. My first reaction on your post in the tread "About Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other" post #10 a week ago was:
"the way the soldier holds the weapon when fired he can impossible hit the "demonstrator's" foot which B’Tselem said was a rubber coated metal bullet."



Quote:
Wow that must be some projectile,...
Pure logic. How can a bullet shot to the left of a person hit his left toe on the right side?
How can a bullet shot to the left side of a person hit him in the middle of his left foot without damaging any bones, without any bleeding and ending in court with a blister on the right side of his left toe!
January 26th, 2014  
ASG5IMB
 
the british province of israel is legal.
January 28th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
The IDF it seems has a problem with a seriously entrenched culture of lying at all levels of command. Not a problem for them,... but certainly for anyone who is expected to believe what they say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tablet
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life...4/lies-we-tell
Lies We Tell
Israelis like to call their army the most moral in the world. But as the case of the recently disgraced Gen. Yoav Galant shows, prevarications are the rule, not the exception.

By Etgar Keret|February 18, 2011 7:00 AM|

About 25 years ago, during the second week of my army basic training, I lost a water canteen. Trembling, I went up to my squad commander and reported the loss. The commander reassured me, explaining that there was plenty of time before roll call and that if I searched carefully I could find another canteen. I didn’t really understand what he meant, so I asked him where he thought I should look. He waved his hand in the general direction of the neighboring company and said, “Go look. I’m sure you’ll find one.” I asked him if he was suggesting that I steal a canteen. The squadron commander, who in retrospect was just a pimply 19-year-old kid, became agitated and started yelling at me not to put words in his mouth. He told me to get lost and watch my ass if I turned up at roll call without a canteen.

Unlike the recent and much talked-about moral conduct of Gen. Yoav Galant—a former candidate for the position of IDF chief of staff who was found to have taken public land for his own use and lied at least twice in court documents about it—this trivial episode required no governmental investigation committee or an opinion from the attorney general. Anyone who served in the army can recount many such moments. I don’t know a single soldier who didn’t have to lie and cut corners during his service, to cover for himself or for a friend or, more commonly, to cover for a commander who had to be kept happy. I must admit that the three years of my military service were the three years during which I told the most lies of my life.

So, if one thing surprised me about the recent revelations in the Galant affair, which led to his dismissal, it was not so much his lies as the total surprise and shock displayed by most commentators in the media. In a country where a president has been convicted of rape and a prime minister is mired in a chilling corruption trial, the iniquities of our civic systems are taken for granted. But for the candidate for chief of staff to lie? The man about to take charge of the army we Israelis so love to call the most moral in the world? Now, that is unfathomable. Perhaps this is the time to mention that the title of “most moral army in the world” is, to my ears, akin to being lauded as “man with least facial hair in the Hezbollah leadership.”

When the state comptroller published a report about three weeks ago discrediting Galant, a military trial came to a close slightly further away from the limelight. It was the trial of Lt. Col. Omri Borberg, a regimental commander from the armored corps implicated in the shooting of a handcuffed protester in Na’alin, a town in the West Bank, and of Leonardo Korea, the soldier who actually pulled the trigger. Koria had argued that Borberg had ordered him three consecutive times to shoot the handcuffed protester with a rubber bullet. Neither man was sentenced to any time, and the colonel was allowed to keep his stripes. During the trial, Borberg maintained that he had not asked the solider to shoot and that it was a "tragic misunderstanding" (The IDF must hold the record for "accidents" and Tragic misunderstandings"). After the verdict was read, Borberg burst into tears of relief and said he wanted to go back to the army and continue serving his country. One day, if fate and his commanders are willing, he too will be an officer in the upper echelons of the IDF, and someone had better warn him right now that what works when you’re talking about shooting a handcuffed protester isn’t quite so palatable when it comes to illegal construction or seizing lands you don’t own.
Translated from Hebrew by Jessica Cohen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muslim Gazette
Michael Ben-Yair, Israel’s attorney general from 1993 to 1996, who described Israel’s approach to the Palestinian territories captured in 1967 thusly: “We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities… We developed two judicial systems: one — progressive, liberal in Israel. The other — cruel, injurious in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture.”
The list of senior Israeli officials describing their approach as apartheid includesShulamit Aloni, who once served as Minister of Education under Yitzhak Rabin, and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Another former prime minister, Ehud Olmert said: “If the day comes when the two state solution collapses, and we face a South African style struggle for equal voting rights, then as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”
But that is precisely what is becoming increasingly likely under Mr Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing regime
January 30th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
The Arabs refused their part, that means the proposed Arab state (read that very well, it does not say Palestine!) is not created and became unallocated land.
Everyone can build something everywhere as long as he has the approval of the authorities that are responsible for that land. The land where the settlements are build reside under the authority of Israel as agreed in the Oslo accords.
It also says proposed Jewish state not Israel and interestingly enough the Palestine mandate doesn't mention Israel either.

As for the Oslo accords administering an area is not the same as giving away the area, the Oslo Accords were only meant to last 5 years (10 if you take into account Oslo II) at which time a final settlement between the Palestinians and the Israeli's should have been struck you are confusing "administration" of land with "ownership" of land.

Quote:
Why is Israel not allowed to do what the international community did? The British were the occupying power of a part of the Ottoman Empire because of a defensive war and the US was the occupying power in Iraq. The allies were the occupying power in Germany and Japan after WWII. The only difference is that Israel does not occupy a country. It was land not yet allocated that was illegaly annexed by Jordan and lost to Israel in a defensive war.
How many British settlements were built in the Ottoman Empire, how much of the Ottoman Empire has Britain kept as part of "Greater" Britain?
Name a US settlement in Iraq, Germany or Japan.

So let me see if I understand this it was land never assigned to Jordan but because they took it and then Israel attacked them "defensively" (yeah it amuses me as well) it suddenly became legitimate Israeli land?

Now if I stole a car and Senojekips then showed up, beat me up and took the car you are saying it is now his car?
I would suggest that the law like the UN would still see it as stolen property.

I can certainly see why the Israelis have tapped you to sell their propaganda you stick to story line no matter how discredited it is, without a doubt you earn your 30 shekels.

I tend to think you are still labouring under the impression that we believe you are just a "concerned citizen with a somewhat sycophantic love for Israel" when in reality we know exactly what your game is as the Hasbara manual is all over the internet along with how to combat it.

Surely the fact that you have been abandoned here even by Israelis indicates you just aren't convincing anyone, my suggestion would be to talk to your supervisor maybe they can assign you a more appropriate board to help develop those skills you will need to sell the misery of those you oppress as the right thing to do.

Oh yeah and here is a neat little factoid for ya, guess what feat got the Oslo Accords started?

A) The PLO recognized the State of Israel. Israel recognized the PLO as "the representative of the Palestinian people"; no more, no less.

Yes that would be the same Palestinians that you keep saying don't exist.

Let me make it clearer for you, this is what you are trying to sell...
January 31st, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Seems even the US State Department believes the settlements are illegal however it does appear they got ambushed today...

QUESTION: Jen, on – yesterday, I brought up this issue with the SodaStream and Scarlett Johansson.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I’m assuming that you don’t have any opinion one way or the other on Ms. Johansson’s – who she works for? Is that – I just want to make sure before we go on to --
MS. PSAKI: Right. I’m not going to speak to the Super Bowl commercial, and certainly --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- she’s a private citizen.
QUESTION: Okay. So on the broader issue, which is really what I’m more interested in --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- can you restate – is it – am I correct that your policy on settlements and things that are produced within settlements has – is essentially – or is the same, it has not changed, and that that policy is – although you regard settlement activity as illegitimate, you do not think that there’s anything illegitimate about goods or products that are produced on that territory for – to sell – to import into the United States or to anywhere else. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: That is – our policy is that we believe that settlements are illegitimate, as we’ve said; that we reject efforts to boycott or delegitimize Israel; that any notion or reports or rumors that the Secretary or anyone in this building is encouraging anyone to do that are inaccurate.
QUESTION: Encouraging anyone to do what, to boycott?
MS. PSAKI: To boycott or delegitimize.
QUESTION: Okay. So if the settlements are illegitimate, in your view, why is it – also, you’re – let me start this again. You regard the settlements as illegitimate, but you also regard boycotts of products produced in settlements as delegitimizing of Israel. Is that right?
MS. PSAKI: Boycotts of products produced by Israel, yes.
QUESTION: On – within settlements?
MS. PSAKI: Well, produced by Israel. They’re produced in a range of places. Obviously, Matt --
QUESTION: Okay. So there’s a lot of illegitimacy here, right?
MS. PSAKI: Matt, obviously --
QUESTION: Efforts to boycott, you think, are attempts really not to go after the companies or to – but they’re to delegitimize Israel, not to express a dissatisfaction with their policies on settlements. Is that right?
MS. PSAKI: Matt, obviously, this is incredibly complex, as you’ve outlined here today.
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
MS. PSAKI: One of the reasons we’re talking about all of these issues is because we want to resolve them, we want to put an end to disputes over borders and settlements and all of these issues. That is our position. Obviously, this is a company based in Israel. Beyond that, I don’t have any further analysis for you.
QUESTION: Okay. But you do believe that efforts by groups or countries or groups of countries, like the European Union, which has talked about boycotts and that kind of thing, those in themselves are delegitimizing of Israel, which is engaged in illegitimate settlement activity on land that the Palestinians claim. Is that right?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve not been supportive, Matt, of boycotts or efforts to delegitimize Israel.
QUESTION: Can you take the question – and I don’t know if it’s possible because I’m not sure that anyone can answer it --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- how is it that the – how does the Administration square those two positions, the – one, that the settlements are illegitimate, but that the products made there on – as a result of this illegitimacy – that boycotts of those products are, in themselves, delegitimizing of Israel? I just – I’m having a hard time understanding how that works. It would seem to me that if you regard settlements as illegitimate, you would not be opposed to efforts or to campaigns that would – that agree with that position.
MS. PSAKI: Matt, we will see if there’s more to provide.
QUESTION: But you know there are – from this end, that we’re a bit confused on this issue that Matt is raising, because you seem to be on both sides of legitimate/illegitimate kind of a thing. Can you clarify that?
MS. PSAKI: It’s two separate issues.
QUESTION: They’re two separate issues?
MS. PSAKI: That’s why I gave you our policy positions.
QUESTION: So if a settlement is illegal, and that land on the settlement produces peaches or olives and so on and gets imported, that is legitimate?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into a hypothetical --
QUESTION: No, it’s not hypothetical. These are real things. I mean, that’s why --
MS. PSAKI: -- road race with you here, Said.
QUESTION: -- there is a boycott.
MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve answered our question. Go ahead – or Ali.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/01/221045.htm

Anyway see if you can read that with a straight face, I couldn't.

Could almost make a joke out of it.
January 31st, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
What's happened,.... VD is taking a long, lonnnnng time to find the answers to the questions I've been asking him to answer for several weeks now, and I have a great post waiting for him when he has explained the last lot of lies.

What do you think of all this Boyne_water? Why is VD such a psychopathic liar? Is it part of his naturally very shallow character, or do you feel that it's just the poor quality of his controllers who feed him this rubbish, not remembering what lies they have told and to whom?
February 2nd, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Haha I used to watch the Daily show because it is hysterical at times however I have discovered that the US State department is just full of comdians...

QUESTION: So related to this and following on the settlement issue that was – we talked with Jen about yesterday, I’m wondering if today, after that discussion yesterday, you are able to offer any more – a bit more of a clear explanation as to why you believe that boycotts of products produced in settlements are de-legitimizing of Israel when you yourself believe that settlements are – Israeli settlements are --
MS. HARF: Right.
QUESTION: -- illegitimate. Is there a better --
MS. HARF: Well, as we’ve said, boycotts directed at Israel are unhelpful, and we oppose them. Again, just because we’ve made clear what our policy is on settlements, that doesn’t necessarily follow that there’s one course of action from a policy perspective that we think fits what we’re concerned about. This is exactly why we think that these issues need to be discussed at the negotiating table, and that we need to get a final status agreement. There’s just not a one size fits all that if we believe A, B should necessarily follow.
QUESTION: Well, okay, fair enough. But --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- I guess what I don’t understand is why you believe that a boycott of something – of products made in settlements would be de-legitimizing of Israel when, in fact, they’re being made in settlements which are contested areas that you believe the occupation of which is illegitimate.
MS. HARF: Okay, right. I’m sorry, I’m trying to --
QUESTION: I just don’t --
MS. HARF: Sorry. I don’t want to get tied up in the words here.
QUESTION: I’m having a problem with the --
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- with the logic.
MS. HARF: Well, that we think the boycotts are unhelpful of Israel, and we oppose them because we believe that in order to resolve these issues, we need to discuss them directly between the two parties at the negotiating table, and that that kind of action isn’t helpful; it’s a part of that process. That’s part of the reason that we oppose them.
QUESTION: Well, I guess – it’s not directed at Israel; it’s directed at a private company --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- operating a settlement. And if you say you oppose boycotts of Israel because you don’t think they’re helpful, then that raises a huge question about --
MS. HARF: But it’s directed at a company because of Israeli policies --
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but people are --
MS. HARF: -- or Israeli Government policies.
QUESTION: People are free to buy or not buy whatever product they want to, right? I mean --
MS. HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- when you say if – when you say that boycotts are not helpful --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- boycotts of Israel are not helpful, it just raises a giant flag when you look at Jo’s question, when the entire world, with the exception of two – one other country thinks that your boycott/embargo of Cuba is wrong and unhelpful, why it is that you have this position that that’s okay, but then something to display – another country trying to display its displeasure with Israelis – Israeli policy, that that’s not helpful. I don’t – if you – what I don’t understand is, if you believe that the settlements are – that settlement activity is illegitimate yourself – and by you, I mean the United States --
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- how is it that you can – how is it that you oppose other people who share that view taking some kind of action to demonstrate their unhappiness or to protest that that --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, each situation is different, obviously, when we’re talking about how to respond policy-wise when we disagree with policies in one country. I think part of the nature is the across-the-board boycott of Israel on some of these issues, certainly. Again, I’m happy to check with our folks, Matt. I think a trade embargo in Cuba is obviously very, very, very different than boycotts of Israel that we do not believe are the way to resolve these issues. We don’t think it’s helpful to the process. We believe that these issues need to be discussed between the two parties, and that’s how we’re going to get some resolution on them; not through boycotts of Israel.
QUESTION: Okay. So --
MS. HARF: I’m happy to see if there’s more analysis. I’m sorry. I just --
QUESTION: Okay, but – no, no, no, I understand. But I just –
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Hold on. Hold on, Lesley. One more thing. How do you suggest that other countries or people, other groups, should demonstrate their unhappiness with another country’s – in this case, Israel’s – policy? If not through a peaceful action like a boycott, what should they do? I mean, this is not just something --
MS. HARF: I think we speak out very clearly when we don’t agree with Israel’s policies, and what – that we don’t think the settlements are legitimate. We say that very clearly and make that very clear, and work with the parties to get resolution on these issues through final status negotiations. That’s how we think we should help resolve these issues that are really underneath the boycott issue.
QUESTION: Okay. But by your own admission, your speaking out against this particular policy hasn’t had any effect.
MS. HARF: I don’t think I’ve ever said that.
QUESTION: Well, let’s put it this way. You speak --
MS. HARF: I think that’s your analysis.
QUESTION: You speak out about them, and the Israelis keep doing it. Is that not correct?
MS. HARF: Well, I think you’re making a broad generalization. You have no idea what the impact always is of our private diplomatic discussions and what would’ve been done differently if we hadn’t had those discussions.
And I am actually am on a time schedule, so we need to --
QUESTION: So you’re saying that you think that the Israelis would be doing more of this if you hadn’t been doing those --
MS. HARF: I’m saying I wouldn’t make any assumptions, Matt, about the kind of leverage we have.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, let’s go back 25, 30 years.
MS. HARF: I have about three more minutes.
QUESTION: Sure – 25, 30 years, there was, as part of the anti-apartheid movement, a concerted effort on people who opposed the regime in South Africa to not spend money with companies that did business with that government, notably multinational oil companies. How is this situation with SodaStream any different?
MS. HARF: Every situation is different, guys, every single situation in every country. We have different policy, diplomatic, and economic tools that we think are important in getting us to the policy goal we want in every country. I’m just not going to compare them.
QUESTION: And the U.S. doesn’t consider Israel an apartheid state. I just want to clarify that.
MS. HARF: Yes, correct.
QUESTION: So, just going off this, is it the policy – do you think it’s fair to conflate the settlement issue writ large with the – this issue that has caused a lot of riff-raff, which is the private company of SodaStream employing 250 people in a settlement and selling its products?
MS. HARF: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the gist of your question.
QUESTION: I’m sorry.
MS. HARF: No, it’s okay. We’re all getting tangled up in words here.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: I mean, what we said is we don’t support boycotts, we oppose them, period, of Israel. So --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: -- I think that’s pretty clear.
QUESTION: Not under any circumstance?
MS. HARF: Period.
QUESTION: Under any circumstance?
MS. HARF: Matt, yes, we oppose them. I’m sure you will find some circumstance in 20 years where we would not, but right now we do.
QUESTION: No, I – okay.


http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/01/221118.htm
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism