Of course they don't explain exactly what they mean by "targeted." Ostensibly they claim that boycotting companies that do business with Israel (because they do business with Israel) is somehow acceptable. The fact that these same companies also business with far worse regimes, including the Palestinian Authority, is somehow overlooked.
At this point it simply becomes clear that these three are simply fulfilling the role of the "useful idiot," completely unaware of the true goals of the BDS "movement" and what would have happened if the resolution had actually passed. So instead they stick with what they know: attacking Jews.
"The Jewish establishment of Pittsburgh attempted to influence the Presbyterians' ethical financial decisions, dedicating many months to defeating these resolutions. They claimed that the resolutions did not recognize the complexity of the situation, were too one-sided, and did not take into consideration the misdeeds of some Palestinians. They threatened that approving such resolutions would hurt Jewish-Presbyterian relationships. Sadly, even Jewish center-left organizations such as J Street and Americans for Peace Now published statements at the last minute that represented the resolutions were part of the larger boycott, divestment, and sanction movement directed towards Israel as a whole and labeled it "a distraction" reminiscent of "global anti-Semitism.""By the way, that whole claim about "threats" do not pan out if you read the link. Also contained within that link is Christian groups explaining why divestment was a bad thing, but I see our noble authors can't be bothered to mention facts that don't fit what they are trying to say. Furthermore, all the "claims" about the resolutions are the truth: they don't acknowledge the complexity, they are completely one-sided, and they ignore Palestinian crimes. That is all very accurate, and our authors are surely aware of this which is why they don't try to argue with the facts.
But that's not what I'm really interested in here. What I'm interested in is the last section: it is only a claim that the larger BDS movement is lined up behind this resolution. As if the authors think we are stupid enough to actually believe that load of crap. If you were on Twitter at the time you would have seen that every BDS organ and its organ mother were pushing all the way for this "targeted" divestment. And now their apologists march up to the microphone and tell us it was completely unrelated?
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, guys.
At this point they get into recent history: claiming that Israel hasn't fulfilled its obligations as an occupier. This doesn't have anything to do with why divestment is one-sided, unhelpful to peace, or bigoted against Jewish people, but I guess they have to say something.
They claim that Israel is diverting water and then provide a link that doesn't actually say that. They then say that demolition of Palestinian homes is illegal, without citing how it is illegal or why it is somehow the Presbyterian Church's obligation to enforce the law.
But finally, they put their toes on the line and make an actual statement:
"Second, the claim that such actions are one-sided is misleading. The U.S. administration has strong legal measures in place that prohibit U.S. companies from supporting violence by Palestinians. And if there were such companies, the PCUSA would undoubtedly divest from them."....Okay? Wow, that was more of a fail than I thought. First of all, this argument does nothing to prove that the resolution isn't one-sided. No one behind it thinks that the Palestinians should be punished for their unwillingness to make peace or for their innumerable war crimes. And if you asked them they would probably deny such things even exist. Secondly, why are these authors making it sound like it's about "the companies?" It's not about the companies, it's about Israel. Do they think we're stupid, that we somehow wouldn't notice that? If they divested from these three companies, they would find three others and then go after them. And of course, as we discussed last week, none of them "support violence," and it's the height of dishonesty to claim they do.
So yeah, nice try guys but you aren't fooling anyone. On to the next point!
"Third, although some in this world are indeed anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic, the movement in favor of targeted divestment requires no such sentiments and over the last several days of the PCUSA General Assembly we never heard a single word against the Israeli people, let alone Jews in general. Instead, the commissioners consistently emphasized the overriding importance of alleviating suffering through the establishment of a just, peaceful solution to the conflict -- a profoundly pro-Israeli position."What "movement" are you referring to that is in favor of targeted divestment? Peter Beinart does not count as a movement, and everyone that they reference in this article is in favor of divestment in general. And to be honest, I don't trust their reporting on the conference and even if it were true; BDS is anti-Israel to its very core. It is not pro-peace, and anyone who actually tries to sell that deserves as Oscar for their acting abilities. But you aren't fooling me.
At this point the authors attempt to pimp their token Jews but actually shoot their own argument in the foot. See if you can figure out how:
"On our visits to the General Assembly we met with Jewish supporters of the resolutions: young and old volunteers, including a Holocaust survivor; rabbis from Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization with a staff of only seven, that is rapidly becoming the largest Jewish grassroots organization in the U.S.; and local Jewish activists, some even from groups that officially oppose the resolutions. In contrast, there was a complete absence of any visible grassroots group opposing boycott or divestment. Despite the campaign of hyperbole and misinformation about the resolutions, Jews in Pittsburgh remained largely indifferent. Like their Christian neighbors, they seemed more interested in the recent success of the Pirates, the rising temperatures, and the economy."Uh huh. So what you are saying is that even though you packed the Presbyterian General Assembly with people who obviously didn't care at all about the welfare of the PCUSA, and your opponents preferred to leave them alone to make their own decisions, you still lost.
Oh and by the way: Jewish Voice For Peace? They are one of those organizations that support BDS. You know, the type that you said weren't involved four paragraphs ago. Way to stay honest.
But this is also classic BDS-style tactics: Throw literally everything that you have at a resolution, and then when you lose try to walk it off with the old "well we didn't really care that much about it anyway" maneuver. Clearly these guys are well trained in the classic BDS rhetoric. But let's move on because they are trying to save face.
So they finally get to the votes: jumping on the toothless resolution to boycott the "settlements," and ignoring the sad fact that they couldn't even get this easy win that they were expecting. Finally, we get this leap of logic:
"Supporting those who promote the end of the occupation by non-violent measures is in the best interests of Israel; targeted boycotts and divestments are precisely such measures. Concrete action may prevent deterioration into another bloody cycle of violence and eventually bring us closer to a just and equitable peace in the Middle East. We pray that the pro-peace, anti-occupation momentum we witnessed here in Pittsburgh will ultimately triumph, for the sake of Israelis, for the sake of Palestinians, for the sake of all of us."And here I thought the goal was peace, not to "end the occupation." Let me know when you are ready to start putting your money where your mouth is and start acting "pro-peace" and not "anti-Israel," guys. Until then you can stay the useful idiots that you are.