Controversial Plans for First Feis in Israel

Irish Praetorian

endacl wrote: »

Mebollix. Israel are immune to criticism.

I wouldn't say that, but if faced with the choice running a pariah state or bowing to the crazy BDS demands, they would probably choose the former.

Just a little Samba

endacl wrote: »

Mebollix. Israel are immune to criticism.

Not immune to boycotts though. The BDS movement is hurting them a massive amount right now.

Irish Praetorian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

No, it's whataboutery and lets call a spade a spade.

I am calling a spade a spade, double standards, and repeating a cliched phrase is no answer to the argument posed.

Just a little Samba

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I wouldn't say that, but if faced with the choice running a pariah state or bowing to the crazy BDS demands, they would probably choose the former.

"crazy BDS demands" you mean the withdrawl of Israel from Palestine? Madness! SHEER MADNESS!

Just a little Samba

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I am calling a spade a spade, double standards, and repeating a cliched phrase is no answer to the argument posed.

There isn't an arguement being posed, there's a bull**** deflationary tactic which deserves no response.

MOVE ALONG NOW NOTHING TO SEE HERE, YEMAN!

wes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Secessionist activities includes setting up puppet states, or do you believe the Israeli-Palestine matter would be entirely resolved if Israel simply pulled out and a 'Jewish State of Palestine' took over?

Seeing as the conflict is largely over land, creating a Palestinian state would solve many of the issues. That is if such a solution is possible.

Still the fact remains that Palestinians are being kept stateless for the express purpose of stealing land that doesn't belong to them, due to some stuff written in the Bible.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The UN is a disgraceful sham, a case of the lunatics running the asylum, a case of such absurdity that it can call for sanctions of Israel almost unceasingly, but cannot so much as muster up the wherewithal to sanction Syria.

Now, now, the reason for both groups not being smacked upside there head with sanctions is that in the case of Israel, the US is protecting them and the Russians are protecting Assad.

The UN has its problems, but if fair superior than the alternative of having nothing to take its place. The UN can be fixed by removing the veto from security council members (and many other reforms), but there unlikely to let go.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

And again I would stress the difference between the two, Russia has occupied another sovereign state less than a year ago, Israel has occupied some territories (that by rights ought to be a Palestinian state) for a fifty year period. Also I will remind you, Russia is not under any kind of UN sanction, simply what the EU and US dream up.

Russia is a security council member and can veto any such resolutions, same as the US could have done.

Also, the length of the occupation only heightens the hypocrisy, as we should been sanctioning them for 50 years, and sanctioning there nuclear weapons program since Mordecai Vannu revealed it to the world.

Now having said that, I don't understand why Palestinian civil society who have called for cultural and academic boycott should have to concern themselves with other countries. There going to do what they can to get people to boycott Israel, and to me seems like a method of peaceful resistance that we should encourage by heeding there call, as we in the West have been happy to lecturing Palestinians about there violence for decades.

KomradeBishop

Even if treating Israel in this way was a double standard (which I don't agree with), that isn't even a good argument for not boycotting them - at most it's just a flimsy argument for trying to portray the boycott as having an ulterior motive, borne out of ill-will or irrational reasoning.

This doesn't hold up though, because there are abundant perfectly good/rational arguments for boycotting Israel in this manner.

So who gives a toss if someone thinks the boycott is a double standard - they don't even have an argument against the boycott anyway.

Irish Praetorian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

"crazy BDS demands" you mean the withdrawal of Israel from Palestine? Madness! SHEER MADNESS!

By Israel you mean to say every Jew who has dared venture across the Green Line in the past 50 years and by Palestine you mean even places which are predominately Jewish by this stage. From the Golan Heights that means the removal of 21,000 Jews, from East Jerusalem about 300,000 Jews and from the wider West Bank, another 400,000 Jews. Gaza is of course already Jew free so that's a given. So that's roughly three quarters of a million Jews to be shifted back to Israel as the starting point of peace.

Now if we turn to the specific demands of the BDS movement (why couldn't they call it BDSM - golden opportunity) which I'm quoting include:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194. - See more at: http://www.bdsmovement.net/call#sthash.QFfgIIsl.dpuf
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall

- That requires the population transfer mentioned above as well as the dismantling of what has at present, proven to be the only means of Israel effectively stopping suicide bombers from traversing from the West Bank into Israel and attacking that country.

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

- Can't really argue with any of that, I'd even concede Israel has fallen short of that standard despite it's own declarations, and even still, polls show most Arab Israelis would prefer to remain Israelis rather than join some future Palestinian state.

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

- Now this is a tricky one to calculate because it means just about any of the 5 million odd Palestinian refugees (uniquely an inherited characteristic when it comes to the Palestinian issue) could claim a right to return to Israel. Now that may not sound like much, but for a country of 8 million the return of as many as 5 million (with the addition of the million Jews already mentioned) effectively means a doubling of the population of Israel proper, no small order for a nation already under immense demographic pressure on services and especially housing.

And that's all Israel has to do in order to satisfy the BDS crew, can't believe their not jumping at the prospect...

Just a little Samba

There there illegally so yes, they should go back to Israel. Or Brooklyn or Ukraine or wherever they came from.

Just a little Samba

Just a little Samba wrote: »

And if a rugby team wants to play in apartheid South Africa who are we to tell them not to? Am I right?

No, you are making an amusingly bad comparison.

These kids dancing in Israel is not really the exact same as national rugby sides touring South Africa. Am I right?

Plus, as you are aware, the national sides of Ireland, England and many other countries actually toured South Africa in the 80s anyway.

Just a little Samba

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you are making an amusingly bad comparison.

These kids dancing in Israel is not really the exact same as national rugby sides touring South Africa. Am I right?

Plus, as you are aware, the national sides of Ireland, England and many other countries actually toured South Africa in the 80s anyway.

They did, and they were rightly criticised.

Just a little Samba

Just a little Samba wrote: »

There there illegally so yes, they should go back to Israel. Or Brooklyn or Ukraine or wherever they came from.

I'd say there are a fair few Irish in Brooklyn that might be uncomfortable with your "go home" logic.

Just a little Samba

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd say there are a fair few Irish in Brooklyn that might be uncomfortable with your "go home" logic.

That's a terrible comparison. Israeli settlers are living on land taken from Palestinian families by force in violation of international law which bans the annexation of lands in wartime.

Illegal immigrants in any country are not taking peoples homes, destroying entire villages, ethnically cleansing entire regions of a country and segregating the roads, bus, education systems, enforcing military rule over millions of people, holding children in military prisons without trial, blockading millions of people on the worlds biggest concentration camp and routinely murdering thousands of them every time there's en election.

Irish Praetorian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

There isn't an arguement being posed, there's a bull**** deflationary tactic which deserves no response.

MOVE ALONG NOW NOTHING TO SEE HERE, YEMAN!

For apparently deserving no response it really is getting quite a few response from you isn't it?

wes wrote: »

Seeing as the conflict is largely over land, creating a Palestinian state would solve many of the issues. That is if such a solution is possible.

Still the fact remains that Palestinians are being kept stateless for the express purpose of stealing land that doesn't belong to them, due to some stuff written in the Bible.

Well lets start from first principles, the Palestinians should not be state, there should be a Palestinian state, in what is present occupied by Israel, and it should not have to put up with Israeli interference - that's my belief. The problem is getting from A to B, now a lot of people here seem to be of the mind that we can simply smack Israel over the head with enough sanctions and it will all magically work out, I disagree. I would go into this in more detail but we will have to wait till the thread cools down, as you can see I'm in high demand

I would just say I don't think this has anything to do with claims of a promised land in the Torah, it's simply a case of people living on land and not wanting to move, in some cases, living for forty-something years and being told they are still colonists.

Now, now, the reason for both groups not being smacked upside there head with sanctions is that in the case of Israel, the US is protecting them and the Russians are protecting Assad.

The UN has its problems, but if fair superior than the alternative of having nothing to take its place. The UN can be fixed by removing the veto from security council members (and many other reforms), but there unlikely to let go.

Russia is a security council member and can veto any such resolutions, same as the US could have done.

I am inclined to agree with this much, I don't like the idea of UNSC vetoes, especially as in the case of Syria or indeed Russia itself, they can immunize themselves from diplomatic response.

Also, the length of the occupation only heightens the hypocrisy, as we should been sanctioning them for 50 years, and sanctioning there nuclear weapons program since Mordecai Vannu revealed it to the world.

Well as I'm sure you're aware the reason they were not sanctioned was of course the Cold War, which is the same reason why Turkey was not sanctioned despite ethnically cleansing outright the entirety of Northern Cyprus, why China got away with colonizing Tibet into a now Han majority province, and so forth. I feel it is particularly inequitable to now take Israel to task on this issue whilst letting China and Turkey go free, and heck whilst we let new offenders go free. I mean not many people realize this but in the past ten years of discussing this issue, about half a million Fur have been systemically butchered in Sudan. Half a million, and the best we can do is talk about how terrible Israel is...

Now having said that, I don't understand why Palestinian civil society who have called for cultural and academic boycott should have to concern themselves with other countries. There going to do what they can to get people to boycott Israel, and to me seems like a method of peaceful resistance that we should encourage by heeding there call, as we in the West have been happy to lecturing Palestinians about there violence for decades.

A fair point, and it definitely seems like a step up to be talking in non-violent terms about this issue. However, I remain convinced that the demands being set out by groups like BDS are utterly absurd (set above) and ultimately if we are going to convince Israel to pull out and recognize an independent Palestine, we're going to have to accept some of the concerns they have and realize we won't achieve anything by demanding the clock be turned back fifty years.

Irish Praetorian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

There there illegally so yes, they should go back to Israel. Or Brooklyn or Ukraine or wherever they came from.

Thank goodness you weren't involved in the peace process up North. I can imagine we would still be mired in violence if the predicate for any kind of peace was that all the 'illegal settlers' and their descendants fecked off back to England and Scotland.

wes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

By Israel you mean to say every Jew who has dared venture across the Green Line in the past 50 years and by Palestine you mean even places which are predominately Jewish by this stage. From the Golan Heights that means the removal of 21,000 Jews, from East Jerusalem about 300,000 Jews and from the wider West Bank, another 400,000 Jews. Gaza is of course already Jew free so that's a given. So that's roughly three quarters of a million Jews to be shifted back to Israel as the starting point of peace.

The colonists are there illegally, and the Israeli government know this damn well, and are using these people to create "facts on the ground". Israeli settlers know full well what there a part of. BTW, Palestinians have already accepted that some land swap may need to be made, but a lot settlers will have to go, as a Palestinian state would be impossible as the settlement bisect the West Bank, which btw was deliberate on the part of the settlers and Israel, so I have very little sympathy for them, seeing as they want to make a peace deal impossible.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

- That requires the population transfer mentioned above as well as the dismantling of what has at present, proven to be the only means of Israel effectively stopping suicide bombers from traversing from the West Bank into Israel and attacking that country.

Even if what you claims was true, the wall can be built on there own Israeli land, and I fail to see how the wall will be any less effective due to that. Ask yourself why has Israel not built there wall on there own land? Why grab huge chunks of the West Bank. If the wall was about protection then surely, they would have evacuated all there citizens behind the green line and built the wall? What about the settlements outside the wall? Surely it make 0 sense if Israels actions are about security to put there citizens in harms way by putting them in settlements.......

Secondly, suicide attacks were not prevented by the wall, as they effectively stopped long before the wall was complete, and plenty of Palestinians still sneak into Israel for work on a daily basis. The drop in attacks was due to security cooperation between the PA and Israel. Despite this cooperation Palestinians have gotten more and more settlers in returns.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

- Can't really argue with any of that, I'd even concede Israel has fallen short of that standard despite it's own declarations, and even still, polls show most Arab Israelis would prefer to remain Israelis rather than join some future Palestinian state.

Why would people want to leave there homes?

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

(uniquely an inherited characteristic when it comes to the Palestinian issue)

Wait, so let me get this straight Palestinians wanting to return after 60 odd years is outrageous, but Israels biblical claims of over 2000 years is apparently reasonable. Now, the Palestinians may have to accept a symbolic return to reunite some families, but there demand is not unreasonable in the context of the other side, 2000 year old Biblical land claim, that btw Israel has enshrined in law via the Jewish Right of Return.

Palestinians may have to accept a symbolic return of a small number of people, but there hardly being unreasonable, when the other side land claims are you know Biblical 2000 year old ones.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

And that's all Israel has to do in order to satisfy the BDS crew, can't believe their not jumping at the prospect...

No, there busy creating more facts on the ground, and which will ensure a 2 state solution will be impossible, and leave the only solution being one man, one vote.

Just a little Samba

Just a little Samba wrote: »

That's a terrible comparison. Israeli settlers are living on land taken from Palestinian families by force in violation of international law which bans the annexation of lands in wartime.

Illegal immigrants in any country are not taking peoples homes, destroying entire villages, ethnically cleansing entire regions of a country and segregating the roads, bus, education systems, enforcing military rule over millions of people, holding children in military prisons without trial, blockading millions of people on the worlds biggest concentration camp and routinely murdering thousands of them every time there's en election.

So some 15 year old kid living in a settlement who has moved there from Brooklyn is really doing all that?

Hmmmm. I seriously doubt it. We'll have to agree to differ.

I see you got in "the world's biggest concentration camp" though. Got the old Holocaust reference in! Is that little piece of nonsense not trademarked though?

pmasterson95

This whole "go home" thing is great. So you'd be in favour of sending british unionists out of Ireland and back to Britain? I doubt you will. I love when they literally mock themselves.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

So some 15 year old kid living in a settlement who has moved there from Brooklyn is really doing all that?
.............

The presence of colonists nessecitates the harsh colonial regime imposed on the "natives", in order to keep them subjugated.

Irish Praetorian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Even if treating Israel in this way was a double standard (which I don't agree with), that isn't even a good argument for not boycotting them - at most it's just a flimsy argument for trying to portray the boycott as having an ulterior motive, borne out of ill-will or irrational reasoning.

This doesn't hold up though, because there are abundant perfectly good/rational arguments for boycotting Israel in this manner.

So who gives a toss if someone thinks the boycott is a double standard - they don't even have an argument against the boycott anyway.

Sorry I missed your response earlier. As I say, its only part of the reason for my antipathy against it, at another level one has to consider how effective it will be, what results it will achieved and what results it should achieve. As I've stated previously, the BDS demands point black are pretty absurd and I can't imagine Israel conceding to them outright. Still, that doesn't mean that there should be no demands placed on Israel or that we shouldn't expect certain things from them, I simply contend this attitude of 'Israeli is the worst in the world and we have to treat them as such' is counter-productive and misplaced.

RayM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Ah now boards doesnt like Israel. In fact criticising Israel is part of the hipster bible. Thread will be a mess.

Defending the indefensible is part of the extreme-right-wing arseholes' bible. Thankfully, those who seek to defend Israel are in a very small minority.

pmasterson95

pmasterson95 wrote: »

This whole "go home" thing is great. So you'd be in favour of sending british unionists out of Ireland and back to Britain? I doubt you will. I love when they literally mock themselves.

He's got the immigrants go home stuff in, he's got the concentration camp line in...I wonder was his starting point sympathy for Palestinians or dislike of Jews?

pmasterson95

RayM wrote: »

Defending the indefensible is part of the extreme-right-wing arseholes' bible.

Right Wing like Beckham is it? I love these labels. One thread I'm left another thread its right. Heaven forbid a person has opions not set in "wings"

pmasterson95

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He's got the immigrants go home stuff in, he's got the concentration camp line in...I wonder was his starting point sympathy for Palestinians or dislike of Jews?

Hipster mentality of save the arabs from the meanies

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

So some 15 year old kid living in a settlement who has moved there from Brooklyn is really doing all that?

No, there parents are using there children to invade someone else land...... Interesting how someone deciding to take there kids to Syria to invade someone else land are criminals, but taking them to a settlement isn't......

Just a little Samba

Deleted User wrote: »

He's got the immigrants go home stuff in, he's got the concentration camp line in...I wonder was his starting point sympathy for Palestinians or dislike of Jews?

Oh that old chestnut! Sure we're all just anti-semites.

RayM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Right Wing like Beckham is it? I love these labels. One thread I'm left another thread its right. Heaven forbid a person has opions not set in "wings"

It was a generalisation, rather than a targeted remark (I'd never call anyone on here an arsehole, even if I thought they were one). The vast majority of Irish people who seek to defend Israel, no matter what it does, are generally the sort of grim right-wing nutjobs for whom no opinion is too obnoxious.

LDN_Irish

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

- Now this is a tricky one to calculate because it means just about any of the 5 million odd Palestinian refugees (uniquely an inherited characteristic when it comes to the Palestinian issue) could claim a right to return to Israel

That's insane! Next they'll do something wacky like allow everyone of a specific religion to move there under the guise of "returning" to where their ancestors were millenia ago!

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

He's got the immigrants go home stuff in,

When they have guns there called colonists........

Electric Sheep

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Tel Aviv is actually as rough as a bears arse so it probably isn't safer than Birmingham crime wise.

It's not a dangerous city though, and it's not crawling with military personal like Jerusalem so it doesn't have the same "**** could happen" feeling.

It's total kipp of a city though.

Tel Aviv is not rough at all! It is a wonderful city with a very low crime rate. I am guessing you have never been there. You are perfectly safe on the streets in Tel Aviv at 4am, much more so than any city or town in Ireland.