Should Israel really be condemned and boycotted?

Keyzer

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I started this thread because I was interested in hearing the most sophisticated arguments.

Your post isn't an argument, it's a statement. An argument is where you lay out one or more well explained premises which if true provide the basis for believing in a conclusion.

You skipped the entire first half of that process.

You've come to the wrong place if you're looking for a coherent argument about anything mate.

storker

Rezident wrote: »

But a binary 'solution' that one side is bad and the other is good, is self-evidently wrong, and that's where most people go wrong, picking a side in this ancient war. Many Irish have picked Palestine, as they see it as the underdog (like Ireland) vs Israel (i.e. the Brits!)

The problem with that attitude is that being the underdog doesn't make someone right, it just makes them the underdog.

I know gay Irish people that are activists for Palestine which is rapidly homophobic! If you're gay in Palestine you have two choices: get stoned to death or become a suicide bomber, and gay Irish Palestinian activists, defend Palestine...

And those same people would denounce as evil any western politician who exhibited even a fraction of the homophobia displayed by Palestinian leaders.

end of the road

Rezident wrote: »

Most of the keyboard warriors here haven't even been there so they don't really know what they are talking about. Imagine if you and your people had almost been wiped out in the Holocaust, except you can't imagine that can you? It might make you a bit defensive. Then you're surrounded by 21 countries and 300 million Muslims that openly plan to wipe you off the face of the Earth, Irish people can't seem to get their heads around this situation, they seem to think that peace is possible between Palestinians and Israelis, when a lasting peace is simply not possible.

Before the wall, Palestinians would walk into Tel Aviv and blow themselves up just to kill one Israeli, so sadly the wall is needed to protect against this hatred. hundreds of millions of people in the world have been 'displaced' e.g. the native American 'Indians', African Americans in the US etc. etc. but only the Palestinians seem to define themselves by one of their displacements (i.e. the one that involves the Jews, their mortal enemy). Many of the people I met in Palestine, are not actually from Palestine, they are from Syria, Iran etc. and they are not there with their AK-47's and AK-74s for peace.

I don't think anyone who has not been there or who does not have friends from the area (on both sides) can even come close to understanding the situation. People talk about a 'two state solution' but they have forgotten that Palestine was offered a two-state solution years ago, their response was: No, we want to wage 'unending war on the Zionists'. How can there be peace when both sides do not want it? People from neutral Ireland simply cannot understand the context, as if 'talks' are going to solve a war between two brothers that goes back to Abraham.

Look at the church in Hebron, Abraham's final resting place, they can't even use the same entrance of the same building, the best you can hope for is a 7 year peace (that will only last 3 and a half years), forget about lasting peace in the region, it is not possible in that context, you need to shift your expectations.

But a binary 'solution' that one side is bad and the other is good, is self-evidently wrong, and that's where most people go wrong, picking a side in this ancient war. Many Irish have picked Palestine, as they see it as the underdog (like Ireland) vs Israel (i.e. the Brits!) so I know gay Irish people that are activists for Palestine which is rapidly homophobic! If you're gay in Palestine you have two choices: get stoned to death or become a suicide bomber, and gay Irish Palestinian activists, defend Palestine...

the situation is very easy to understand. israel with countless UN resolutions against it and countless UN resolution breaches to it's name, are engaging in ethnic cleansing, colonisation and land theft.

storker wrote: »

Take a look at a map of Israel and see the "bite" that the West Bank takes out of Israeli territory with its westernmost points as close as 10 miles to the sea. This makes the West Bank, in military terms, a "salient" from which an attacker would only have a short distance to go in order to cut Israel in half. They'd be crazy to hand it back, whatever the morality of the situation, and the outcome of trading "land-for-peace" in Gaza merely underlines the wisdom of holding on to the West Bank.

there is no strategic reason, military or otherwise for israel to keep hold of the west bank. nonsense about israel being at risk of being cut in half is just that, more nonsense to justify their land theft and expansion outside their borders. they have no justifiable reason to keep hold of it, or any land outside their actual borders as set in 1948. israel are not at risk at all as they have a military perfectly able to defend itself.

storker

end of the road wrote: »

they have a military perfectly able to defend itself.

Indeed they do, and defending yourself is a lot easier if you don't gift your enemy space that amounts to a dagger into the heart of your territory.

Cordell

the situation is very easy to understand. israel with countless UN resolutions against it and countless UN resolution breaches to it's name, are engaging in ethnic cleansing, colonisation and land theft.

And the other side is run by an officially designated terrorist organization.

there is no strategic reason, military or otherwise for israel to keep hold of the west bank

No, or if there is, it's insignificant. They want their holly land, both of them. Both of them are equally wrong (or right) so I fail to see the fairness in this one sided approach.

1641

end of the road wrote: »

this is not correct. israel struck first.

That is simplistic. The war was coming. Arab armies were preparing for war all around Israel. Iraqi tanks were heading towards the border. Should the Israelis hve waited until all these had launched coordinated attacks before striking?


The war came about as a result of months, or even years, of increasing escalation all around. Certainly the closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping by Egypt was a major escalation leading towards the war. But to say any one side or one incident started the war is way oversimplifying it. It would be like saying that Serbia started the First World War - or Austria - or Russia - or Germany, etc.


Certainly the war created a tragic mess that continues to this day. There is an excellent article on the BBC website summarising the lead up to the war and its legacy:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39960461

4068ac1elhodqr

Even if you wanted to boycott any products, not sure if they manufacture all that much.
Maybe pharma & fiscal services or those Sodastream gassy water machines (why would you even buy such an item in the 1st place).

One strange thing noticed the other year was actual potatoes in a local supermarket, from Isreal.
Ireland importing plain average spuds from thousands of miles away? Non comprendo.

tayto lover

storker wrote: »

Indeed they do, and defending yourself is a lot easier if you don't gift your enemy space that amounts to a dagger into the heart of your territory.

Victim blaming.

storker

tayto lover wrote: »

Victim blaming.

Realpolitik

NKante

Jayden Wet Ibex wrote: »

Even if you wanted to boycott any products, not sure if they manufacture all that much.
Maybe pharma & fiscal services or those Sodastream gassy water machines (why would you even buy such an item in the 1st place).

One strange thing noticed the other year was actual potatoes in a local supermarket, from Isreal.
Ireland importing plain average spuds from thousands of miles away? Non comprendo.

State of this.

Try every computer, tablet, laptop and phone using Israeli tech.

Greyfox

Rezident wrote: »

Most of the keyboard warriors here haven't even been there so they don't really know what they are talking about. Imagine if you and your people had almost been wiped out in the Holocaust, except you can't imagine that can you? It might make you a bit defensive. Then you're surrounded by 21 countries and 300 million Muslims that openly plan to wipe you off the face of the Earth, Irish people can't seem to get their heads around this situation, they seem to think that peace is possible between Palestinians and Israelis, when a lasting peace is simply not possible.

Just because 1 group of people tried to wipe your people out doesn't give you the right to try to wipe out a different group of people. Israel continue to throw Palistinians off there land, Israel don't actually want peace, they want the Palestinians to disappear

4068ac1elhodqr

NKante wrote: »

State of this.
Try every computer, tablet, laptop and phone using Israeli tech.

Isn't that China/Korea you mean?


Maybe they add some small components, but it's not as if Apples and PC's are boxed and exported from there.


The potatoes was a shocker, 3miles from big field of spuds late summer, and on display in the supermarket was bags shipped in from Isr.

NKante

Jayden Wet Ibex wrote: »

Isn't that China/Korea you mean?


Maybe they add some small components, but it's not as if Apples and PC's are boxed and exported from there.


The potatoes was a shocker, 3miles from big field of spuds late summer, and on display in the supermarket was bags shipped in from Isr.

Latest Intel chips all designed in Israel. Apple, MS, Intel, Google all have R&D facilities in Israel.

All the face recognition stuff, cyber security, motion controls, driverless cars.

