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
Controversial Plans for First Feis in Israel
Options
Comments
-
-
Electric Sheep wrote: »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.
I've been to Tel Aviv about 5 times in the last 3 years alone. The south side of the city is effectively a ghetto and the crime rate is no better than Birimingham was my point.0 -
pmasterson95 wrote: »Like the british up north?
If its about reclaiming land from colonists why do irish hipsters decide to go off to Israel and blame jews? Same could be done up north if its just a reclaiming land crusade?
If it's about Jews why don't the "Irish hipsters" go to the Synagogue in Terenure instead of all the way to Israel?0 -
pmasterson95 wrote: »Like the british up north?
A peace deal was made up North that respected the rights of all people. I would happily support such a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. It would mean that Israel could no longer be a exclusively Jewish state, as Palestinians would outnumber Israelis pretty quickly, especially if refugees were to return.pmasterson95 wrote: »If its about reclaiming land from colonists why do irish hipsters decide to go off to Israel and blame jews? Same could be done up north if its just a reclaiming land crusade?
So you would be happy with a 1 man 1 vote solution, which would put a end to Zionism then? Return of the refugee's, would be needed, as without a Palestinian state they have not where else to go, and would remain in there current stateless limbo, and Jewish return law already set a precedent for such a return being extended to Palestinian refugees, who are far worse off, as most are stateless.
Now, seeing as you are against Israel returning land, they you must surely support this other solution then, that or you support ethnic cleansing, or leaving millions of Palestinians stateless forever.0 -
If it's about Jews why don't the "Irish hipsters" go to the Synagogue in Terenure instead of all the way to Israel?
How does that reclaim land. This is about reclaiming the palestinian land from the baddies. And the british baddies took our land. We should take back our land. YEAH.0 -
Advertisement
-
Even if BDS are helping organize/promote the boycott, we don't have to agree with the BDS in order to participate in the boycott - we can simply note that a boycott is on and participate for our own reasons.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
There's more than enough justification for a widespread boycott on Israel - to such a point that the situation is so bad that there isn't even a need for people to be specific on their demands - nobody has to justify their personal reasons for contributing to the boycott either, or lay out their own 'personal' demands.
It doesn't even matter if the boycott will be effective or not either - it's impossible for people to predict the future and know whether or not it will be - because people can engage in the boycott merely as an outlet to express their disapproval with Israel's actions.
If Israel wants to piss the entire planet off with their reprehensible and unaccountable actions, and if official sanctions are off the table, then it should be made as easy as possible to identify who does business with that state, so everybody can personally make a decision on whether or not they want to support them economically/culturally/etc. (and to engage in activism publicising who does business with the state, to raise public awareness, if they desire) - morally, people deserve to have this choice, regardless of whether or not it will have any effect.0 -
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.
They've been there illegally for what, forty, fifty years now? You may be interested to note that last UN Peace Plan for Cyprus began with the concession that no matter how short a period of time Turkish settlers had been on the island for (at most thirty years) they would be accepted as citizens of the new Cyprus - why is it any peace plan for Palestine demands that the region be 'Judenrein' 'free of Jews'? Still, if we are talking about territorial exchanges I think we're going the right direction, although bear in mind that is completely at odds with BDS thinking.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.......
If you look at the layout of the wall you will see it's designed in such a way that it encompasses areas of the borders which have already been settled, which sadly means crossing Palestinian owned land on occasion.
As for why did they not simply stay behind the green line? They tried that, they were invaded twice. Now the Israeli occupation doesn't mean there is no prospect for peace, as Israel has shown with its Sinai and Gaza settlements, it can pull people out in the pursuit of a decent peace deal, but do you think the BDS demands are a recipe for a decent peace deal?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.
The numbers don't really appear to bear that out, and fall largely in line with the completion of the contiguous wall. Do you have any source that might bear out your cooperation argument?Why would people want to leave there homes?
The polls didn't involve them leaving their homes, it involved the areas they lived in (Arab majority areas) being transferred to a new Palestinian state, they dislike the prospect.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.
When have I ever claimed that some religious nonsense has any right to impact upon the situation? Having seen my arguments, do you really have me pegged for some manner of religious literalist? Pragmatic concerns dictate my lines of argument - regardless of religious motives we do have to accept that there is a Jewish population in the middle east that wants a state, how or why they got there is irrelevant. I do find the Palestinian demand to return after sixty years absurd, but I would regard Jewish demands to return to the various Arab states that they were expelled from around the same time similarly absurd. We have to work with the populations as they stand, not as we might wish them to be.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.
What pray tell is the alternative for Israel atm? Negotiate with a fractured Palestinian state for terms that may as well be ignored once they are agreed upon? Israel offered good deals in 2000 to Arafat and 2008 to Abbas, guess who turned down those offers?0 -
pmasterson95 wrote: »How does that reclaim land. This is about reclaiming the palestinian land from the baddies. And the british baddies took our land. We should take back our land. YEAH.
It wouldn't. But you're insinuating that this isn't about Palestinian land is is actually about Jews.
You're also aware that there's a huge crossover between republicans and anti Zionists in Ireland so I don't why you're trying to muddy the water with this "why don't they go up north!?" sideline.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Even if BDS are helping organize/promote the boycott, we don't have to agree with the BDS in order to participate in the boycott - we can simply note that a boycott is on and participate for our own reasons.
There's more than enough justification for a widespread boycott on Israel - to such a point that the situation is so bad that there isn't even a need for people to be specific on their demands - nobody has to justify their personal reasons for contributing to the boycott either, or lay out their own 'personal' demands.
It doesn't even matter if the boycott will be effective or not either - it's impossible for people to predict the future and know whether or not it will be - because people can engage in the boycott merely as an outlet to express their disapproval with Israel's actions.
If Israel wants to piss the entire planet off with their reprehensible and unaccountable actions, and if official sanctions are off the table, then it should be made as easy as possible to identify who does business with that state, so everybody can personally make a decision on whether or not they want to support them economically/culturally/etc. (and to engage in activism publicising who does business with the state, to raise public awareness, if they desire) - morally, people deserve to have this choice, regardless of whether or not it will have any effect.
In some ways I can sympathise with a lot of this sentiment, people might well hold different states accountable for various things and are entitled to spend their money in a way that reflects the different concerns that they might have.
I just can't get over some of the absurdities surrounding this debate, such as the idea that a company should be boycotted because it operates in Palestine but getting your jeans from a Vietnamese sweatshop is allright, or the idea that a farmer in Israel selling his citrus fruit abroad is immediately accused of selling 'blood produce' regardless of what his personal political opinions might be, but we are all happy to source our energy from whatever theocratic dictatorship is selling at the best price. It's the ridiculousness of it all that makes me suspicious.0 -
I actually thought this thread title was a joke. Dafuq are they, whoever 'they' are, thinking of holding Irish dancing contests in the Middle East. It's bad enough that they do it in Ireland, I'm cringing thinking of it.0
-
Advertisement
-
I've got about 15 minutes before the whistle blows and I get paid up for today's Israel defending, any last questions?
*For those incapable of detecting it: the above statement is a joke designed to inject some humour into what is ultimately a very complex and nuanced political debate.0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »They've been there illegally for what, forty, fifty years now? You may be interested to note that last UN Peace Plan for Cyprus began with the concession that no matter how short a period of time Turkish settlers had been on the island for (at most thirty years) they would be accepted as citizens of the new Cyprus - why is it any peace plan for Palestine demands that the region be 'Judenrein' 'free of Jews'?
Sneaking in some German in there, I see :rolleyes:.
As for the settlements, Israel is demanding that most settlements remain part of Israel, so a rather different situation, as the peace deal you describe, doesn't have Turkey wanting the Turkish part of Cyprus to remain part of Turkey.
Secondly, very few settlers want to be Palestinian, but I can imagine a deal, where some settlers take up Palestinian citizenship.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Still, if we are talking about territorial exchanges I think we're going the right direction, although bear in mind that is completely at odds with BDS thinking.
If you look at the layout of the wall you will see it's designed in such a way that it encompasses areas of the borders which have already been settled, which sadly means crossing Palestinian owned land on occasion.
No, it purposefully grabbing the best Palestinian land, with all the water etc. Not to mention cutting off all access to East Jerusalem, so the wall is a non-starter as border, and a predictable land grab.Irish Praetorian wrote: »As for why did they not simply stay behind the green line? They tried that, they were invaded twice. Now the Israeli occupation doesn't mean there is no prospect for peace, as Israel has shown with its Sinai and Gaza settlements, it can pull people out in the pursuit of a decent peace deal, but do you think the BDS demands are a recipe for a decent peace deal?
Israel were the ones who started the 1948 and 1967 wars, and the Arabs started the Yom Kippur one. The wall would work just fine on there own land, and I have yet to see any justification for it being on any Palestinians, other than the fact that Israel wants to create facts on the ground and prevent a 2 state solution. BTW, you would have a point if the wall was build after the various Arab Israeli conflicts, but the build started in the 2000s, and the wall would work fine on there own land, if there stated aim is to stop suicide attacks is true.
Also, the BDS deal is basically the 2 state solution, that the entire world claims to support. Its not some new idea they made up, its same 2 status solution that been around for years.Irish Praetorian wrote: »The numbers don't really appear to bear that out, and fall largely in line with the completion of the contiguous wall. Do you have any source that might bear out your cooperation argument?
What numbers do you refer to exactly? Suicide attacks largely stopped long before the completion of huge chunks of the wall, so to claim that its stopped them, is farcical. You can look up the numbers, in the early 2000's there were dozens and they form 2004 onwards they drop, and the wall was no where near finished.
The wall btw has not be completed, and Palestinians sneak into Israel for work all the time. If there was a desire to carry such attacks, then surely the incomplete wall would not stop them, and surely if such desire for attacks existed, and the wall prevented them, then terrorist would resort to rocket attacks, which considering how close the West Bank is to major population centers would cause far more havoc then the ones coming from Gaza.Irish Praetorian wrote: »The polls didn't involve them leaving their homes, it involved the areas they lived in (Arab majority areas) being transferred to a new Palestinian state, they dislike the prospect.
It would involved people being moved as a lot of Arab area's in Israel are not adjacent to the West Bank.......Irish Praetorian wrote: »When have I ever claimed that some religious nonsense has any right to impact upon the situation? Having seen my arguments, do you really have me pegged for some manner of religious literalist? Pragmatic concerns dictate my lines of argument - regardless of religious motives we do have to accept that there is a Jewish population in the middle east that wants a state, how or why they got there is irrelevant.
Its relevant if we are going to call the other guy absurd for wanting to return after 60 years. If Palestinians are being absurd, than the Zionists are loony tunes.Irish Praetorian wrote: »I do find the Palestinian demand to return after sixty years absurd, but I would regard Jewish demands to return to the various Arab states that they were expelled from around the same time similarly absurd. We have to work with the populations as they stand, not as we might wish them to be.
I disagree that there claim is absurd, when the other side claims is a 2000 year old one. Palestinians may have to give up this right ultimately, but that is a matter for negotiation.Irish Praetorian wrote: »What pray tell is the alternative for Israel atm? Negotiate with a fractured Palestinian state for terms that may as well be ignored once they are agreed upon? Israel offered good deals in 2000 to Arafat and 2008 to Abbas, guess who turned down those offers?
Israel offered good deals according to Israel and there best pal the US, and seeing as there are no detailed maps, documents of these so called great deals that Israel offered, we have no way to know if these were good deals.
BTW, the Arab peace plan, which we actually have details on has been ignored by Israel for a solid decade:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm
Now, get back to me when you have an official document detailing these wonderful deals, last I checked the 2008 one was drawn on a napkin................0 -
A more interesting question would be "What happens to Irish dancers in Qatar [or any given Islamic-controlled region]?" My guess is that it's much more dangerous than Tel Aviv, particularly for the female dancers...Deleted User wrote: »What happens to Irish dancers in Tel Aviv that makes it dangerous for them and their families? Know a few who have been there and they thought it was a great spot.0 -
You point out a lot of double standards - many of them perfectly legitimate - but not one of those double standards is a reason for not engaging in a boycott.Irish Praetorian wrote: »In some ways I can sympathise with a lot of this sentiment, people might well hold different states accountable for various things and are entitled to spend their money in a way that reflects the different concerns that they might have.
I just can't get over some of the absurdities surrounding this debate, such as the idea that a company should be boycotted because it operates in Palestine but getting your jeans from a Vietnamese sweatshop is allright, or the idea that a farmer in Israel selling his citrus fruit abroad is immediately accused of selling 'blood produce' regardless of what his personal political opinions might be, but we are all happy to source our energy from whatever theocratic dictatorship is selling at the best price. It's the ridiculousness of it all that makes me suspicious.
Instead, each of them is an argument for having better knowledge/traceability over the products we buy, so we have a better knowledge of exactly what we're contributing to when we buy something - and for raising public awareness of each of these issues.0 -
I don't know much about cultural boycotting, but is it not in part punishing ordinary Israelis who aren't responsible for the political situation and just want to enjoy a bit of whatever cultural stuff they're into?
The same boycott of South Africa always struck me as simply further isolating black people there in one sense.0 -
Well, in a sense the Israeli population are responsible for voting in governments that continue the current policies, and cultural events that go on in Israel also stimulate their local economy; there's definitely an element of collective punishment about it though, as not all Israeli's support the governments actions, but that's just the cost of putting political/economic pressure on Israel.
It's the same deal with Russia - not all of the people support or even voted for the current government, nor support the invasion of Ukraine, but the international sanctions affect all of them.
Boycott's are just a means of bringing about a similar effect to sanctions, but starting from a grassroots level and possibly gaining more and more political support later (which may eventually result in official sanctions as the public mood sours more and more against Israel).0 -
Millennia of persecution, Jews won't even notice the Feis. They can keep them.0
-
Do these anti-Israeli hipsters actually believe that this has anything to do with Israel and more so to do with a) being fashionable b) ideologically driven by anti-western groups such as the Irish anti-war party.
200,000 dead in Syria and barely a peep. Boycotting a Feis? Its getting embarrassing tbh.0 -
Muslim is killed by a muslim, no reaction.Do these anti-Israeli hipsters actually believe that this has anything to do with Israel and more so to do with a) being fashionable b) ideologically driven by anti-western groups such as the Irish anti-war party.
200,000 dead in Syria and barely a peep. Boycotting a Feis? Its getting embarrassing tbh.
Muslim killed by an Israeli, howling hysteria.
Don't understand it myself.
Is the survival of the Jews such a stain on the Christian mind that it blinds them to suffering of others, especially in the middleeast which had been such a back yard of European Imperialism for so long?
Why is it that the Jews must be the best Christians of all but it not expected of Muslims?0 -
So you would be happy with a 1 man 1 vote solution, which would put a end to Zionism then? Return of the refugee's, would be needed, as without a Palestinian state they have not where else to go, and would remain in there current stateless limbo, and Jewish return law already set a precedent for such a return being extended to Palestinian refugees, who are far worse off, as most are stateless.
Now, seeing as you are against Israel returning land, they you must surely support this other solution then, that or you support ethnic cleansing, or leaving millions of Palestinians stateless forever.
It's the lebanese, syrians and Jordanese who have left the palestinian "refugees" there stateless, they've been used by arab governments for decades as political pawns. The palestinians could have easily been integrated into those states if the governments had given a single crap about them beyond their propaganda use against israel.
The right to "return" for palestinians is completely unworkable, there's no way that the Israelis would be so insane as to make themselves a minority in a country dominated by arabs, there's no way that that would end well. It's no surprise that muslims would want to see this happen but there's no way any Israeli would would do it.
Two-state solution fine, but the right of return is a non-runner and the palestinians must know that it's completely out of the question. The BDS movement know it too but their interest is promoting an anti-israeli/anti-jew agenda, not in pushing for a solution equitable to both parties.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do these anti-Israeli hipsters actually believe that this has anything to do with Israel and more so to do with a) being fashionable b) ideologically driven by anti-western groups such as the Irish anti-war party.
200,000 dead in Syria and barely a peep. Boycotting a Feis? Its getting embarrassing tbh.
Syria under sanctions from various bodies, Israel barely a peep.0 -
Cold War Kid wrote: »I don't know much about cultural boycotting, but is it not in part punishing ordinary Israelis who aren't responsible for the political situation and just want to enjoy a bit of whatever cultural stuff they're into?
The same boycott of South Africa always struck me as simply further isolating black people there in one sense.
I remember various black folk south Africa denouncing that as a cop out (by Thatcher) which it most certainly was.0 -
Classy.BlaasForRafa wrote: »It's the lebanese, syrians and Jordanese who have left the palestinian "refugees" there stateless, they've been used by arab governments for decades as political pawns. The palestinians could have easily been integrated into those states if the governments had given a single crap about them beyond their propaganda use against israel.
The right to "return" for palestinians is completely unworkable, there's no way that the Israelis would be so insane as to make themselves a minority in a country dominated by arabs, there's no way that that would end well. It's no surprise that muslims would want to see this happen but there's no way any Israeli would would do it.
Two-state solution fine, but the right of return is a non-runner and the palestinians must know that it's completely out of the question. The BDS movement know it too but their interest is promoting an anti-israeli/anti-jew agenda, not in pushing for a solution equitable to both parties.0 -
200,000 dead in Syria and barely a peep. Boycotting a Feis? Its getting embarrassing tbh.
But Syria hates Israel and the Jews too, with a whopping 20 or so Jews left in the entire country (Arab population in Israel > 1.5 million).
So they kinda get a free pass on atrocities, genocide etc.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »But Syria hates Israel and the Jews too, with a whopping 20 or so Jews left in the entire country (Arab population in Israel > 1.5 million).
So they kinda get a free pass on atrocities, genocide etc.
This throwing about of claims of anti-Semitism makes as much sense as claiming being against Apartheid South Africa meant you hated the Dutch.0 -
This throwing about of claims of anti-Semitism makes as much sense as claiming being against Apartheid South Africa meant you hated the Dutch.
No it doesn't.
It's simply objecting to anti Semitism. I think 20 Jews left in Syria says something. You may dismiss it with some curious reference to anti Dutch prejudice. That is your prerogative. I do not think the history of persecution of the Dutch and the Jews are comparable.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »No it doesn't.
It's simply objecting to anti Semitism. I think 20 Jews left in Syria says something. You may dismiss it with some curious reference to anti Dutch prejudice. That is your prerogative. I do not think the history of persecution of the Dutch and the Jews are comparable.
Ah ok, so being against apartheid SA was fine because the Afrikaans weren't jewish. Do you really think that's a logical position? That the history of Jews means that their colonisation of Palestine is beyond reproach?
And 20 Jews in Syria doesn't say anything about , it's as irrelevant as talking about how many free Presbyterians there are in Italy to justify British involvement in the North. Amusing that the only 2 weapons in a Zionist's arsenal are "but muslims kill muslims" and "but Israelis are Jewish?? So any criticism of Israel basically makes you a neo Nazi!!"
The anti-Semitism lie is right up there with screaming "islamophobia!" when any aspect of Islam is criticised for most cowardly copout tropes we all have to see every time these debates rear their head.0 -
Amusing that the only 2 weapons in a Zionist's arsenal are "but muslims kill muslims" and "but Israelis are Jewish?? So any criticism of Israel basically makes you a neo Nazi!!"
The anti-Semitism lie is right up there with screaming "islamophobia!" when any aspect of Islam is criticised for most cowardly copout tropes we all have to see every time these debates rear their head.
What are you on about?
Observing that 200,000 have died in Syria, which has some 20 Jews left in it, is Zionist and cowardly?
I would have though it merely...counting.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »What are you on about?
Observing that 200,000 have died in Syria, which has some 20 Jews left in it, is Zionist and cowardly?
I would have though it merely...counting.
Go have your morning coffee and read my post again, because you clearly didn't understand it the first time. The paragraph you're apparently replying to actually starts with "the anti-Semitism lie..." and not "observing that 200,000 have died..." just to get you started.0 -
Advertisement
-
FFS why can't people separate the actions of the Israeli government from the general people of Israel?
Why do we hold them to a higher standard than nearly every other country in the middle east?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement