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
-
As a matter of fact Irish passport holders are automatically red-flagged and given special interrogation treatment by the Israelis. Indeed Ireland should insist on a visa regime between the EU and Israel as Isrel discriminates always against Irish passport holders.0
-
It is being run in Israel by Russian settlers and the official Feis website shows that the ultimate beneficiary of the fees paid is Alfa-Bank in Moscow having passed through banks in Austria and Germany. I am sure that they had not intended all this information to be public but because of sanctions all bank transfers are being scrutinised.
The Feis venue- ZOA House was founded by the Zionist Association of America which has been running a decades-long hate campaign against Mary Robinson.
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-o...nson-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 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
A Bi-national state is still a far cry from Turkey keeping Northern Cyprus, and again a different situation.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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...
They have hardly treated the Palestinians well. They have been the victims of violence by various Arab regimes over the decades.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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?
No, my point was that there needed to be negotiations. Declaring a state and then immediately turfing out Palestinians was an act of war, especially as the resolution didn't call for any populations to be removed.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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?
How are the Palestinians to blame for Arab state expelling there Jewish populace exactly? Also, those expulsions took place in some cases decades later, when millions of Palestinians were in refugee camps. How exactly is that there fault? Its amazing how the Palestinians have to pay for all the crimes committed against Jews by other people.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
Again Egyptian forces were fighting elsewhere in the Middle East, and violent rhetoric in the Middle East as a reason for war...... You do realize the amount of crap various leaders come out with, including from Israeli leaders.
Again, the claim that it was pre-emptive strike simply isn't backed up the facts. Egypt was not in any position to attack, and sadly for you that isn't exactly a conspiracy theory.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
You would have a point if Israel was unable to defend those borders, but managed to do exactly that, and secondly, they have made peace deals with both Egypt and Jordan. Lebanon is no position to attack Israel, and Syria was willing to engage in a deal with Israel in the past as well.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Negotiated right of return, territorial exchange, I believe I've actually been pretty explicit in endorsing these things on this very thread.
Well, I certainly didn't get that impression.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
Again, look at my link to the Palestine papers, Palestinians bent over backwards to compromise and got expanded settlement for there trouble. Hence, why they have chosen to engage in BDS.
BTW, Palestinians got no where under the previous leadership as well, as the Palestine papers cover that period.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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?
Read about Keith Dayton building PA forces.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
None of them are interested. Palestinians again have not been treated well by various Arab states, so that is understandable on there part.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Settlers arrive for various reasons, from the religious ones mentioned above to the simple reality that house prices are quite high in Israel proper.
Every single one of them is aware regardless of there own personal reasoning that they are engaged in a settlement project based on Biblical land claims. They have no real excuses, unless there children, then there parents are to blame.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
The Israeli government isn't letting it happen. They are making it happen, via various incentives, state service, IDF protection etc.
Also, how can the Palestinians take any negotiations seriously, when Israel is grabbing the land there negotiating over?Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
Last I check Israel calls itself a Jewish state and the government refers to the West Bank as Judea and Sumeria, both Biblical terms. The government encouraging people via low house price, doesn't change the intent on jot, and people going there also know full well what there engaged in.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
Well, that is there issue and not the Palestinians. Israel made separate peace deals with Egypt and Jordan, and have themselves already separated the issue. If Israel cared about getting restitution for there own refugees, they should have brought it up with the other Arab states who expelled there Jewish populace. Bringing it up now is disingenuous in the extreme.
Ultimately, the Palestinians are not to blame for expelling Jews, and again its rather unfair for Palestinians to effectively pay for crimes against Jews that other states committed. States that btw have treated the Palestinians pretty badly as well.
I do agree that a similar right of return or restitution for Jews expelled from Arab lands should happen, but that is a separate issues, especially as I mentioned earlier that Israel has made separate peace deals, and they didn't seek such restitution then.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Are you confusing Camp David 78 with Camp David 2000?
No final agreement was made at either.
Would you have preferred they politely waited to be attacked and destroyed in detail?Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
Israeli have ignored the offer completely. At the very least I would expect it to be a state point.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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...
Surely fixing stuff that everyone agrees on make more sense. Seeing as a quick fix would mean less stuff to worry about, and make it easier to tackle other issues? There are many different ways to priorities things, and ultimately, I don't expect Palestinians or Tibetans to follow that, as there own situation will be there highest priority, and if they can convince people to support them, then more power to them.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
The reason for that is the Russian UN veto, the same one the US uses to protect Israel. However, at the EU level there are sanctions and I live in the EU, so my government is already doing something.Irish Praetorian wrote: »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.
Well no, in the case of Syria, the government is murdering people, so best not to give the money. BTW, the UN refugee agencies and other charities helping refugees regularly ask for money as governments aren't giving them enough. While lobbying world governments to give more is the best long term solution, in the short term giving charity is the smart thing to do, to you know stop people from freezing or starving to death.
Also, I was talking about avenues available for individual can do to help.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Fair enough, I suppose I would take issue with their misguided supporters more than themselves.
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.
Again, Israel has multiple peace deals, and to pretend that it is Israel who is the sole victim of violence is nonsense. The IDF murders far more Palestinians civilians than Palestinians groups do Israeli civilians. It is the Palestinians who are under attack, and who are living under an occupation. Its truly absurd to ignore this.
In regards to Syria, you have offered 0 suggestion as to what an individual can do, and compared charity to the American Tea party.
Again, a BDS call has been made, and there is 0 reason for people to no heed to call, and that also doesn't prevent them for heeding calls from the Dalai Lama if he were to make one or some other groups.0 -
A Bi-national state is still a far cry from Turkey keeping Northern Cyprus, and again a different situation.
Fair enough, I'm certain the Israelis will be thrilled to know they can expel the Palestinian population wholesale and without exception.They have hardly treated the Palestinians well. They have been the victims of violence by various Arab regimes over the decades.
You think? (Sarcasm off)No, my point was that there needed to be negotiations. Declaring a state and then immediately turfing out Palestinians was an act of war, especially as the resolution didn't call for any populations to be removed.
You've already conceded that Turkish settlers are entitled to remain in Cyprus, logically the Israelis could have come on longboats, swilling mead, it bears no relevance on their entitlement to stay now.How are the Palestinians to blame for Arab state expelling there Jewish populace exactly? Also, those expulsions took place in some cases decades later, when millions of Palestinians were in refugee camps. How exactly is that there fault? Its amazing how the Palestinians have to pay for all the crimes committed against Jews by other people.
I'm suggesting that if the Palestinians are looking for succour following their expulsion, perhaps they should look to their supposed 'brethren' who apparently expelled their Jewish populations and seized their property in solidarity. You can't expect Israel, having taken care of these expelled Jews, to now be tasked with tasking care of the Palestinian population.Again Egyptian forces were fighting elsewhere in the Middle East, and violent rhetoric in the Middle East as a reason for war...... You do realize the amount of crap various leaders come out with, including from Israeli leaders.
Egyptian forces had been fighting elsewhere, but when the war broke out, ALL of its divisions were in Sinai (or about two thirds of its 150,000 man army). Bit of an odd peacetime disposition don't you think?Again, the claim that it was pre-emptive strike simply isn't backed up the facts. Egypt was not in any position to attack, and sadly for you that isn't exactly a conspiracy theory.
It's hardly accepted wisdom either, Israel remained blockaded, surrounded by aggressive states spouting vicious rhetoric and with far larger armies than its own. Simply waiting to be attacked was hardly an option.You would have a point if Israel was unable to defend those borders, but managed to do exactly that, and secondly, they have made peace deals with both Egypt and Jordan. Lebanon is no position to attack Israel, and Syria was willing to engage in a deal with Israel in the past as well.
Was in a position to defend those borders in 1967 when faced with a conventional foe with conflicts fought on the battlefield. That is hardly the case any more, I do not believe Israel faces much in the way of conventional threats from national armies. The new threat is from a form of small warfare, ongoing attacks at low level using rockets, terrorists, kidnapping etc. Gaza is from the outside perspective perhaps the last place in the world that could wage war on Israel, yet it can supply a short notice a pretty reliable stream of rocket fire into Southern Israel. That is easily what the West Bank could turn into on a larger scale.Well, I certainly didn't get that impression.
Perhaps you might find it easier if I was some drooling right-wing nutjob decrying 'de pally-swine' and their 'muslamic rayguns'?Again, look at my link to the Palestine papers, Palestinians bent over backwards to compromise and got expanded settlement for there trouble. Hence, why they have chosen to engage in BDS.
BTW, Palestinians got no where under the previous leadership as well, as the Palestine papers cover that period.
I'm not going to lie and suggest that I'm not at least somewhat disappointed by the lack of Israeli pursuit of the peace agreement, however I should point out, the breakdown in peace agreements followed the conclusion of a settlement freeze in 2010, that freeze was ordered by Benjamin Netanyahu and it was allowed to lapse because it was insufficient for the Palestinian authority who demanded it cover Jerusalem and the development of existing settlements. As I said, I won't hide my disappointed in the Israelis but I'm not going to pretend like some here that the failure to reach a peace deal is exclusively their fault.Read about Keith Dayton building PA forces.
Will do although I note this programme of cooperation began in 1993 (and ended last month sadly). Any reason why it took ten years (and at the same time as a wall) to become effective?None of them are interested. Palestinians again have not been treated well by various Arab states, so that is understandable on there part.
Yes another sad legacy of the region, although if I'm not mistaken Jordan is now around 50% Palestinian in demographics.Every single one of them is aware regardless of there own personal reasoning that they are engaged in a settlement project based on Biblical land claims. They have no real excuses, unless there children, then there parents are to blame.
Except at this point we could be looking at the grand children and even great grand children of people who undertook the initial settlement. Frankly I'm not surprised more have settled given the precedent set by the UN on 'illegal settlements'.The Israeli government isn't letting it happen. They are making it happen, via various incentives, state service, IDF protection etc.
Also, how can the Palestinians take any negotiations seriously, when Israel is grabbing the land there negotiating over?
Because they don't have a choice. You don't get to negotiate with people you like, you get to negotiate with the people who you are forced to deal with in order to get what you want. Palestine doesn't need to convince the rest of the world that there should be a Palestinian state, it needs to convince Israel and doing that may well require conceding thing it doesn't want to, but there isn't really an alternative.Last I check Israel calls itself a Jewish state and the government refers to the West Bank as Judea and Sumeria, both Biblical terms. The government encouraging people via low house price, doesn't change the intent on jot, and people going there also know full well what there engaged in.
Israel does indeed call itself a Jewish state, as almost all other states in the region ascribe to themselves some kind of religious affiliation, Israel at least commits itself to the equality of its citizenry though, something it out does those other regional states on. Also it's not Biblical, the Jews don't believe the New Testament, just the old one, the Torah, so Torah-ical terms maybe.Well, that is there issue and not the Palestinians. Israel made separate peace deals with Egypt and Jordan, and have themselves already separated the issue. If Israel cared about getting restitution for there own refugees, they should have brought it up with the other Arab states who expelled there Jewish populace. Bringing it up now is disingenuous in the extreme.
Ultimately, the Palestinians are not to blame for expelling Jews, and again its rather unfair for Palestinians to effectively pay for crimes against Jews that other states committed. States that btw have treated the Palestinians pretty badly as well.
I do agree that a similar right of return or restitution for Jews expelled from Arab lands should happen, but that is a separate issues, especially as I mentioned earlier that Israel has made separate peace deals, and they didn't seek such restitution then.
Israel did indeed make peace deals with Jordan and Egypt (the latter including quite a a bit of territorial return and settlement destruction so we do have hope here) which did not include absurd notions of population transfer. I can only presume that the absence of such articles means they expect the same standard to be applied in a peace deal with the Palestinians.
Now as for the issue being 'separate' that's a nice idea, but practically speaking I don't see either the justice or the merit in burdening one of the smallest states in the region with the task of housing all the Jewish exiles AND the exiles from Palestine and Israel proper AND their descendants. Incidentally, does anyone here have a precedent for inherited refugee status and a right of return that stretches over 70 years? No-one else find it strange that in the massive exchanges of population we've seen over the past hundred years, that this is the first one which MUST be reversed?No final agreement was made at either.
Would you have preferred they politely waited to be attacked and destroyed in detail?
Again, they don't really have much of a choice.Israeli have ignored the offer completely. At the very least I would expect it to be a state point.
It was a pretty embarrassing and out of touch deal to offer, I'm not surprised it was ignored outright.Surely fixing stuff that everyone agrees on make more sense. Seeing as a quick fix would mean less stuff to worry about, and make it easier to tackle other issues? There are many different ways to priorities things, and ultimately, I don't expect Palestinians or Tibetans to follow that, as there own situation will be there highest priority, and if they can convince people to support them, then more power to them.
South Africa was a case of everyone agreeing to fix something - where did that lead to next? African despots holding themselves to higher standards? Nope. Populist regimes refraining from genocide? Nope. I say no more prevarication, no more going down the easy route, no more polite smiling at lectures about human rights given by North Korea or Zimbabwe - we either do what is right in principle or we shake ourselves from the illusion that China and Russia hold the same interest in the plight of oppressed peoples as we do.The reason for that is the Russian UN veto, the same one the US uses to protect Israel. However, at the EU level there are sanctions and I live in the EU, so my government is already doing something.
The UN Security Council Veto, yet another reason to abolish that madhouse run by the lunatics institution.Well no, in the case of Syria, the government is murdering people, so best not to give the money. BTW, the UN refugee agencies and other charities helping refugees regularly ask for money as governments aren't giving them enough. While lobbying world governments to give more is the best long term solution, in the short term giving charity is the smart thing to do, to you know stop people from freezing or starving to death.
Also, I was talking about avenues available for individual can do to help.
There is something we could consider doing for Syria though isn't there? We could consider dealing with countries that fund groups like IS such as Qatar or Saudi Arabia, we could consider censuring countries that operate as money launders and recruiting grounds like Turkey - but no lets not rock the UN boat.Again, Israel has multiple peace deals, and to pretend that it is Israel who is the sole victim of violence is nonsense. The IDF murders far more Palestinians civilians than Palestinians groups do Israeli civilians. It is the Palestinians who are under attack, and who are living under an occupation. Its truly absurd to ignore this.
In regards to Syria, you have offered 0 suggestion as to what an individual can do, and compared charity to the American Tea party.
Again, a BDS call has been made, and there is 0 reason for people to no heed to call, and that also doesn't prevent them for heeding calls from the Dalai Lama if he were to make one or some other groups.
Are you suggesting that the conflict was more 'balanced' when the number of Israeli casualties matched the Palestinian ones - I'm thinking the early 2000s here. Palestinians are living under occupation yes, but their supposed liberators, groups like Hamas (and apparently now IS in Gaza) have done nothing to advance their cause apart from cause more destruction whilst the Israeli government invests in protecting it's citizens.
We must apply the same standards to groups like the BDS - do we think their actions will improve or damage the situation on the ground? I say, holding an entire nation to ransom with demands that they undertake the most dramatic concessions without any real understanding of what that implication might be. I really want to labour this point - does anyone imagine an Israeli state flush with an influx of former settlers from Palestine and perhaps one fifth of the 5 million Palestinian refugees, is going to be a particularly pleasant place to live? Does anyone imagine what that might do for 'race relations' within Israel proper? And when we come to sanction them again, what land will we have them withdraw from? Will this new Palestinian state overnight become a contented home for a people now living happily with their Jewish neighbours? Do you imagine the militant groups of Gaza will be contented now that some of their kinsman off in the distance have gotten their homes back?
You asked what can the individual do for the Palestinian people? Try to shake the campaign to help them from the George Galloway clique, the more nakedly anti-semitic elements and utterly deluded groups that demand the impossible. Try to foster a more nuanced understanding of the situation beyond the placard calls of 'Israel murders babies' and above all, try to make sure the standards you apply to the conflict are consistent with the kind of standards you see or would see applied elsewhere.0 -
I stand with Israel, they are friends of Ireland.0
-
Advertisement
-
Anyone taking the "this small event being pulled won't make a difference" is missing the point. The end goal of BDS is to have Israel totally isolated internationally, to send a message to the Israeli government that a regime simply is not welcome at the dinner table of the free world if it commits atrocities against civilians. Simple as.
My only beef with it is that our total dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia etc for oil effectively rules them out for consideration as targets of similar campaigns, particularly at the high government level. I for one will cheer the day Israel is forced to give the West Bank back to the civilian Palestinian population due to international pressure, but simultaneously weep that countries like SA, Egypt etc will not face similar justice because in one way or another they have the West by the balls.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Anyone taking the "this small event being pulled won't make a difference" is missing the point. The end goal of BDS is to have Israel totally isolated internationally, to send a message to the Israeli government that a regime simply is not welcome at the dinner table of the free world if it commits atrocities against civilians...
What's being boycotted to send the message to Hamas to stop committing atrocities against civilians?0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Anyone taking the "this small event being pulled won't make a difference" is missing the point. The end goal of BDS is to have Israel totally isolated internationally, to send a message to the Israeli government that a regime simply is not welcome at the dinner table of the free world if it commits atrocities against civilians. Simple as.
My only beef with it is that our total dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia etc for oil effectively rules them out for consideration as targets of similar campaigns, particularly at the high government level. I for one will cheer the day Israel is forced to give the West Bank back to the civilian Palestinian population due to international pressure, but simultaneously weep that countries like SA, Egypt etc will not face similar justice because in one way or another they have the West by the balls.
So in other words, we're sending a message to the world that a regime is not welcome at the dinner table of the free world if it commits atrocities against civilians, unless of course they have goods or services that we would like to purchase?
Great message!0 -
I stand with Israel, they are friends of Ireland.
They sure are. So much so that the IDF seem to want to be Irish when they are out murdering people.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0218/127737-dubai/0 -
-
Advertisement
-
They sure are. So much so that the IDF seem to want to be Irish when they are out murdering people.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0218/127737-dubai/
Not sure it's that appropriate on a day when an Irish woman was killed, presumably at the hands of Hamas' Islamic Jihad buddies.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Not sure it's that appropriate on a day when an Irish woman was killed, presumably at the hands of Hamas' Islamic Jihad buddies.
Because they're all the same, after all.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Not sure it's that appropriate on a day when an Irish woman was killed, presumably at the hands of Hamas' Islamic Jihad buddies.
What are you talking about? So pointing out that our friends in Israel used Irish passports as part of a plan to murder someone is in some way inappropriate in a complete unrelated thread?
The only thing inappropriate was your comment.0 -
Because they're all the same, after all.
No, just very similar, both formed from the Muslim Brotherhood of course. Same tactics too, terrorist attacks on civilians, one of which happened to be an Irish citizen today.
So anyway, to get back to my question, what do we boycott to make them stop committing atrocities against innocent people?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »No, just very similar, both formed from the Muslim Brotherhood of course. Same tactics too, terrorist attacks on civilians, one of which happened to be an Irish citizen today.
So anyway, to get back to my question, what do we boycott to make them stop committing atrocities against innocent people?
Hamas attack Israel almost exclusively.
Why should people boycott a group already under a vast amount of financial and travel sanctions, btw? Refuse to fly HamasAir, not holiday in Gaza?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »No, just very similar, both formed from the Muslim Brotherhood of course. Same tactics too, terrorist attacks on civilians, one of which happened to be an Irish citizen today.
So anyway, to get back to my question, what do we boycott to make them stop committing atrocities against innocent people?
Again, what part of mentioning Israel using Irish passports as part of a murder plot was in any was inappropriate or related to the woman who died today?
If anything, the cowboy attitude of the iDS is causing the radicalisation of these terrorists and could be held partly responsible.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »Jaysis.
Even when Islamic Jihad attack innocent holiday makers, it's Israel's fault!
Held partly responsible doesn't equate to "Israel's fault" now does it.
When people talk about the cause of the rise of Islamic terror groups they regularly trace a lot of the origins back to Western Imperialism, Israel's actions in the Gaza and the treatment of prisoners at the hands of American forces for increased radicalisation.
This isn't a new concept.
You keep ****ting on people, eventually they throw **** back.0 -
SummerRebel wrote: »JESUS CHRIST STOP WITH THE MULTIQUOTING
I say we should start boycotting all countries that refuse to outlaw excessive multiquoting.0 -
Held partly responsible doesn't equate to "Israel's fault" now does it.
When people talk about the cause of the rise of Islamic terror groups they regularly trace a lot of the origins back to Western Imperialism, Israel's actions in the Gaza and the treatment of prisoners at the hands of American forces for increased radicalisation.
But as we know from the manner in which refugees are treated in neighbouring countries, their apparent Islamic allies really couldn't give a toss about what happens Palestinians. Using Israel's actions against a people they don't care about is the smallest of fig leaves for their terrorism.0 -
Advertisement
-
As a matter of fact Irish passport holders are automatically red-flagged and given special interrogation treatment by the Israelis. Indeed Ireland should insist on a visa regime between the EU and Israel as Isrel discriminates always against Irish passport holders.
Israel has many enemies and for that reason, she has to be ever alert.
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »But as we know from the manner in which refugees are treated in neighbouring countries, their apparent Islamic allies really couldn't give a toss about what happens Palestinians. Using Israel's actions against a people they don't care about is the smallest of fig leaves for their terrorism.
Maybe they don't care, maybe they do. But what they do care about is using the actions of Israel and the US/UK/France etc as propaganda to drive their recruitment.0 -
Held partly responsible doesn't equate to "Israel's fault" now does it.
When people talk about the cause of the rise of Islamic terror groups they regularly trace a lot of the origins back to Western Imperialism, Israel's actions in the Gaza and the treatment of prisoners at the hands of American forces for increased radicalisation.
This isn't a new concept.
You keep ****ting on people, eventually they throw **** back.
Because as we all know, the big proponents of Western Imperialism in the Middle East have been Yazidis, Eastern Christians, Shia Muslims and women...0 -
I never said they were logical. Fanatics rarely are, but that doesn't change their original motivation.0
-
Irish Praetorian wrote: »So in other words, we're sending a message to the world that a regime is not welcome at the dinner table of the free world if it commits atrocities against civilians, unless of course they have goods or services that we would like to purchase?
Great message!
Read my post, I don't agree with that stance. I wish countries like Saudi Arabia were being attacked with as much vitriol as Israel is for what they're doing, and shame on EU leaders for not doing so.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »What's being boycotted to send the message to Hamas to stop committing atrocities against civilians?
Hamas is a reactionary movement. It cannot be battled using the same tools. First and foremost, Israel's policy must change.
Liken Hamas to the PIRA for a moment - do you imagine the IRA would ever have been minimised to the extent that it has without the UK government dropping their anti-Catholic policies in Northern Ireland? When a violent terrorist movement forms within an oppressed population, the only effective way to dismantle it is to remove the oppression.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Read my post, I don't agree with that stance. I wish countries like Saudi Arabia were being attacked with as much vitriol as Israel is for what they're doing, and shame on EU leaders for not doing so.
Haha, really?
Every EU government openly does business with Israel and none of them ever openly criticise them. You're mistaking a people's movement of critical thinking against Israel for a governmental movement.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Read my post, I don't agree with that stance. I wish countries like Saudi Arabia were being attacked with as much vitriol as Israel is for what they're doing, and shame on EU leaders for not doing so.
But that's my point, people are deluding themselves with the misapprehension that Israel is some superlative vile foe and that they're making a great moral stand in condemning/boycotting them. In reality, it's simply an exercise in going along with far more virulently anti-Israeli sentiment in other parts of the world, whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to the far more troubling actions of many of those countries, because doing something about them is too inconvenient. It's one thing to neglect the crimes of others on the international stage, but to turn that stage into a weapon for many of those vile regimes in the first place is very objectionable.0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »But that's my point, people are deluding themselves with the misapprehension that Israel is some superlative vile foe and that they're making a great moral stand in condemning/boycotting them. In reality, it's simply an exercise in going along with far more virulently anti-Israeli sentiment in other parts of the world, whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to the far more troubling actions of many of those countries, because doing something about them is too inconvenient. It's one thing to neglect the crimes of others on the international stage, but to turn that stage into a weapon for many of those vile regimes in the first place is very objectionable.
No, it's almost exactly the opposite. People are more repulsed by what Israel do because they're supposed to be a western democracy.
I just can't believe u need this explained to you.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, it's almost exactly the opposite. People are more repulsed by what Israel do because they're supposed to be a western democracy.
I just can't believe u need this explained to you.
Have you ever considered just how ridiculous such an idea is? Ten countries, nine are dictatorships and people are content to see slaughter and violence whilst still continuing to do business with them, the tenth resembles more closely a society like ours and people find them repulsive.
I often wonder when I look at campaigns like BDS, is their objective to solve this problem by making the country they target the kind of brutal regime whose excesses they can more easily ignore.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement