BDS bevægelsen har kronede dage. Den tilbyder på samme måde som klimahysteriet, den gængse venstrefløjser et pseudo problem at engagere sig i så man kan undgå at se realiteterne i øjnene lidt endnu. BDS står for Boycut, Divest, Sanction og er rettet imod Israel - selvfølgelig. Herunder er en lille film, hvor man kan se hvilket sentiment, der er kernen i bevægelsen, hvor blindt hadet til Israel er og hvor dybt det ligger

A few months ago, Israeli TV News anchor Dany Cushmaro, travelled to US campuses to meet with anti-Israel activists and see how they campaign against Israel.

The interviews were revealing: Watch

Selv feministiske akademikere vil boykotte Israel i solidaritet med deres arabiske søstre, skriver The Daily Beast. Herunder en repræsentant for den jødisk-amerikanske gruppe CODEPINK, der er taget til Israel for at boykotte Israel

Adrienne Yaron skrev i Jerusalem Post at “BDS demonstrations are an opportunity for them to spew anti-Semitic vitriol and express their vicious hatred of the Jewish state. BDS’ only real power is in propagating its hateful ideology”. Realiteterne er nemlig, at der ikke er tale om en real eller realistisk boykot, fordi ingen vil boykotte nyttig viden, avanceret teknologi eller livsvigtig medicin. Og, forsætter Yaron med at forklare…

BDS’ own website only instructs its supporters to boycott “fresh produce, Ahava, and Sodastream.” Ahava and Sodastream are both great companies, but they hardly constitute a major percentage of Israel’s export sales. Moreover, these two companies probably benefit by increased sales from Israel supporters because they are the only two individually-named targets of the boycott movement. As for “fresh produce”, this stopped being a major export of Israel decades ago. Fresh fruits and vegetables now constitute only about 3.6% of Israel’s total exports. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of Israel’s fresh vegetable market is to Russia - a nation that has shown little interest in the boycott bandwagon and a lot of interest in feeding its population. Both India and China have also been steadily growing their market share for Israeli produce, and there is little doubt than any sales drop in Europe will be outbalanced by an increase from these giants.

So in fact, all the huffing and puffing of the anti-Israel “BDS” crowd is nothing more than hot air. The BDS movement has not, and will never have, any significant economic effect on Israel’s overall economy, because Israel’s economy is grounded in products and services that effectively cannot be boycotted. In fact, financial analysts are predicting Israel’s economy will grow more than any other developed country in 2016. Even these academic association resolutions are hypocritical and phony. If you read the texts of them, they specifically allow for “individual members” to continue working with “individual Israeli scholars” - in other words, these hypocritical professors don’t actually have to give up anything, or stop any research projects with Israelis. They make their nasty, defamatory statement, and continue business with their Israeli colleagues as usual.

Denne hadefulde ideologi blomstrer i EU (også herhjemme, men ikke i Tjekkiet) som Caroline Glick skriver i Jerusalem Post

Take for instance the timing of the EU’s first official act of open economic warfare against Israel.

On July 29, 2013 US Secretary of State John Kerry brought the heads of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams together in Washington to officially launch a new round of peace talks.

The same day, the EU announced that starting at the beginning of 2014, it would be ending all joint projects with and all funding from the EU and its member governments of Israeli entities located or operating in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights. The only exceptions to the funding and cooperation ban were Israeli organizations working to harm Israeli control over the areas, and non-Jewish Israeli entities.

The message was obvious. As far as Europe is concerned, “the peace process,” isn’t a means to achieve peace. It is a means of criminalizing Israel.

This week’s labeling guidelines were no surprise. They were promised two years ago.  We have also known for years, that neither the funding ban nor the product labeling are ends to themselves.

In May 2013, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linus Linkevicius told the Jerusalem Post that the labeling policy is merely a preparatory step on the road towards implementing the EU’s ultimate objective: a full economic boycott of Israel.

(…)

Then there are the NGOs.

As NGO Monitor President Prof. Gerald Steinberg has been demonstrating for more than a decade, Europe uses NGO’s registered in Israel to advance its aggressive policies against Israel. The EU and its member states use these groups to get Israeli cover for their anti-Israel policies. They pay them to produce films and publish reports slandering Israel and calling for a boycott of its economy and the isolation of its government and citizens. The EU and its members then use these products they ordered and paid for as “proof” of Israeli criminality, which in turn justifies their aggression against the Jewish state.

Take Ir Amim for instance. Ir Amim works to deny the legitimacy of Israeli control over unified Jerusalem. In 2014 it received funding from the EU, and the governments of Holland, Norway and Sweden.

In 2010, the group called on the US government to cut off diplomatic ties with Israel or, at a minimum end its foreign aid to the Jewish state. Ir Amim supported and defended Britain’s decision to prohibit the Tourism Ministry from noting that the Western Wall is in Israel.

What all this boils down to is the plain fact that the EU is waging a political and economic war against Israel that is based on a comprehensive, well-conceived strategy that uses the EU’s strengths to their best advantage.

(…)

Consider the timing of this week’s announcement. The EU chose to announce it is labeling Jewish products the same week that we commemorate Kristallnacht – the 1938 pogrom which marked the official beginning of the Holocaust.

For many Europeans, no doubt the timing was fortuitous rather than ironic.

In Sweden, out of “concern for their members’ safety,” Jewish groups were barred from participating in official Kristallnacht commemorations.

Then there are the Netherlands.

MK Hanin Zoabi, who can’t open her mouth without slandering Israel, was invited to deliver remarks at a Kristallnacht remembrance ceremony in Amsterdam. No doubt the organizers knew what they were going to get when they called her. Zoabi compared Israel to Nazi Germany for them.

For an ever growing number of Europeans, castigating Israel as the new Nazi Germany means absolution for the crime of the Holocaust. By transforming the Jews into Nazis, Europeans can shrug their shoulders at the fact that most of the nations of Europe collaborated with the Germans in their genocide of European Jewry.

Og, tilføjede Eugene Kontorovich i New York Times 13 november, så er EUs mærkningsordning endda i strid med EUs egne principper

What has largely escaped notice is that the labeling policy violates the European Union’s own express policy on such issues. The commission primarily justifies labeling as a necessary tool to provide consumers with the information that it does not regard the territories “as part of Israel.” However, European Union and national authorities that have addressed the issue have clearly ruled that special labeling is not required in such situations — neither for consumer protection nor to reflect the European Union’s view of the underlying sovereign status of territories.

Thus the European Union allows Morocco — which has extensive trade ties with Europe, but has occupied Western Sahara since 1975, and populated it heavily with settlers — to export products from its occupied territory labeled “Made in Morocco.” When challenged, the commission formally declared that labeling such goods as “made in” Morocco is not misleading, and is consistent with European trade agreements.

Also, European courts have considered the consumer protection rationale specifically in the context of Israeli products, and rejected it. Just last year, the British Supreme Court ruled, in a case involving Ahava beauty products produced in the West Bank, that “there was no basis for saying that the average consumer would be misled” by a “Made in Israel” label. The court held that such labeling was not deceptive as a matter of both British and European Union law.

The problem is not that the European Union fails to live up to its standards in some cases, like that of Morocco. Rather, in these other cases the union explicitly denies the existence of these standards. Such inconsistency is not just hypocrisy. It is a legal violation in its own right. The European Union’s foundational treaties require regulatory “consistency.” And discrimination against trading partners represents a core violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other treaties of the World Trade Organization, as the law professor Avi Bell and I have shown in detail in a recent paper. The union’s labeling guidelines are manifestly discriminatory, as they apply only to Israel.

The World Trade Organization treaties establish the legal framework for international commerce. Under the W.T.O.’s nondiscrimination requirement, it is impermissible to apply trade rules and restrictions to some member countries and not to others. And the W.T.O.’s protections apply not just to a country’s sovereign territory, but also to areas of its “international responsibility,” such as occupied territories. The United States, with international approval, received the benefit of its international trade treaties even in territories it occupied in World War II, as well as in the Panama Canal Zone, where it made no claim of sovereignty. There is nothing novel about a country’s receiving full trade rights for nonsovereign areas under its administration.

The United States has a great deal riding on the integrity of the international trading system. But the European Union labeling threatens to establish a precedent that would allow politicization of the system, undermining United States economic interests in broad and unpredictable ways. Thus it is not surprising that earlier this year, the United States passed a law opposing such European Union measures against Israel.

Making special rules for Israel has the undesired effect of reducing Israel’s incentives to take international law seriously: If the goal posts can be moved, there is less reason to play the game. As a putative role model for international law, the European Union’s greatest weapon is its probity and consistency. By damaging that, it harms its ability to set the global agenda.

Men hvad er principper mellem lumre jødehadere?