BDS Ambivalence

by

amb

 

People following BDS activities and functions should be informed about the latest innovation of the BDS movement (BOYCOTT DIVEST SANCTION) whereby the BDS has adopted two different versions of its amendment: one in English and one in Arabic; and the funny thing is that they say two different things : the one in English calls for ending occupation of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, and the one in Arabic calls for ending occupation of the Palestinian territories full stop.

It is important to say that BDS boasts about grouping 170 organizations and Palestinian movements and is supposed to be accountable before them . Instead, it has adopted a different English version from the original one , in which it recognizes the legitimacy of Israel within the 67 borders and asks Israel to withdraw only from the land occupied in 1967 and this without informing the organizations that work with it about this change. The original text in Arabic though that asks for ending the occupation of all Palestinian territories remained unchanged for some mysterious reason .

.BDS is required on the spot to explain this duplicity and why it has adopted two versions of the same thing in two different languages and two radically different stands ? Why is it addressing the Arab public in one way and foreigners in another recognizing Israel in one instance and calling for ending occupation in the other? What is the goal behind this misleading policy of adopting two antagonistic stands and whom is this supposed to serve ? Or are they both fake and meant to mislead people ? Either BDS is betting on the ignorance and the stupidity of people which is stupid and ignorant or it is working on a separate agenda that does not give importance to these “Palestinian” details?

8 thoughts on “BDS Ambivalence”

  1. Does not one cancel out the other? Listening to Pro-Palestinian activists I always thought that when they speak of 1967 borders it still meant the return of Palestinian refugees (a binding inalienable right enshrined in international law) within those borders which would then eventually lead to a one state solution as the Jews in Palestine would be outnumbered.

    • That’s pretty much the accusation that Norman F threw at BDS, is it not?

      If the aim is a one-state solution then why make a distinction about 1967 borders? And let us not forget that Ali AbuBookburner and Omar Bargilad are happy to stress that most of the Palestinian NGOs which signed the call support a two state solution!

      • Nope because he doesn’t want to see the end of the usurping zionist entity…. and does not support BDS at all.

        Did he not call it a cult? If Palestinians were allowed to return to their lands within what is now “Israel” they would outnumber the Jews therefore “israel” wouldn’t last very long. Demographics would see to that.

        • NF expands on the interview

          I have said on many occasions that I support neither two states nor one state. I support zero states. Professor Chomsky often says that the best solution would probably be something along the lines of the Ottoman Empire when one traveled freely from Cairo to Baghdad. But there’s simply no basis for such a solution in the current state system.

          • Wow that is interesting because I can recall him in an interview saying he did not want to see the end of “Israel” on democracyNow I think it was or Realnews but at a date that predates your link.

            Found this from Feb 2012 on AJ:
            “They don’t want Israel,” Finkelstein declared, “They think they’re being very clever. They call it their three tiers… We want the end of the occupation, we want the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever, because they know the result of implementing all three is what? What’s the result? You know and I know what’s the result: there’s no Israel.”

            Finkelstein demanded that Palestinians drop this programme, “Because, if we end the occupation and bring back six million Palestinians and we have equal rights for Arabs and Jews, there’s no Israel.” He also insisted that a “two-state solution” was the only outcome supported by international law.

            http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/2012227111759385177.html

  2. Addressing Arabs with an Arab version that has been abandoned and replaced by another one is insulting to Arabs who are the owners the cause and the ones primarily concerned with it . This is cheating and really inadmissible and shows BDS real affiliations.

    • Certainly Arab Palestinians know and are not cheated , they know that dancing in front of the wall of segregation will not cause the wall to fall. And Maybe foreigners also know but BDS seems to be the last possible lie in addition to the fact that it has become a way of living and a source of sustenance for Palestinians especially in the West Bank.

Leave a Reply