Israel releases report on links between Boycott, Divest and Sanctions and terrorists

[Wazzzup]

A lot of people see Israel and Palestinian conflict as a land dispute.  I believe that masks what is really going on--just another instance of Muslims behaving badly.

I like Scouse, but progtards have brainwashed that boy into believing Israel is 1962 South Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I like him as well.  He is against mass third world immigration and that is just fine with me. I can certainly understand, the UK is being destroyed by it IMO. While its a variation of the problem, the same thing is happening in the US.



I just don't think its all the work of Jews.  There are plenty of non Jews who support mass third world immigration.  How are they any better?   And there are some Jews who do not support it -- IMO they are allies no less than anyone else.



I also think that someone who supports Israel but is against mass third world immigration is not a zionist.  I believe it is actually perfectly consistent to defend another western-like representative democracy, in this case Israel, which is also under assault from the left and Muslims.

[Bricktop]

Scouser is misguided...

[Anonymous]

Old Gaon said Israel has affirmative action policies and programs for Muslims while the Palestinian Authority bans Jews and Christians from owning property.

[Anonymous]

Scouser is misguided...

I'll say. He thinks Gaon is in cahoots with prog billionaires.

[Anonymous]

Scouser is misguided...

He has some very unusual views..



And because 99% of the population not only disagrees with him, but thinks his views are crazy, he thinks he's being unfairly picked on.

[Anonymous]

Scouser is misguided...

He has some very unusual views..



And because 99% of the population not only disagrees with him, but thinks his views are crazy, he thinks he's being unfairly picked on.

Ya, he is a sensitive nazi. Probably because he is too old for that adolescent shit.

[Wazzzup]

Old Gaon said Israel has affirmative action policies and programs for Muslims while the Palestinian Authority bans Jews and Christians from owning property.

I would bet Muslims have more rights in Israel than they do in any Muslim run country.

[Anonymous]

Old Gaon said Israel has affirmative action policies and programs for Muslims while the Palestinian Authority bans Jews and Christians from owning property.

I would bet Muslims have more rights in Israel than they do in any Muslim run country.

That's a safe bet.

[Gaon]

Old Gaon said Israel has affirmative action policies and programs for Muslims while the Palestinian Authority bans Jews and Christians from owning property.

I would bet Muslims have more rights in Israel than they do in any Muslim run country.

Israel's Muslim population lives longer and enjoys more rights and freedoms than Muslims in any Muslim majority nation.

[Anonymous]

Israel has so many start ups, IPO's, innovation and entrepreneurial zeal. It's where you want to invest.

[Gaon]

Why these Democratic presidential hopefuls voted no on an anti-BDS bill

Presidential contenders were more likely to vote against the kind of bill that pro-Israel types — and a majority of their party colleagues — usually see as a slam dunk



Of the seven Senate Democrats who have declared for the presidency or seem poised to, six voted no. Only Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota voted yes.



TA asked all seven for explanations, and five sent replies. Klobuchar's staff said she was caught up in hearings, and the office of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., never responded.



The five no voters based their opposition to what has been called an "anti-BDS bill" on free speech concerns about its anti-boycott element, which would provide federal protections for states penalizing boycotters.



Cory Booker of New Jersey: "I have a strong and lengthy record of opposing efforts to boycott Israel, as evidenced by my cosponsorship of S. 720, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. However, this specific piece of legislation contains provisions that raise serious First Amendment concerns, and that's why I voted against it. I drafted an amendment to help address these widely-held concerns, but there was no amendment process offered to allow for this bill to be improved.



"There are ways to combat BDS without compromising free speech, and this bill as it currently stands plainly misses the mark."





In this photo taken June 13, 2016, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is seen in Cleveland, Ohio. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Sherrod Brown of Ohio: "I strongly support additional security cooperation with Israel and Jordan, and holding the Assad regime accountable. However, recent court cases in Kansas and Arizona have raised First Amendment concerns with state laws, therefore, I believe we need to pause on enacting federal legislation while the issue is still pending in court."



Kamala Harris of California: "Senator Harris strongly supports security assistance to strengthen Israel's ability to defend itself. She has traveled to Israel where she saw the importance of US-Israeli security cooperation firsthand. She opposed S.1 out of concern that it could limit Americans' First Amendment rights."



Bernie Sanders of Vermont: "While I do not support the BDS movement, we must defend every American's constitutional right to engage in political activity. It is clear to me that this bill would violate Americans' First Amendment rights."



Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts: "I oppose the boycott. But I think penalizing free speech activity violates our Constitution, so I oppose this bill."



So why were the presidential contenders more likely to vote against the kind of bill that pro-Israel types — and a majority of their party colleagues — usually see as a slam dunk? The Republicans want to paint them as soft on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel, although they all oppose BDS — as a few said so directly. The anti-Israel left said their votes prove their side is winning.



Here are some other theories:

Fundraising for statewide office vs. fundraising for nationwide office: Presidential campaigns, particularly among Democrats, rely increasingly on small donations from individuals (remember Sanders boasting about his $27 average donation in the 2016 campaign?). An individual motivated to click on "donate" is likelier to be a partisan, and less sympathetic to a candidate who signed on to a bill initiated by the opposite party. Notably, grassroots Democratic groups, including the hugely influential MoveOn, oppose the anti-BDS bills.



Senate campaigns remain more susceptible to issue-driven donors and political action committees who favor lawmakers who cross partisan lines, in order to turn favored bills into law.



The ACLU: The American Civil Liberties Union is an influential voice among Democrats, and it has made killing the anti-BDS bills a top priority, which helps embed the message among activists and donors watching the presidential campaign. Gillibrand, notably, did a 180 last year after ACLU representations on a separate anti-BDS bill. The group remains formally non-partisan, however, and will not establish affiliated political action committees or endorse candidates, which diminishes its influence in Senate races.



The vision thing: Presidential candidates are under greater pressure to come up with a coherent overall vision, and their opponents will eagerly seek inconsistencies. Democratic candidates will be all about speech freedoms in the face of a president who has unrelentingly attacked the media, and the appearance of penalizing boycotts will not be a good look.



t's true that consistency counts in Senate races as well but within a narrower spectrum. Consider two of the Democrats who voted yea, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Gary Peters of Michigan: Both are in states where campaigns have focused mostly on job creation. A free speech inconsistency won't resonate as much.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-these-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-voted-no-on-an-anti-bds-bill/">https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-these ... -bds-bill/">https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-these-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-voted-no-on-an-anti-bds-bill/



To appease Muslims.

[Bricktop]

ac_wot

[Thiel]

Why these Democratic presidential hopefuls voted no on an anti-BDS bill

Presidential contenders were more likely to vote against the kind of bill that pro-Israel types — and a majority of their party colleagues — usually see as a slam dunk



Of the seven Senate Democrats who have declared for the presidency or seem poised to, six voted no. Only Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota voted yes.



TA asked all seven for explanations, and five sent replies. Klobuchar's staff said she was caught up in hearings, and the office of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., never responded.



The five no voters based their opposition to what has been called an "anti-BDS bill" on free speech concerns about its anti-boycott element, which would provide federal protections for states penalizing boycotters.



Cory Booker of New Jersey: "I have a strong and lengthy record of opposing efforts to boycott Israel, as evidenced by my cosponsorship of S. 720, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. However, this specific piece of legislation contains provisions that raise serious First Amendment concerns, and that's why I voted against it. I drafted an amendment to help address these widely-held concerns, but there was no amendment process offered to allow for this bill to be improved.



"There are ways to combat BDS without compromising free speech, and this bill as it currently stands plainly misses the mark."





In this photo taken June 13, 2016, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is seen in Cleveland, Ohio. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Sherrod Brown of Ohio: "I strongly support additional security cooperation with Israel and Jordan, and holding the Assad regime accountable. However, recent court cases in Kansas and Arizona have raised First Amendment concerns with state laws, therefore, I believe we need to pause on enacting federal legislation while the issue is still pending in court."



Kamala Harris of California: "Senator Harris strongly supports security assistance to strengthen Israel's ability to defend itself. She has traveled to Israel where she saw the importance of US-Israeli security cooperation firsthand. She opposed S.1 out of concern that it could limit Americans' First Amendment rights."



Bernie Sanders of Vermont: "While I do not support the BDS movement, we must defend every American's constitutional right to engage in political activity. It is clear to me that this bill would violate Americans' First Amendment rights."



Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts: "I oppose the boycott. But I think penalizing free speech activity violates our Constitution, so I oppose this bill."



So why were the presidential contenders more likely to vote against the kind of bill that pro-Israel types — and a majority of their party colleagues — usually see as a slam dunk? The Republicans want to paint them as soft on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel, although they all oppose BDS — as a few said so directly. The anti-Israel left said their votes prove their side is winning.



Here are some other theories:

Fundraising for statewide office vs. fundraising for nationwide office: Presidential campaigns, particularly among Democrats, rely increasingly on small donations from individuals (remember Sanders boasting about his $27 average donation in the 2016 campaign?). An individual motivated to click on "donate" is likelier to be a partisan, and less sympathetic to a candidate who signed on to a bill initiated by the opposite party. Notably, grassroots Democratic groups, including the hugely influential MoveOn, oppose the anti-BDS bills.



Senate campaigns remain more susceptible to issue-driven donors and political action committees who favor lawmakers who cross partisan lines, in order to turn favored bills into law.



The ACLU: The American Civil Liberties Union is an influential voice among Democrats, and it has made killing the anti-BDS bills a top priority, which helps embed the message among activists and donors watching the presidential campaign. Gillibrand, notably, did a 180 last year after ACLU representations on a separate anti-BDS bill. The group remains formally non-partisan, however, and will not establish affiliated political action committees or endorse candidates, which diminishes its influence in Senate races.



The vision thing: Presidential candidates are under greater pressure to come up with a coherent overall vision, and their opponents will eagerly seek inconsistencies. Democratic candidates will be all about speech freedoms in the face of a president who has unrelentingly attacked the media, and the appearance of penalizing boycotts will not be a good look.



t's true that consistency counts in Senate races as well but within a narrower spectrum. Consider two of the Democrats who voted yea, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Gary Peters of Michigan: Both are in states where campaigns have focused mostly on job creation. A free speech inconsistency won't resonate as much.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-these-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-voted-no-on-an-anti-bds-bill/">https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-these ... -bds-bill/">https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-these-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-voted-no-on-an-anti-bds-bill/



To appease Muslims.

Israel is the left's whipping boy nation.