I think I'm right in saying Israel has more companies listed on the US stock exchange than all western Europe combined. Third only to the US and China.

The potatoes thing must sting a bit for you lads. Bet they were delicious too:D

ILoveYourVibes

NKante wrote: »

Latest Intel chips all designed in Israel. Apple, MS, Intel, Google all have R&D facilities in Israel.

All the face recognition stuff, cyber security, motion controls, driverless cars.

I think I'm right in saying Israel has more companies listed on the US stock exchange than all western Europe combined. Third only to the US and China.

The potatoes thing must sting a bit for you lads. Bet they were delicious too:D

A lot of medicines have been invented in Israel too.

NKante

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

A lot of medicines have been invented in Israel too.

1 in 7 drugs prescribed on the NHS are from Israel.


Remarkable country. Only 70 years old and ranks highly for longevity, startups second only to silicone valley, ranked 11th best place in the world for women.

Similar to the USA. Also a young country in the scheme of things, but its upward trajectory has been outstanding.

The left don't seem to appreciate that kind of success, but I applaud it. Like any genius, there are flaws - but you just have to stand up and applaud the USA and Israel.

Chris_Heilong

The title reads: Should Israel really be condemned and boycotted?

In which case I would say do not let the media tell you how to think, read up on the history and decide for yourself, like most things it is down to point of view and your own interpretation of right an wrong, only dumb or extremely lazy people need to be told who to condemn.

4068ac1elhodqr

NKante wrote: »

Latest Intel chips all designed in Israel. Apple, MS, Intel, Google all have R&D facilities in Israel.

Tech folk likely have R&D centres everywhere, where there is a tax break.

NKante wrote: »

All the *face recognition stuff*, cyber security, motion controls, driverless cars.

Ah facial recognition, the new favoured tool of oppressive discrimination in China. Currently banned/or getting banned from the more forward-thinking cities in the USA.

NKante wrote: »

I think I'm right in saying Israel has more companies listed on the US stock exchange than all western Europe combined. Third only to the US and China.

Who knows, money talks (as per the banking cartel folks) and when you're handed plates of free cash from the US, it could well be.

NKante wrote: »

The potatoes thing must sting a bit for you lads. Bet they were delicious too:D

Wouldn't know, simply a curiousity/observation and still on the likely on the shelve. Why buy older imported goods, when much fresher, better stuff is already at hand. Think it was something to do with a specific retail group's decision making tendencies, than actual quality, ah well.

mad muffin

Jayden Wet Ibex wrote: »

Tech folk likely have R&D centres everywhere, where there is a tax break.


Ah facial recognition, the new favoured tool of oppressive discrimination in China. Currently banned/or getting banned from the more forward-thinking cities in the USA.


Who knows, money talks (as per the banking cartel folks) and when you're handed plates of free cash from the US, it could well be.


Wouldn't know, simply a curiousity/observation and still on the likely on the shelve. Why buy older imported goods, when much fresher, better stuff is already at hand. Think it was something to do with a specific retail group's decision making tendencies, than actual quality, ah well.

I’m sorry to say. But your post reads like a bitter FU to Israel. Not an attack on you just the way I read it.

NKante

mad muffin wrote: »

I’m sorry to say. But your post reads like a bitter FU to Israel. Not an attack on you just the way I read it.

Yeah, that's why I ignored it.

He's also very wrong about R&D centres.

4068ac1elhodqr

mad muffin wrote: »

I’m sorry to say. But your post reads like a bitter FU to Israel. Not an attack on you just the way I read it.

Wrong, just a balanced view, while others reckon "but you just have to stand up and applaud" (Isr). (NKante) even compares it to a state of 'genius'. Genius?

Widespread endless political corruption/scandals, human rights violations and regular international condemnation. Sure it's sure not the worst place in the world, but it's not the best neither, as some cheerleaders would seem to imply.

The title would seem the UN condemned their actions already many times (not the country, or the everyday people, but many oppressive state actions and policies).

