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
-
Crooked Jack wrote: »Doesnt really matter whether its insane or not because that's not what I'm saying.
And has been pointed out numerous times, wrongs elsewhere in the world are not an adequate reason to ignore Israel's wrongs.
But your argument is that we sever diplomatic ties with Israel but maintain them with Syria because that's a "fluctuating situation".
That just makes no sense at all.0 -
Going to link to those anti-semetic posts now conor?
The post I objected to was a reference to concentration camps.
One can criticise Israel - and there is much to criticise - without introducing that.Well whats the point in protesting for action against regimes where action has been taken?
Do you think it appropriate, as another poster proposed, to sever diplomatic ties with Israel and maintain them with Syria 'cos we've taken enough action against them?0 -
I'm not. I said that we tend to focus more on Israel than we do on these other nut job regimes.
I would inflict marathon Fheis Ceols on them all if I could.
Yeah but you don't find anyone defending the other states you've listed. Typical convo are like "see the Saudis are beheading some chap?" "Yeah. Mad muslim bastards." "See the Syrians are all wiping each other out?" "Yeah, mad muslim bastards." "See Israel are at the sake craic they've been on since they started colonising Palestine?" "OMG why do you hate jews so much?"0 -
How about a compromise, move to the Feis to Gaza.0
-
Deleted User wrote: »So you don't need to know me to make the personal comment that I don't care about dead children?
Riiiiiiiiiiight. I won't even attempt to analyse that one. If it makes sense to you, fair enough.
Using it as a defense of a different group, leads me to that conclusion.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not getting into the political argument but I completely support a boycott of Israel.0
-
Yeah but you don't find anyone defending the other states you've listed. Typical convo are like "see the Saudis are beheading some chap?" "Yeah. Mad muslim bastards." "See the Syrians are all wiping each other out?" "Yeah, mad muslim bastards." "See Israel are at the sake craic they've been on since they started colonising Palestine?" "OMG why do you hate jews so much?"
Ah. Inventing "typical conversations"? That's a fairly easy game
"Those Israelis, setting up the world's biggest concentration camp, doing to others exactly what was done to them, should be sent back to Brooklyn and Russia, that'll teach them about lebensraum...
...
...OMG, why do you always reach for the anti-Semitic line, that's ridiculous, it is just like the Holocaust and the Nazis".0 -
pmasterson95 wrote: »Unless theres an unstable idiot with a gun ready for a mass shooting.
You mean, like an American policeman?
Suggested further reading
Ohio Police fire 137 shots into unarmed couple's car
SC Cop shoots man for faulty tail light
Man calls LAPD for help. Gets shot instead
And these are only from recent stories.
0 -
Cutting off diplomatic ties is also about pragmatism. For example if it's more productive to maintain political ties it should be done. Hence the reason the US negotiates with Iran.
However Israel has been negotiated with, it's been engaged with and it's made no difference. A boycott of their produce and a cultural boycott might actually make some difference. And the reason it might make a difference is because it is a democracy. A tyrant dictator might not give a fcuk about people not attending his events, a democracy might.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Ah. Inventing "typical conversations"? That's a fairly easy game
"Those Israelis, setting up the world's biggest concentration camp, doing to others exactly what was done to them, should be sent back to Brooklyn and Russia, that'll teach them about lebensraum...
...
...OMG, why do you always reach for the anti-Semitic line, that's ridiculous, it is just like the Holocaust and the Nazis".
So, do you actually see people defending the Saudis or the various groups in Syria? Oh, while we're here, any links to that antisemitism from the anti Zionists on this thread? Remember how you made a big deal about that earlier and then slunk away without providing any links? The offer still stands, I'll report them for you since you apparently won't.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »
Do you think it appropriate, as another poster proposed, to sever diplomatic ties with Israel and maintain them with Syria 'cos we've taken enough action against them?
Actually I don't.0 -
we seem to hold Israel to account much more than we other countries in the region.
Syria, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt.....all states with horrendous civil rights records and horribly repressive regimes that make Israel appear benign in comparison.
Perhaps that is because unlike those countries you listed, Israel claims to be a bastion of democracy in the region, a shining light of civilisation. Of course it is anything but and such claims are nothing more than appalling hypocrisy on Israels part. I think it is these hypocritical and deluded claims by Israel, which puts a target on their back for justifiable criticism across the globe.
Israels human rights record towards Palestinians and Israeli Arabs is beyond disgraceful. Yet sadly such behaviour is inevitable, when a hate filled ideology like Zionism beats at the heart of the establishment. It is an ideology founded on political, military and geographical domination, which has nothing to do with the peaceable and ancient religion of Judaism.
Similar to how the Saudis have the twisted logic of Wahhabism, warping the original teachings of Islam beating at the heart of their establishment. In order for countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia to become civilised democracies and join the nations of the world that respect human rights, their neighbours and those of different religions. Hacking out the cancer of Zionism and Wahahbism is the only long term solution for them.
So on the topic raised by the OP. I would have no issue with a Feis taking place in Israel. The hope being, that it would be under the control & guidance of ordinary, decent Jewish people. But if it is hijacked by those stained with Zionism and from the establishment, then it will not go well. Because in such an eventuality, one would certainly fear for the safety of Israeli Arabs or Palestinians wishing to attend such an event.0 -
So, do you actually see people defending the Saudis or the various groups in Syria? Oh, while we're here, any links to that antisemitism from the anti Zionists on this thread? Remember how you made a big deal about that earlier and then slunk away without providing any links? The offer still stands, I'll report them for you since you apparently won't.
Still angry I see.
Scanned your post. Did you quote me correctly or do that thing where you changed the quote? It was the height of japery!0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Ah. Inventing "typical conversations"? That's a fairly easy game
"Those Israelis, setting up the world's biggest concentration camp, doing to others exactly what was done to them, should be sent back to Brooklyn and Russia, that'll teach them about lebensraum...
...
...OMG, why do you always reach for the anti-Semitic line, that's ridiculous, it is just like the Holocaust and the Nazis".
Post 158 before the holocaust was mentioned, not too bad actually, things are improving around here0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Still amused I see.
I'm pretending that I'm only skimming your posts so that I can pretend to myself I'm saving face while constantly avoiding providing a link to all the antisemitism I'm claiming is going on.
Wacky hijinx0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Still angry I see.
Scanned your post. Did you quote me correctly or do that thing where you changed the quote? It was the height of japery!
So, do you actually see people defending the Saudis and various groups fighting in Syria?
Maybe if I keep all my replies to you restricted to one question you'll have a stab at answering rather than ducking and dodging.0 -
keeponhurling wrote: »Post 158 before the holocaust was mentioned, not too bad actually, things are improving around here
Naaa, the concentration camp reference was dropped in long ago!0 -
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.
I'm sorry but I am not going to pretend that this distinction between becoming part of a different state or becoming part of a separate state on the same territory is worth a damn. Crimea is not that different from Donetsk when it comes to Russian aggression and the pretensions that becoming an independent state that has engaged in ethnic cleansing (see Republika Srpksa) as opposed to a directly annexed one is nil. Quite frankly I'm surprised to see Northern Cyprus getting such a pass, I mean the Israeli's must be kicking themselves because surely if they had done like the Turkish government and simply expelled every Palestinian from the territory they now control when they first got control of it, apparently people would be perfectly content to see the region annexed to Israel, or perhaps a new state in the region 'Samaria'.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.
And by the best Palestinian land you presumably mean the bits next to Israel or between Israeli settlements and Israel proper? East Jerusalem is by this state as Jewish as it is Palestinian, I think the prospect of it becoming part of a Palestinian state is nil.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.
In 1948 the Israelis accepted the prospect of a UN partition, the Arab states rejected in and invaded. In 1967 neighbouring Arab states made perfectly clear their intentions to attack and blockaded the states of Tiran (the case of Gaza example has told us a blockade is an act of war), Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and won. Parts of the wall are indeed on Palestinian ground as are Israeli settlements for a very simple reason; having been repeatedly attacked Israel wants a measure of security and that includes defensible borders, that means parts of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights - the settlement programme can easily be viewed as a means of creating these facts on the ground that you mention and securing those borders. A two state solution is going to have to recognise the fact that having been attacked repeatedly and persevering nonetheless, Israel is going to have to get a better deal than 'OK give back everything, accept all these refugees and we won't attack you again - promise'.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.
But the first major tranche of the wall was finished mid-2003, about 200km worth of defences to be precise. Also the big difference between launching rocket attacks from the West Bank and from Gaza is the West Bank has Israeli troops patrolling itIt would involved people being moved as a lot of Arab area's in Israel are not adjacent to the West Bank.......
Apparently not a problem for the non-contiguous West Bank and Gaza.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.
Some guy wanting to settle in an arid war zone because he thinks a few thousand year old text means he has to? Yeah I think we can agree on that.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.
But it's not 2000 years old is it? It's a case of 'we live here now, we don't want to leave and we don't want to see our population doubled with people claiming refugee status'. I see very few Israeli movements towards peace with include keeping Palestine as some kind of wild west settlement outlet.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................
Forgive me but you can't be serious in saying the Camp David offer wasn't the best one the Palestinians had ever gotten? And it's not exactly some obscure under the table offer either.
As for the Saudi Peace offer - I think it's saying something about the kind of states Israel has to deal with that the peace deal they come up with after 40 years of deadlock is 'OK we can have peace, just put everything back to the way it was before we invaded you in 1967 and we will call it quits'. I can imagine why you might think that marks some great breakthrough, but to me it just stands as another reminder of how out of touch some of these states are.KomradeBishop wrote: »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.
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.
Actually I think there is a good reason for not engaging in a boycott and its called hypocrisy - if you source your energy from a state engaged in a civil war with 250,000 dead but you find the oranges of an occupying power objectionable, that is immeasurably hypocritical. It's what I cannot stand about this BDS movement, the notion that the crimes of Israel are so grand and egregious that how could the public do anything but boycott and despise such a state? I venture such people are ignorant of their role in similar offences, even more ignorant of the considerably more pressing crimes across the world and I am not inclined against pointing this out.0 -
Hypocrisy is not a reason for not doing something. By that standard we should end our sanctions on Russia/Syria, for the similar actions of Israel and the US.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Actually I think there is a good reason for not engaging in a boycott and its called hypocrisy - if you source your energy from a state engaged in a civil war with 250,000 dead but you find the oranges of an occupying power objectionable, that is immeasurably hypocritical. It's what I cannot stand about this BDS movement, the notion that the crimes of Israel are so grand and egregious that how could the public do anything but boycott and despise such a state? I venture such people are ignorant of their role in similar offences, even more ignorant of the considerably more pressing crimes across the world and I am not inclined against pointing this out.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Hypocrisy is not a reason for not doing something. By that standard we should end our sanctions on Russia/Syria, for the similar actions of Israel and the US.
Be fair, Russian and Syrian actions vastly eclipse anything Israel or the US has managed to pull off. Total Palestinian casualties across the occupation come to what, 20,000? That's not a tenth of what's been going on in Syria over less than a tenth of the time. The US has one saving grace about its incredibly stupid invasion of Iraq in that it's not there any more and there are no Iraqi provinces annexed to the US, can we say the same of Russia?0 -
Advertisement
-
Being a hypocrite doesn't make somebody wrong.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Actually I think there is a good reason for not engaging in a boycott and its called hypocrisy - if you source your energy from a state engaged in a civil war with 250,000 dead but you find the oranges of an occupying power objectionable, that is immeasurably hypocritical. It's what I cannot stand about this BDS movement, the notion that the crimes of Israel are so grand and egregious that how could the public do anything but boycott and despise such a state? I venture such people are ignorant of their role in similar offences, even more ignorant of the considerably more pressing crimes across the world and I am not inclined against pointing this out.
Your debating tactic here is pure whataboutery to attack the credibility/consistency of the poster, but regardless of the credibility or consistency of the poster, the argument itself can be valid.
Try to debate it without making reference or comparison to other governments or countries.
Debate the issue on its own merits, not through the prism of other regimes.0 -
Being a hypocrite doesn't make somebody wrong.
Your debating tactic here is pure whataboutery to attack the credibility/consistency of the poster, but regardless of the credibility or consistency of the poster, the argument itself can be valid.
Try to debate it without making reference or comparison to other governments or countries.
Debate the issue on its own merits, not through the prism of other regimes.
Whataboutery - has this word been brought back into popular use just to assuage the anti-Israeli crowd of their own absurd position?
My 'tactic' here is an eminently simply a straightforward one - people are making the argument that the Israeli government is guilty of X and therefore should be subject to a selection of punishments called A. I make a very simple claim, we let countries guilty of X, Y and Z get away with far worse and subject them to no more than the occasional tongue lashing.
If we are to called ourselves principled countries acting on behalf of what we regard as genuine and deeply held concerns, be those concerns the preservation of life or the maintenance of peace, then we cannot restrain the application of those principles to when it suits us, we must apply them justly and uniformly.
Is this the case at present? No it's not, at present we have contented ourselves to applying our moral pressure when it is convenient to the rest of the world. Do you know what I believe the greatest mistake of the Anti-Apartheid movement was? Stopping with South Africa. Does anyone here really believe that there were no other countries in Africa which ought to be condemned for their actions? The same year Nelson Mandela was elected president the Rwandan Genocide broke out, but did we do anything? No. Have we done much in Africa since? No because that would be inconvenient to other African regimes up to the same kinds of thing. And Israel is in the same boat, is it the only regime engaging in activities we dislike, or even to the worst degree? No, but it's a convenient target because what other states in the region have any interest in protecting it? Incidentally has anyone wondered why we are so ready to act on Syria, the only Arab State in the region with a government drawn from the Shia (Alawite) part of the population?
I apply my principles evenly, I don't rent them out to whatever despot or dictatorship thinks they can make use of them.0 -
Actually, Israel's actions vastly eclipse Russia's current actions in Ukraine.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Be fair, Russian and Syrian actions vastly eclipse anything Israel or the US has managed to pull off. Total Palestinian casualties across the occupation come to what, 20,000? That's not a tenth of what's been going on in Syria over less than a tenth of the time. The US has one saving grace about its incredibly stupid invasion of Iraq in that it's not there any more and there are no Iraqi provinces annexed to the US, can we say the same of Russia?
Your whole argument that what Israel is doing is 'not so bad' just betrays your own hypocrisy, in that you're not judging Israel on the substance of whether their actions are right or wrong, but just on the bodycount (even when it's actually higher than what Russia have done in Ukraine...).
So not only do you hold other posters to the "hypocrisy is a reason for not engaging in boycotts/sanctions" argument, you hypocritically don't hold yourself to that argument, as you support sanctions even when in breach of your own argument - renting out your 'principles' exclusively for Israel and the US.0 -
Yeah but you don't find anyone defending the other states you've listed. Typical convo are like "see the Saudis are beheading some chap?" "Yeah. Mad muslim bastards." "See the Syrians are all wiping each other out?" "Yeah, mad muslim bastards." "See Israel are at the sake craic they've been on since they started colonising Palestine?" "OMG why do you hate jews so much?"
You are listening to some very stupid conversations.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Actually, Israel's actions vastly eclipse Russia's current actions in Ukraine.
Your whole argument that what Israel is doing is 'not so bad' just betrays your own hypocrisy, in that you're not judging Israel on the substance of whether their actions are right or wrong, but just on the bodycount (even when it's actually higher than what Russia have done in Ukraine...).
So not only do you hold other posters to the "hypocrisy is a reason for not engaging in boycotts/sanctions" argument, you hypocritically don't hold yourself to that argument, as you support sanctions even when in breach of your own argument - renting out your 'principles' exclusively for Israel and the US.
I probably should have addressed the point of Russia more clearly and sooner. Since 1990, Russia has been up to quite a few things, they occupied and setup a puppet state in Trandnistria and we did nothing, they fermented a conflict in South Ossetia and percipitated the ethnic cleansing of one quarter of a million ethnic Georgians from Abkhazia and we did nothing, they oversaw the 'pacification' of Chechnya with more than one hundred thousand lives lost, they levelled a city in the pursuit of this war and we did nothing, they annexed Abkhazian and South Ossetia following a conflict with the Georgians and completed the ethnic cleansing because two decades previous and we still did nothing. Now finally, having turned their gaze west, invaded and annexed a province of several million people and fermented yet another frozen conflict in another part of Ukraine, finally, we have done something. My patience with Israel is not inexhaustible, but they have some way to go before reaching the level of Russia.0 -
-
Irish Praetorian wrote: »Quite frankly I'm surprised to see Northern Cyprus getting such a pass, I mean the Israeli's must be kicking themselves because surely if they had done like the Turkish government and simply expelled every Palestinian from the territory they now control when they first got control of it, apparently people would be perfectly content to see the region annexed to Israel, or perhaps a new state in the region 'Samaria'.
Again, Turkey isn't trying to keep Norther Cyprus or huge chunks of it, what they want is to let the people remain there as Cypriot citizens. Israels position is that they keep the land. These are 2 rather different scenario's your refusal to acknowledge that, doesn't change it.Irish Praetorian wrote: »And by the best Palestinian land you presumably mean the bits next to Israel or between Israeli settlements and Israel proper? East Jerusalem is by this state as Jewish as it is Palestinian, I think the prospect of it becoming part of a Palestinian state is nil.
No, I mean the land sitting on top of water aquifers in the West Bank. So no water and no East Jerusalem means a Palestinians state is a non-starter. It wouldn't be able to survive without any water. No Palestinian leader will ever be able to give up East Jerusalem.Irish Praetorian wrote: »In 1948 the Israelis accepted the prospect of a UN partition,
The UN resolution was a non-binding resolution that gave about half the land to one third of the people, most of whom recently arrived. Israel then immediately started expelling Palestinians, and started grabbing land outside of proposed UN partition plan. So Israel didn't accept the partition plan, as they started expelling Palestinians and there was no provision for expelling anyone in the non-binding resolution.Irish Praetorian wrote: »the Arab states rejected in and invaded.
After Israel started expelling Palestinians.Irish Praetorian wrote: »In 1967 neighbouring Arab states made perfectly clear their intentions to attack and blockaded the states of Tiran (the case of Gaza example has told us a blockade is an act of war), Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and won.
According to Israel and her supporters they were about to attack to justify there own act of aggression. The fact remains is was fair from clear that any Arab attack was imminent, as Egyptian forces were actually busy elsewhere in the Arab world at the time. As for comparing the blockade before 1967 to the Gaza one, there is no comparison, Gaza is completely cut off from the outside world, Israel was not, and BTW Israel is now arguing that there far more comprehensive blockade is no reason for aggression.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Parts of the wall are indeed on Palestinian ground as are Israeli settlements for a very simple reason; having been repeatedly attacked Israel wants a measure of security and that includes defensible borders, that means parts of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights - the settlement programme can easily be viewed as a means of creating these facts on the ground that you mention and securing those borders.
Utter nonsense. How are Israel 1967 border no defensible seeing as they have one multiple wars already from those borders? There is also the peace deal with both Egypt and Jordan. On every level the justification is utter nonsense, being use to hide the real Biblical justification.Irish Praetorian wrote: »A two state solution is going to have to recognise the fact that having been attacked repeatedly and persevering nonetheless, Israel is going to have to get a better deal than 'OK give back everything, accept all these refugees and we won't attack you again - promise'.
UN Resolution 242 which the 2 state solution is based on doesn't require a total return, as refugees can be compensated in other ways, and again its something that can be negotiated, and settlement blocks can be exchanged for equal land in Israel. You seem to think that he settlement is set in stone, and you also seem to think that continued expansion isn't an issue.
Its clear that you don't really support a 2 state solution, as the terms you seem to think reasonable will never be accepted by any Palestinian, and even when Palestinians bent over backwards, check the leaked Palestine papers, which btw will be the best deal Israel was ever going to get from the Palestinians:
http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/Irish Praetorian wrote: »But the first major tranche of the wall was finished mid-2003, about 200km worth of defences to be precise. Also the big difference between launching rocket attacks from the West Bank and from Gaza is the West Bank has Israeli troops patrolling it
You will find that the PA are in charge of a lot of security, and are largely responsible for stops in attacks. Secondly, how would taking longer to get to your target stop a suicide bomber. I doubt a couple of hours is that big of a deterrent. The fact remains there is no real evidence of the wall preventing attacks, especially in light of the PA security forces working with the IDF.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Apparently not a problem for the non-contiguous West Bank and Gaza.
That is already a problem, but a corridor can be created, and 2 continuous pieces are manageable, as opposed to the swiss cheese Israel would like to see.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Some guy wanting to settle in an arid war zone because he thinks a few thousand year old text means he has to? Yeah I think we can agree on that.
But it's not 2000 years old is it?
New settlers arrive in the West Bank all the time. The fact you don't see this as major issue is rather strange. Israel is killing the 2 state solution, and you seem intent that nothing be done about for some bizarre reason.Irish Praetorian wrote: »It's a case of 'we live here now, we don't want to leave and we don't want to see our population doubled with people claiming refugee status'. I see very few Israeli movements towards peace with include keeping Palestine as some kind of wild west settlement outlet.
Again, status of refugees can be negotiated, but Israel refuses even a symbolic right of return to any Palestinians. Secondly Palestinians are stateless, and whether you or Israeli's like they do have a right to return, and as long as Israel insists on there own over 2000 year version, there in no position to complain.
Again, the right of return can be negotiated.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Forgive me but you can't be serious in saying the Camp David offer wasn't the best one the Palestinians had ever gotten? And it's not exactly some obscure under the table offer either.
Camp David, wasn't a deal.......... Camp David created the PA, and is the basis for the current peace process. There was no final status deal offered, and no details of one that exist.Irish Praetorian wrote: »As for the Saudi Peace offer - I think it's saying something about the kind of states Israel has to deal with that the peace deal they come up with after 40 years of deadlock is 'OK we can have peace, just put everything back to the way it was before we invaded you in 1967 and we will call it quits'.
Interesting that you are claiming once again falsely that Arab forces invaded Israel in 1967 first, after acknowledging Israel engaged in what they claim to be a "pre-emptive" strike.Irish Praetorian wrote: »I can imagine why you might think that marks some great breakthrough, but to me it just stands as another reminder of how out of touch some of these states are.
Better than the Israeli offer, of lets talk peace, while we grab more real estate in the West Bank, so as to make a deal impossible. The Arab peace plan is far away better, than Israel's attempts to destroy the possibility of a 2 state solution.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Actually I think there is a good reason for not engaging in a boycott and its called hypocrisy -
Its not a good enough reason at all. So what if people literally only engaged in one conflict, ending that one conflict is far better than being smug about being a hypocrite, and that is if what you were saying was accurate.
Again, your position means nothing at all will be ever be done as it would be, hypocritical. That is a absurd position to take. As it stands you should be calling for the complete dismantling of all sanctions against every regime the world over, and its hypocritical to only concentrate on some.Irish Praetorian wrote: »if you source your energy from a state engaged in a civil war with 250,000 dead but you find the oranges of an occupying power objectionable, that is immeasurably hypocritical.
Syria and various actors are under sanctions last I checked. So no hypocrisy there at all. What is hypocritical is sanctioning Russia, but letting Israel off scot free, and hence why some people engage in BDS.
BTW, plenty of charity work to help refugees is taking place, and that is something that can actually help people, as opposed to people banging about hypocrisy, which doesn't help anyone, as unless people are perfectly equal on everything, they should do nothing. You are btw in effect arguing against helping anyone ever, unless we address everything at the same time.Irish Praetorian wrote: »It's what I cannot stand about this BDS movement, the notion that the crimes of Israel are so grand and egregious that how could the public do anything but boycott and despise such a state?
The BDS call is a Palestinian one. Of course there going to concentrate on Israel. WTH do they have to do with the Crimea. What next! Do you expect the Dalai Lama, to complain about the Indian occupation of Kashmir?Irish Praetorian wrote: »I venture such people are ignorant of their role in similar offences, even more ignorant of the considerably more pressing crimes across the world and I am not inclined against pointing this out.
I would venture that people who are against BDS don't have a leg to stand on, and have to resort to whataboutery, and ignore the fact that Assads regime are currently being sanctioned, not to mention other groups involved in the Syrian civil war.
Simply put, our governments are doing something about Syria, could more be done yes, but seeing as there very little that the average person can do in regards to Syria, considering that the regime doesn't have much in the way of connections to the West, and is ruled by a dictator, BDS is simple impossible, as there sanctioned already, and there is feck all Syrian to boycott, in anyways.
Israel however can be boycotted, and Palestinians have made a call for BDS as a part of peaceful resistance, and I fail to see the hypocrisy, just the typical same apologetic that were used to defend Apartheid South Africa being recycled word for word nearly.0 -
Debate the issue on its own merits, not through the prism of other regimes.
But surely that depends on the issue. Sometimes it is impossible to consider something in a vacuum, particularly when one is analysing the reaction.
In the past few pages, Syria was largely discussed in the context of expelling diplomats. It is perfectly fair to point out that this step has not been considered in cases with the most despotic regimes, totalitarian states slaying people by the tens of thousands. So to consider it in the case of Israel would seem grossly disproportionate and simply unfair. That's not to say Israel does not deserve criticism or censure, but expulsion of diplomats...that's just bonkers stuff.0 -
Again, Turkey isn't trying to keep Norther Cyprus or huge chunks of it, what they want is to let the people remain there as Cypriot citizens. Israels position is that they keep the land. These are 2 rather different scenario's your refusal to acknowledge that, doesn't change it.
The Turkish desire was to keep a separate Turkish state within the proposed 'bi-national confederation' as proposed by the UN, it also involves Turkish settlers keeping the land they hold as well as reserving to Turkey the right to intervene militarily should they feel the situation warrants it. This is ethnic cleansing and invasion for some, UN sanctions for others, plain as day - a veritable Abkhazia on the Mediterranean if you will.No, I mean the land sitting on top of water aquifers in the West Bank. So no water and no East Jerusalem means a Palestinians state is a non-starter. It wouldn't be able to survive without any water. No Palestinian leader will ever be able to give up East Jerusalem.
Is Palestine not surrounded by many Arab states who wish it well? I mean they have been keeping their refugees fed surely providing water is a minor concern? Unless of course they really don't give a damn about the Palestinians in the first place...The UN resolution was a non-binding resolution that gave about half the land to one third of the people, most of whom recently arrived. Israel then immediately started expelling Palestinians, and started grabbing land outside of proposed UN partition plan. So Israel didn't accept the partition plan, as they started expelling Palestinians and there was no provision for expelling anyone in the non-binding resolution.
If that is a non binding resolution it means that the territory being disputed in its entirety is a terra-nullis with anyone within their rights to claim any or all of it. Is that your position?After Israel started expelling Palestinians.
Taking that position to be the entirety of the truth which I do not - after which of course the Arab states had no choice but to expel their own Jewish populations wholesale? What do you imagine ethnic cleansing was the preserve of only one side?According to Israel and her supporters they were about to attack to justify there own act of aggression. The fact remains is was fair from clear that any Arab attack was imminent, as Egyptian forces were actually busy elsewhere in the Arab world at the time. As for comparing the blockade before 1967 to the Gaza one, there is no comparison, Gaza is completely cut off from the outside world, Israel was not, and BTW Israel is now arguing that there far more comprehensive blockade is no reason for aggression.
This is really going beyond the pale of accepted historical narratives into conspiracy theory territory. If the expulsion of UN peacekeepers, the Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai peninsula, the blockade of the straits of Tiran, the alliance with Jordan, Nasser's pretty violent rhetoric, are not enough to convince you, I'm not sure I can.Utter nonsense. How are Israel 1967 border no defensible seeing as they have one multiple wars already from those borders? There is also the peace deal with both Egypt and Jordan. On every level the justification is utter nonsense, being use to hide the real Biblical justification.
Have you seen the topography of the region? Imagine putting Gaza on a mountain that is wide and long enough to be within rocket range of just about every point within Israel. Heck you can cross Israel at it's narrowest point from the West Bank to the Mediterranean in about the same time it takes to go from Swords to Howth.UN Resolution 242 which the 2 state solution is based on doesn't require a total return, as refugees can be compensated in other ways, and again its something that can be negotiated, and settlement blocks can be exchanged for equal land in Israel. You seem to think that he settlement is set in stone, and you also seem to think that continued expansion isn't an issue.
Negotiated right of return, territorial exchange, I believe I've actually been pretty explicit in endorsing these things on this very thread.Its clear that you don't really support a 2 state solution, as the terms you seem to think reasonable will never be accepted by any Palestinian, and even when Palestinians bent over backwards, check the leaked Palestine papers, which btw will be the best deal Israel was ever going to get from the Palestinians:
http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/
The 'reasonable' terms set out by some people on this thread include as much as doubling the population of Israel proper whilst accepting at face value whatever assurances the Palestinians care to proffer about Israeli security. This is the same kind of mentality that was behind the hot-heads who felt the only acceptable Irish peace deal was a 32 county one. Politics is the art of compromise, not with people you like, and not on terms you might particularly enjoy - now those documents reveal positive developments but it seems clear that an ultimate agreement is still just beyond reach, sadly a situation which appears to be prolonged with the 'glorious return' Bibi.You will find that the PA are in charge of a lot of security, and are largely responsible for stops in attacks. Secondly, how would taking longer to get to your target stop a suicide bomber. I doubt a couple of hours is that big of a deterrent. The fact remains there is no real evidence of the wall preventing attacks, especially in light of the PA security forces working with the IDF.
We seem to be at a bit of an impasse on this issue - I see the correlation between wall construction and a decline in attacks, you propose that this decline is due to a greater level of cooperation between the PA and Israel. Can you recommend any reading material that might illuminate the matter?That is already a problem, but a corridor can be created, and 2 continuous pieces are manageable, as opposed to the swiss cheese Israel would like to see.
The Swiss cheese setup appears to be a by-product of Israeli control of the road networks which naturally enough I would expect to stop in an independent Palestinian state. I would venture that perhaps union between Gaza and Egypt or the West Bank and Jordan should be considered if both parties are interested, but from what I can tell the Jordanians atleast are not.New settlers arrive in the West Bank all the time. The fact you don't see this as major issue is rather strange. Israel is killing the 2 state solution, and you seem intent that nothing be done about for some bizarre reason.
Settlers arrive for various reasons, from the religious ones mentioned above to the simple reality that house prices are quite high in Israel proper. The Israeli government I imagine is quite content to let this happen because each settler moving in makes their hand in negotiations stronger. I don't see any real way of stopping this without a comprehensive deal between Israel and Palestine, primarily a product of the gulf between the two sides detailed above.Again, status of refugees can be negotiated, but Israel refuses even a symbolic right of return to any Palestinians. Secondly Palestinians are stateless, and whether you or Israeli's like they do have a right to return, and as long as Israel insists on there own over 2000 year version, there in no position to complain.
Again, the right of return can be negotiated.
I've failed to see this 2000 year thing mentioned in any kind of demand to the Palestinians, and I think you might ascribing wholly to religion what can in many cases be ascribed to house prices. Some kind of right of return seems fair though, but I suspect your average Israeli is going to have a hard time admitting such a right when most of their ancestors from the same period were expelled from across the Arab world without any kind of compensation or right of return.Camp David, wasn't a deal.......... Camp David created the PA, and is the basis for the current peace process. There was no final status deal offered, and no details of one that exist.
Are you confusing Camp David 78 with Camp David 2000?Interesting that you are claiming once again falsely that Arab forces invaded Israel in 1967 first, after acknowledging Israel engaged in what they claim to be a "pre-emptive" strike.
Would you have preferred they politely waited to be attacked and destroyed in detail?Better than the Israeli offer, of lets talk peace, while we grab more real estate in the West Bank, so as to make a deal impossible. The Arab peace plan is far away better, than Israel's attempts to destroy the possibility of a 2 state solution.
Not for the Israelis it's not. You don't get to negotiate with people who agree with you, which is what the Saudi plan appears to have been.Its not a good enough reason at all. So what if people literally only engaged in one conflict, ending that one conflict is far better than being smug about being a hypocrite, and that is if what you were saying was accurate.
Again, your position means nothing at all will be ever be done as it would be, hypocritical. That is a absurd position to take. As it stands you should be calling for the complete dismantling of all sanctions against every regime the world over, and its hypocritical to only concentrate on some.
No I would a very simple standard, the world is a pretty distressed place so maybe, just maybe, instead of trying to fix things which we can all agree on, we can start to fix the worst things first and work our way up? Stopping the systematic slaughter of the Fur might be a good way to begin, although we might be a few hundred thousand lives too late...Syria and various actors are under sanctions last I checked. So no hypocrisy there at all. What is hypocritical is sanctioning Russia, but letting Israel off scot free, and hence why some people engage in BDS.
BTW, plenty of charity work to help refugees is taking place, and that is something that can actually help people, as opposed to people banging about hypocrisy, which doesn't help anyone, as unless people are perfectly equal on everything, they should do nothing. You are btw in effect arguing against helping anyone ever, unless we address everything at the same time.
I've made the details of the Russian situation clear plainly enough but I'll remind you, neither Syria nor Russia are under any kind of UN sanction, nor are many of the other vile actors in the world for the very simple reason that they have enough compatriots to practice a kind of collective security.
As for the charity bit, that's the same line those Tea Party nutjobs use isn't it? 'Oh you want to help the poor, well go work in the soup kitchen don't take my taxes' - a facile answer and one which fails to get at the source of the problem, which is not hunger or poverty in the first place, but the system that precipitates it.The BDS call is a Palestinian one. Of course there going to concentrate on Israel. WTH do they have to do with the Crimea. What next! Do you expect the Dalai Lama, to complain about the Indian occupation of Kashmir?
Fair enough, I suppose I would take issue with their misguided supporters more than themselves.I would venture that people who are against BDS don't have a leg to stand on, and have to resort to whataboutery, and ignore the fact that Assads regime are currently being sanctioned, not to mention other groups involved in the Syrian civil war.
Simply put, our governments are doing something about Syria, could more be done yes, but seeing as there very little that the average person can do in regards to Syria, considering that the regime doesn't have much in the way of connections to the West, and is ruled by a dictator, BDS is simple impossible, as there sanctioned already, and there is feck all Syrian to boycott, in anyways.
Israel however can be boycotted, and Palestinians have made a call for BDS as a part of peaceful resistance, and I fail to see the hypocrisy, just the typical same apologetic that were used to defend Apartheid South Africa being recycled word for word nearly.
And by 'ours' you mean EU and US rather than UN, once again, walking down the same well grooved paths set out for us by less reputable regimes eager to make use of our outrage. But fine yes, something is being done about Syria. Call me when Israel manages to meet this Syrian body-count and when BDS comes up with a better solution than doubling Israel's population and leaving them high and dry the next time someone decides to attack them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, the decision to go there is in itself a political decision. And Please note the venue - it could not be more political: ZOA HOUSE (ZOA= Zionist Organisation of America).
One thing for sure - former President of Ireland Mary Robinson would not be allowed to speak or even dance in ZOA House. Here is what ZOA had to say about here - and this is only part of a campaign ZOA has been mounting against Mary Robinson for the past 2 decades-
http://www.jta.org/2009/08/04/news-opinion/the-telegraph/zoa-rjc-join-robinson-criticism
ZOA, RJC join Robinson criticism
By Eric Fingerhut
Both the Zionist Organization of America and the Republican Jewish Coalition have joined the Anti-Defamation League in criticizing the choice of Mary Robinson for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
"Awarding the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson does great dishonor to the many outstanding men and women who have received it in the past," said RJC executive director Matt Brooks.
The ZOA rips the award to Bishop Desmond Tutu as well, saying both he and Robinson are "virulent critics" of Israel.
“We are aware that, while other Jewish organizations have criticized the award to Mary Robinson, none appear to have taken issue with the same award being made to Desmond Tutu," said ZOA president Morton Klein. "It would appear that there is reluctance to criticize an African figure who had some prominence in the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Yet participation in a just cause does not, and should not, provide immunity from criticism for other words and deeds defaming Zionism.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement