Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israeli official: "Boycotting is not compatible with open demcratic dialogue"

Options
  • 08-05-2013 6:23pm
    #1
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭


    You couldn't make this stuff up.

    http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Presidents-Conference-chairman-Hawking-boycott-outrageous-312466
    President's Conference chairman Israel Maimon on Wednesday responded to physicist Steven Hawking's decision to boycott the June event, saying "the use of an academic boycott on Israel is outrageous and unwarranted."

    The Guardian reported on Tuesday that Hawking had written a letter to President Shimon Peres, telling him that he had decided to respect the boycott based upon his knowledge of Palestine and on the advice of his Palestinian colleagues.

    Maimon said that Hawking's decision was all the more unacceptable in light of the fact that the "spirit of freedom" was the basis of his academic and human endeavors.

    "Israel is a democracy in which everyone can voice their opinions, whatever they may be. Boycotting is not compatible with open demcratic dialogue," he added.

    Sorry but what? Surely the right to boycott, along with other forms of protest, is a fundamental pillar of democracy?
    Calling a protest "unacceptable" is ridiculous enough, to claim it's incompatible with democratic dialogue is just moronic. And this guy is a former cabinet secretary, he's not just some random civil servant.

    Now whatever you think of the Israel boycott, I know some people don't agree with it and that's fair enough although personally I'm a massive supporter, am I overreacting by saying it always makes me just a little uneasy to see supposedly democratic governments using words like "outrageous" or "unacceptable" to describe legitimate opposition?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    G Power
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭G Power


    op you're expecting people like this fool to behave normally and rationally which is impossible when they're where they are in society!!

    these people are beyond sick and every time they open their corrupted b4stard mouths it reaffirms my intention to protest until the system is changed for the good of the people and not these bat **** crazy lunatics!!


  • Options
    #3
    RATM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭RATM


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »

    Now whatever you think of the Israel boycott, I know some people don't agree with it and that's fair enough although personally I'm a massive supporter, am I overreacting by saying it always makes me just a little uneasy to see supposedly democratic governments using words like "outrageous" or "unacceptable" to describe legitimate opposition?

    I guess using words as strong as "outrageous" and "unacceptable" is a PR trick in the language of political communications. Now that someone as prominent as Prof.Stephen Hawking has come out in support of the boycott the Israelis are frightened as one prominent academic will lead to other prominent academics also joining the boycott.

    The Israeli government are scared of the boycott gathering momentum globablly and Stephen Hawking joining it is a loud and clear signal that it has already started to do so. To counter this the Israeli government will do their best to make Hawking seem like an extremist and a pariah. That involves describing his support of the boycott using words like "outrageous" against him. Expect even more to come from the Israeli establishment.


  • Options
    #4
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    You couldn't make this stuff up.

    http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Presidents-Conference-chairman-Hawking-boycott-outrageous-312466



    Sorry but what? Surely the right to boycott, along with other forms of protest, is a fundamental pillar of democracy?
    Calling a protest "unacceptable" is ridiculous enough, to claim it's incompatible with democratic dialogue is just moronic. And this guy is a former cabinet secretary, he's not just some random civil servant.

    Now whatever you think of the Israel boycott, I know some people don't agree with it and that's fair enough although personally I'm a massive supporter, am I overreacting by saying it always makes me just a little uneasy to see supposedly democratic governments using words like "outrageous" or "unacceptable" to describe legitimate opposition?

    Tbh, you should avoid reading that kind of thing, as its par for the course. Theres an element that accepts no criticism whatsoever and they've a big friend in the current Government. It's useful only in indicating the level of discomfort the boycott, sanctions or criticism brings - in this case, quite a lot.


  • Options
    #5
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    To put this in context, these comments are being offered by the man who is Israel's equivalent of Martin Fraser.

    Have you ever heard of Martin Fraser before today?

    I bet you didn't. I just googled him.

    I'm no supporter of Israel.

    But I do think the more interesting question is why a pretty irrelevant civil servant's comments - visibly stupid as his comments are - are newsworthy?


  • Options
    #6
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    But I do think the more interesting question is why a pretty irrelevant civil servant's comments - visibly stupid as his comments are - are newsworthy?

    probably because they didn't see much else in the news this week to slag off Israel with. I'm slightly surprised that the bombing of Syrian army positions by the IDF this week didn't warrant a thread but assad's regime getting a few fuel-air bombs on their bonces wouldn't probably get much critical traction even amongst the rabid anti-israelis here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    probably because they didn't see much else in the news this week to slag off Israel with. I'm slightly surprised that the bombing of Syrian army positions by the IDF this week didn't warrant a thread but assad's regime getting a few fuel-air bombs on their bonces wouldn't probably get much critical traction even amongst the rabid anti-israelis here.

    This was in the Jerusalem Post, they have anything but an anti Israel attitude so they're hardly going to be going out of their way to slag Israel off O_o
    Maybe it's because he's organizing the conference?


  • Options
    #8
    brimal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭brimal


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Israeli official: "Boycotting is not compatible with open demcratic dialogue"

    I wouldn't say Israel Maimon is an 'Israeli official'. He currently works as a lawyer and chairs an annual conference in Jerusalem. I guess it makes for a better thread title eh?
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Calling a protest "unacceptable" is ridiculous enough, to claim it's incompatible with democratic dialogue is just moronic. And this guy is a former cabinet secretary, he's not just some random civil servant.

    I think you are trying to make out like his position was more important/influential than it actually was. He was a secretary for cabinet ministers. He currently isn't even a civil servant.

    And these comments were made after he left his position.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    am I overreacting by saying it always makes me just a little uneasy to see supposedly democratic governments using words like "outrageous" or "unacceptable" to describe legitimate opposition?

    Where did the Israeli government say the two quoted words in the article? I don't see any current member of the government mentioned in the article.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Calling a protest "unacceptable" is ridiculous enough, ...
    it always makes me just a little uneasy to see supposedly democratic governments using words like "outrageous" or "unacceptable" to describe legitimate opposition

    The word quoted in the article is "unwarranted" - NOT "unacceptable" that you have twice misquoted now. There is a big different in these two words. It's perfectly reasonable for people to say a boycott of Israel is unwarranted, you even touched on it yourself "I know some people don't agree with it and that's fair enough".
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    You couldn't make this stuff up.

    Well looks like you just did (or misquote and exaggerate at least)


  • Options
    #9
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Don't worry guys, I'm sure the Palestinians are enjoying their "spirit of freedom" that this guy so espouses.
    probably because they didn't see much else in the news this week to slag off Israel with. I'm slightly surprised that the bombing of Syrian army positions by the IDF this week didn't warrant a thread but assad's regime getting a few fuel-air bombs on their bonces wouldn't probably get much critical traction even amongst the rabid anti-israelis here.

    Ahhhh...Israel apologists.

    Forever trying to shift attention to Syria for some reason.


  • Options
    #10
    deirdremf
    Registered Users Posts: 1,880 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    You couldn't make this stuff up.

    http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Presidents-Conference-chairman-Hawking-boycott-outrageous-312466



    Sorry but what? Surely the right to boycott, along with other forms of protest, is a fundamental pillar of democracy?
    Calling a protest "unacceptable" is ridiculous enough, to claim it's incompatible with democratic dialogue is just moronic. And this guy is a former cabinet secretary, he's not just some random civil servant.

    Now whatever you think of the Israel boycott, I know some people don't agree with it and that's fair enough although personally I'm a massive supporter, am I overreacting by saying it always makes me just a little uneasy to see supposedly democratic governments using words like "outrageous" or "unacceptable" to describe legitimate opposition?
    The word Boycott is used in many languages today, it may well even be used in Hebrew.
    Be that as it may, what are the bets that these people have no idea of the origin of the word? If they did, they might think twice before opening their mouths on the subject.


  • Options
    #11
    Big Bottom
    Registered Users Posts: 346 ✭✭Big Bottom


    The amount of anti-israeli sentiment in this forum is unreal.

    I think there is a large element in Irish society who think they 'should' be anti-israeli because of some warped sense of affiliation with those 'poor Palastinians'...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Schnitzel Muncher
    Registered Users Posts: 349 ✭✭Schnitzel Muncher


    He's not wrong, in fairness.


  • Options
    #13
    Big Bottom
    Registered Users Posts: 346 ✭✭Big Bottom


    What makes Stephen Hawkins so special anyway?

    Because he doesn't believe in God? Because he has a high IQ?

    Get the boat.


  • Options
    #14
    newsunglasses
    Site Banned Posts: 103 ✭✭newsunglasses


    Im sorry but how can we possibly boycott all that is from israel it is near to impossible..


  • Options
    #15
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Big Bottom wrote: »
    The amount of anti-israeli sentiment in this forum is unreal.

    Report it then.


  • Options
    #16
    Big Bottom
    Registered Users Posts: 346 ✭✭Big Bottom


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Report it then.

    Dont tell me what to do thanks very much.


  • Options
    #17
    Playboy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    Big Bottom wrote: »
    The amount of anti-israeli sentiment in this forum is unreal.

    I think there is a large element in Irish society who think they 'should' be anti-israeli because of some warped sense of affiliation with those 'poor Palastinians'...

    Yeah because that makes sense. Has nothing to do with continuing evidence of one country oppressing a people and preventing a peaceful solution to a problem that has become a focal point for terrorism in the world today. I think you will find a similar amount of anti-israeli sentiment in most educated countries. Maybe the Irish feel they have a deep connection with the Palestinians because our ancestors were driven off their land many generations ok. History can be a precursor for solidarity if situations are similar.

    But to be honest.. the real reason is that everyone is an anti-semite and wants to exterminate the jews. We are just waiting for our chance as the Israeli government would have you believe.


  • Options
    #18
    Tzar Chasm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,069 ✭✭✭Tzar Chasm


    Big Bottom wrote: »
    What makes Stephen Hawkins so special anyway?

    Because he doesn't believe in God? Because he has a high IQ?

    Get the boat.

    well, I think having a physical phenomonen named after him puts him up on the special list

    his work in advancing our understanding of black holes is probably enough to earn his place in the history books, and then there's his books.

    course you,ve probably also written a best seller which explains the fundamental forces to the universe in an acesible manner, and are therefore qualified to cast aspersions on the work of other physicists.


    ye can bicker and bitch all ye want about the pro's and cons of the israeli/Palestinian situation, but quit with the liw digs at the credentials of one of the worlds most prominent physicists.

    it makes your argument seem rather petty

    also what does 'get the boat ' even mean


  • Options
    #19
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Big Bottom wrote: »
    The amount of anti-israeli sentiment in this forum is unreal.

    I think there is a large element in Irish society who think they 'should' be anti-israeli because of some warped sense of affiliation with those 'poor Palastinians'...

    I oppose Israel only until and unless they stop stealing privately owned land from
    Civilians, and until they give back that which they've been stealing since 1967.
    Until then I reserve the right to regard them as bullies.


  • Options
    #20
    Jcarroll07
    Registered Users Posts: 192 ✭✭Jcarroll07


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I oppose Israel only until and unless they stop stealing privately owned land from
    Civilians, and until they give back that which they've been stealing since 1967.
    Until then I reserve the right to regard them as bullies.

    Does that included the Golan Heights. Just wondering. What ever about the rest of the occupied territory I believe they have reason to occupy the Golan heights since the Syrians last time they held it constantly shelled Israeli settlers and village below


  • Options
    #21
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jcarroll07 wrote: »
    Does that included the Golan Heights. Just wondering. What ever about the rest of the occupied territory I believe they have reason to occupy the Golan heights since the Syrians last time they held it constantly shelled Israeli settlers and village below


    ....they nearly handed it back a few years ago. The only sticking point was water rights and that put the kybosh on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Jcarroll07
    Registered Users Posts: 192 ✭✭Jcarroll07


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....they nearly handed it back a few years ago. The only sticking point was water rights and that put the kybosh on it.

    It was the water that caused the 1967 war. When the Syria tried to divert water by digging canals. But back to what i said in that i think they are justified in occupying the Golan heights


  • Options
    #23
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Jcarroll07 wrote: »
    Does that included the Golan Heights. Just wondering. What ever about the rest of the occupied territory I believe they have reason to occupy the Golan heights since the Syrians last time they held it constantly shelled Israeli settlers and village below

    Have you got a source for that?
    Whatever about military occupation I simply don't accept the principle of taking privately owned land by force from the people who own it, so if they bulldozed Syrian homes and kicked out families to make room for anything, they absolutely should give that back.
    Can't find anything on Syrian shelling of Israel from tenfolan heights but I'm in a rush, I'll have a better look later. If you can cite any, 'twould help me inform my views.


  • Options
    #24
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jcarroll07 wrote: »
    It was the water that caused the 1967 war. When the Syria tried to divert water by digging canals. But back to what i said in that i think they are justified in occupying the Golan heights



    ....if what happened in a war is justification for grabbing land, there'd be no recognisable nations left in Europe.


  • Options
    #25
    Fred Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭Fred Cohen


    Big Bottom wrote: »
    The amount of anti-israeli sentiment in this forum is unreal.

    I think there is a large element in Irish society who think they 'should' be anti-israeli because of some warped sense of affiliation with those 'poor Palastinians'...

    I myself would consider myself to be very pro-Israeli but anti setter as they seem to set the political agenda.


  • Options
    #26
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....if what happened in a war is justification for grabbing land, there'd be no recognisable nations left in Europe.

    Tell that to the people of Konigsberg and Viipuri.


  • Options
    #27
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Big Bottom wrote: »
    What makes Stephen Hawkins so special anyway?

    Because he doesn't believe in God? Because he has a high IQ?

    Get the boat.

    Because he is a world renowned physicist whose work appeals to other scientists and to the average joe and isn't someone who is always getting involved in middle eastern politics, nor is he trying to raise his profile ala dervish.

    So it's something to take fairly seriously.


  • Options
    #28
    RATM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭RATM


    Jcarroll07 wrote: »
    Does that included the Golan Heights. Just wondering. What ever about the rest of the occupied territory I believe they have reason to occupy the Golan heights since the Syrians last time they held it constantly shelled Israeli settlers and village below

    The Golan Heights isn't really about territorial advantage in a war, Israel has plenty of fighter jets to cut out any activity like you described. The Golan Heights are about water- the Middle East is a dry place and there isn't much water about, that's why they want to hang on to them.


  • Options
    #29
    ...__...
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭...__...


    While the Syrian threat of contaminating water was an important part it was not the start dont forget Syria declared war on Israel in 1948 allowed Yasser arafat and is fedayeen to launch attacks from Syria and shelled and sniped from them.

    Syria declared war on the nascent Jewish state in May 1948, and fought against Israel in the War of Independence. Between 1948 and 1967, Syria used the Golan Heights as a springboard for attacking farmers and fisherman in northern Israel. The Syrians repeatedly shelled Israeli towns below the Heights, and sniper fire was a constant danger. As a result of these actions, 140 Israelis were killed and many more were injured. During this period, Syria also interfered with fishing and other Israeli water projects in Lake Kinneret. Syria repeatedly threatened to contaminate the water if Israel attempted to pump water from the Kinneret without Syrian permission and also sought to divert Banias, one of the Jordan River water sources


  • Options
    #30
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    ^ If they have to occupy it militarily for the above reasons, there might be some justification for that - but they could easily defend themselves militarily without stealing civilian property and kicking people out of their homes.

    That's the crux of it, for me anyway. Kicking your neighbour out of his house so you can move your family into it is stealing; having a gun to threaten him with if he doesn't leave doesn't make it any less of a crime.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Big Bottom wrote: »
    The amount of anti-israeli sentiment in this forum is unreal.

    I think there is a large element in Irish society who think they 'should' be anti-israeli because of some warped sense of affiliation with those 'poor Palastinians'...

    There's no anti-Israeli sentiment here. Rather an opposition to the actions carried out by the IDF and Israeli Govt against the Palestinian people and the enforcement of what's basically an apartheid system.

    You really have to get past that idea that if one opposes a system of oppression one is not automatically against the people. Let me give you an example, I'm against the Zimbabwean govt and various Zanu PF machinations. So is my activist friend (she's a black Zimbabwean). In your book, we'd be both anti-Zimbabwean. See?


Advertisement