As for boycotting products, it's mainly fiscal or small embedded tech components. Maybe Pharma industry too, which has it's own very serious issues across in the US currently, with 'Oxy' over-supply (for corporate greed-profit), and various other seperate product health scandals. Oh and then there's massive Media over-representation issues, and of course... Holywood.

Sean.3516

end of the road wrote: »

this is not correct. israel struck first. the occupation is illegal and jordan has no obligation to negotiate a peace treaty.

I'm sorry but you've got the facts plain wrong. It was always Israeli strategy to wage a defensive war on the West Bank unless the Jordanians advanced first.

Yes, the Israelis pre-emptively launched air raids on the the Egyptians destroying their air force on the tarmac. ( it was obvious to the whole world that Nasser wanted a war with Israel. He was saying it openly and co-ordinating with other arab nations ) But the Israeli PM deliberately tried to keep Jordan out of the war telling them it was between them and the Egyptians. If you don't believe me here's this from wikipedia:

""By 10:30 am, Eshkol had sent a message via Odd Bull to King Hussein promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war.[95] King Hussein replied that it was too late, "the die was cast".[96] At 11:15 am, Jordanian howitzers began a 6,000-shell barrage at Israeli Jerusalem.""

How anyone can make the claim that Israel struck first and therefore somehow invaded the West Bank illegally is beyond me.

end of the road wrote: »

the actions on the ground by israel prove the claim that it is policy to kill civilians. plenty of us are happy to condemn killings of civilians by hamas, however anything hamas does is small fry compared to anything israel does. israel is the aggresser by miles as it is the one with the superior equipment, and it is the one who uses absolutely disproportionate force.

Yes, I agree with you that Israeli kills more civilians than Hamas does. And that the Palestinians incur more casualties overall and that they have superior equipment. So? Casualty figures don't tell the entire story or provide context.

The reason for the disparity in casualties is as you've said and I agree with you because Israel has superior equipment. They have the Iron Dome system which can shoot down Palestinian rockets. The Pals have no such system.

None of this obviates the blame from Palestinians for firing a ridiculous amount rockets into Israel.

Just because the rockets don't always kill anybody Israel can't shoot back? What other country operates on that basis? If Mexico fired rockets into California, the US would probably shoot them down and then proceed to flatten Mexico.

We forget that these rockets have the range to hit anywhere in Israel since this whole area is the size of Munster

If they weren't firing the rockets digging tunnels and sending in suicide bombers, there would be no need Israel to carry out strikes.

end of the road wrote: »

as i said, this is all propaganda based on 1 incident where weapons where found in a UN school, which were removed once discovered.
hamas are certainly no angels, but israel do deliberately target civilian areas, for reasons nothing to do with weapons supposebly being hidden in civilian areas or civilians being used as human shields. even if civilians are being used as human shields, the fact israel will carpet bomb the area anyway shows that it has no care what soever for civilians.

It certainly wasn't just one time. They do this literally all of the time. The Palestinian leadership loves it when there are civilian casualties as it means the western media whom they depend on for propaganda will soak it up. If they werent muslim they'd be popping champagne corks.

end of the road wrote: »

only done about a minute before the strikes and certainly not in great numbers or even before every strike.

I love how you're acknowledging that Israel informs the Palestinians by phone where they're going to strike. ( something no country has done in the history of warfare, ) and then complaining they don't give them enough notice. How much notice would suffice?

end of the road wrote: »

the occupation is not legal. the settlements are illegal. simply stealing land does not entitle one to it. the only land israel can legally occupy is that given to it in 1948.
the plan is to take all of the west bank and settle it. and i have a feeling it may not stop there.

As we've established the occupation is quite legal. My opinion stated that since they've been trying to reach a land for peace deal since 1967 and have twice turned down offers of virtually the entire West Bank (2000 and 2008) then if Israel wants to start integrating some of this land through settlements I dont take issue with that.

Never has an occupied country ( Palestine or Jordan ) depending on who you believe this land should belongt to, been so indifferent to any peaceful solution to end the occupation and at the same time been so violently opposed to the occupier. Since this nonsense has been going on since 1967, it wouldnt bother me if Israel straight up annexed the whole area.

end of the road

storker wrote: »

Indeed they do, and defending yourself is a lot easier if you don't gift your enemy space that amounts to a dagger into the heart of your territory.

well there is no such space that amounts to a dagger in to the heart of israel to gift to their enemies. there never was. the territory that is claimed to be as such only has that claim against it by israel so they could steal it and colonise it as part of their expansionist policy.
again, the only territory israel has any claim to is that within the borders as set out in 1948. anything outside that does not belong to them and there is no reason, strategic, legitimate or otherwise for them to be keeping hold of that land.

end of the road

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I'm sorry but you've got the facts plain wrong. It was always Israeli strategy to wage a defensive war on the West Bank unless the Jordanians advanced first.

Yes, the Israelis pre-emptively launched air raids on the the Egyptians destroying their air force on the tarmac. ( it was obvious to the whole world that Nasser wanted a war with Israel. He was saying it openly and co-ordinating with other arab nations ) But the Israeli PM deliberately tried to keep Jordan out of the war telling them it was between them and the Egyptians. If you don't believe me here's this from wikipedia:

""By 10:30 am, Eshkol had sent a message via Odd Bull to King Hussein promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war.[95] King Hussein replied that it was too late, "the die was cast".[96] At 11:15 am, Jordanian howitzers began a 6,000-shell barrage at Israeli Jerusalem.""

How anyone can make the claim that Israel struck first and therefore somehow invaded the West Bank illegally is beyond me.

it shouldn't be beyond you as they did. they invaded it and are colonising it while the settlers brutalise the native population.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes, I agree with you that Israeli kills more civilians than Hamas does. And that the Palestinians incur more casualties overall and that they have superior equipment. So? Casualty figures don't tell the entire story or provide context.

The reason for the disparity in casualties is as you've said and I agree with you because Israel has superior equipment. They have the Iron Dome system which can shoot down Palestinian rockets. The Pals have no such system.

None of this obviates the blame from Palestinians for firing a ridiculous amount rockets into Israel.

Just because the rockets don't always kill anybody Israel can't shoot back? What other country operates on that basis? If Mexico fired rockets into California, the US would probably shoot them down and then proceed to flatten Mexico.

We forget that these rockets have the range to hit anywhere in Israel since this whole area is the size of Munster

If they weren't firing the rockets digging tunnels and sending in suicide bombers, there would be no need Israel to carry out strikes.

israel don't carry out strikes due to ineffective rockets or these mythical terror tunnels. they do it to destroy infrastructure and cleanse the population.
israel is the one responsible for doing that and are fully to blaim for their behaviour.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It certainly wasn't just one time. They do this literally all of the time. The Palestinian leadership loves it when there are civilian casualties as it means the western media whom they depend on for propaganda will soak it up. If they werent muslim they'd be popping champagne corks.

it was one time and it was jumped on by israel as an excuse to bomb civilian targets.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I love how you're acknowledging that Israel informs the Palestinians by phone where they're going to strike. ( something no country has done in the history of warfare, ) and then complaining they don't give them enough notice. How much notice would suffice?

doing some more reading on this, it seems this actually doesn't happen. they don't inform of air strikes but claim to do so. oh dear.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

As we've established the occupation is quite legal.

we haven't established anything of the sort.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

My opinion stated that since they've been trying to reach a land for peace deal since 1967 and have twice turned down offers of virtually the entire West Bank (2000 and 2008) then if Israel wants to start integrating some of this land through settlements I dont take issue with that.

Never has an occupied country ( Palestine or Jordan ) depending on who you believe this land should belongt to, been so indifferent to any peaceful solution to end the occupation and at the same time been so violently opposed to the occupier. Since this nonsense has been going on since 1967, it wouldnt bother me if Israel straight up annexed the whole area.

whether it would or wouldn't bother you or not isn't relevant.
they have no legitimate claim to it and the actual owners of that land have every right to do whatever in opposing the coloniser.
palestine and jordan have no obligation to negotiate anything with israel. israel is occupying the land illegally. any land outside the borders as set down in 1948 is being occupied by israel illegally.

NKante

end of the road wrote: »

it shouldn't be beyond you as they did. they invaded it and are colonising it while the settlers brutalise the native population.

.

Always confusing how Jews 'occupy' Judea.

Of course the name had to be changed to 'West Bank' for that little confusion to fly over people's heads, eh?

end of the road

NKante wrote: »

Always confusing how Jews 'occupy' Judea.

Of course the name had to be changed to 'West Bank' for that little confusion to fly over people's heads, eh?

name change or not, it belongs to the palestinian state.

Sean.3516

end of the road wrote: »

it shouldn't be beyond you as they did. they invaded it and are colonising it while the settlers brutalise the native population.

So here's how this exchange went.

I made a statement that in the 6 Day War, Jordan attacked Israel, Israel responded by kicking Jordan out of Israel and occupying the West Bank area they had used as their staging ground. Under international law it is legal for Israel (as the one who was initially attacked) to occupy this land until a peace treaty is agreed which has yet to happen.

"End of the Road"'s response was basically: No, Israel attacked Jordan first.

I responded by explaining the full context of how Israel tried to keep Jordan out of the war and even quoted the Wikipedia article on the 6 Day War which included the King of Jordan's response to the overtures "The die has been cast". Jordan then fired rockets into West Jerusalem thus entering the war.
This evidence conclusively disproves "End of the Road"'s claim that Israel attacked first.

His response was: No, you're wrong. Israel attacked first. He didnt address a single point I made or any of the evidence that I brought to the table.

Me: Jordan attacked Israel first.
Him: No you're wrong.
Me: No, I'm not wrong. In fact here is evidence that proves I'm right.
Him: No, you're wrong.

From this I am forced to conclude that "End of the Road" is either not arguing in good faith or lacks the capacity for rational thought and therfore any exchange with him is pointless.

NKante

end of the road wrote: »

name change or not, it belongs to the palestinian state.

Interesting.

There's something in the name 'Judea' that doesn't sound very Arabic to me.

It also happens to be outside of the Arabian peninsula.

But we somehow ended up with Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula claiming Judea.

How did that magic trick come about? :pac:

1641

end of the road wrote: »

name change or not, it belongs to the palestinian state.

So, did the West Bank "belong" to the palestinian state prior to the 1967 war? I believe it was occupied by Jordan. Did they assist in the establishment of a palestinian state?

mad muffin

NKante wrote: »

Interesting.

There's something in the name 'Judea' that doesn't sound very Arabic to me.

It also happens to be outside of the Arabian peninsula.

But we somehow ended up with Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula claiming Judea.

How did that magic trick come about? :pac:

I did ask that earlier. And of course we know that the Jewish people got kicked out through successive empires. The great Jewish diaspora.

They got hounded and kicked out from every place they were. Eventually they wanted to go back to their homeland. And of course. They had other people now in their place.

These other people had a chance for their own state in conjunction with Israel. They wanted it all and didn’t want to share it with Israel. . And the rest is history.

NKante

mad muffin wrote: »

I did ask that earlier. And of course we know that the Jewish people got kicked out through successive empires. The great Jewish diaspora.

They got hounded and kicked out from every place they were. Eventually they wanted to go back to their homeland. And of course. They had other people now in their place.

These other people had a chance for their own state in conjunction with Israel. They wanted it all and didn’t want to share it with Israel. . And the rest is history.

'tis sad that the Europeans had/have a hard on for persecuting Jews. It was the Romans who chased out the Jewish population and ransacked what was a sovereign Jewish state.

Although a constant Jewish presence did persevere.

It's interesting that the left would usually applaud and support an indigenous population getting their land back and establishing a state. Well they do, but as long as they aren't Jews. :rolleyes:

I saw a quote once about Israel's uniqueness in being the only country in the world that bears the same name, has the same religion, speaks the same language and inhabits the same land as it did 3,000 years ago.

That's pretty special.