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

Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

13663673693713721435

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 837 ✭✭✭Sir_Name


    You are - it would have taken very little time to verify who was/wasnt in control of the border. And you suggested it was sources within Gaza. Which is either ignorance or laziness, you decide.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭TheAnalyst_


    Not my job so I couldn't give a ****



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,635 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    The Egyptians do not want the Gaza people. They see what the Palestinians did to Jordan. Egypt even built their wall something like 50 feet underground to discourage the Gazans from building tunnels.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭TheAnalyst_


    Heard from some other activists and PBP.


    Friday at 1pm outside wix with Palestinian flags. They can enjoy their lunch and reflect on their companies stance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    Oh I'm not going to disagree re the crimes of Hamas — I just tend to be wary of the attempted sanitisation of state-sanctioned violence and brutality. States have the power and resources to kill people en masse in "cleaner" ways optically — remotely, impersonally and more prosaically. It all just reads better, and collateral damage (no matter how brutally or recklessly it is inflicted) can simply be waved away by saying "but we aren't shooting babies".

    In that context, States have the power to construct their wars around sanitised narratives. You end up with clever barristers giving the nicely wrapped up legal arguments — we bomb yes but we warn first, we cut off vital aid to a civilian population yes but we aren't obliged to aid Hamas after all. Israel should hold itself, and should be held by the world, to a higher standard because it is the infinitely stronger power in this conflict and has far greater capability of unleashing mass death and injury to civilians, including children.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,929 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    Exactly, she was probably sh!t at her job anyway. If she was class at her job then maybe she'd have most likely gotten a good talking to.

    Someone getting sacked is not a big deal.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,522 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Few articles talking about how Hamas lulled them into it.

    Over the last 2 years or relative peace the border has been more open and a lot of job visa have been given to Gazans, and more trade was flowing in.

    Now maybe Hamas aren't that forward thinking, and it was just a natural calming of things before Hamas didn't want to be irrelevant anymore.


    Well that's the end of that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66,653 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    I was with you until the second half of your second paragraph. Israel should be held to international humanitarian law (and it will). These are universally (almost) agreed terms of military engagement

    Not sure why Israel or any other country would need to hold itself to a higher standard. This is the accepted standard. There is only one morally higher standard. And that's turning the other cheek.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 528 ✭✭✭taratee


    I follow a youtube traveler who passed through there a few months ago. I was surprised by how easy it was. Thought it'd be a like Fort Knox.

    Am Yisrael Chai - Bring them home.



  • Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭ Faith Steep Comic


    No. Who is the source of the casualty figures in Gaza?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,606 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    I suspect it would be a big deal to some if an Irish company had sacked an Israeli employee for calling Ireland anti semitic and supporters of Hamas on social media. The very ones saying this company were within their rights to sack this woman would be in uproar decrying anti semitism. Should we only rail against wokeism and cancel culture when it's people we agree with that are cancelled ,walshb?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,271 ✭✭✭brickster69


    Because they are probably ashamed of his actions and have a spine to stand up for what is right or wrong. The Irish government is not Muslim and they have the courage to call out what is right or wrong, the vast majority of the world probably think the same.

    I said when this all started off that the US had sent a memo out not to mention ceasefire, pause or condemnation and looks like it was true. Countries leaders will die on a hill over this rather than call it out as it is. No one here does not condemn Hamas's actions but quite a few have difficulty to do so calling out Israels actions which is just as bad.

    If you don't call it out you approve of it. That's what i think anyway, everyone has an opinion i suppose. It's not a religious thing more a humane thing.

    "if you get on the wrong train, get off at the nearest station, the longer it takes you to get off, the more expensive the return trip will be."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 837 ✭✭✭Sir_Name


    Whats that got to do with our discussion on the control of the border?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,333 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    I do think they may have rushed into sacking her without thinking out the consequences. She made several posts on LinkedIn making it quite clear she was objecting to the current actions of the Israeli state in Palestine (since October 7th) and not making some derogatory comment about Israel in general as a country. I'm not sure there were sufficient grounds for dismissal there.



  • Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭ Faith Steep Comic


    I never mentioned who has control of the border, so you'll have to tell me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,929 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    No

    An Irish company just wouldn't do that. We operate by our own standards, hence the first thing I said was to seek legal advice. You cannot just sack someone in Ireland unless they're a contractor. And WIX are going to discover this very soon.

    There are controls and laws in place in Ireland to dissuade that kind of carry on. We don't need a big protest outside their office, it will be handled by the courts... end of.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,271 ✭✭✭brickster69


    First question at PM Questions in the UK

    Rishi Sunak asked to back a humanitarian ceasefire and whether Israel is acting against international law

    Answer 'It's important we do everything we can to get humanitarian aid to everyone who needs it'

    "if you get on the wrong train, get off at the nearest station, the longer it takes you to get off, the more expensive the return trip will be."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,333 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    It seems self defeating too. One imagines there is a pretty bad atmosphere inside the company now that the employees know that management openly identify with the Netanyahu regime and see themselves as cheerleaders for it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,516 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    If an Israeli employee employed by an Irish company publicly labeled Ireland a country of terrorists, that employee deserves the sack.

    Courtney from Clondalkin has gotten her 15 mins a fame



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    No, they don't deserve the sack for that.

    They can be criticised for their statement, but that's it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Long Sean Silver


    the state of Israel is founded on the injunction to remember a history of destruction and to ensure that such events will never happen again.

    they (Netanyahu that is) may well have temporarily taken their eye off the ball, but that doesn't negate their founding principles which are based on historic/long running paranoia, and their obsession with the Holocaust.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,333 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    She could easily argue that she is referring to the current far right Netanyahu regime, rather than 'Israel' as a country (as she made other posts outlining her objections to the regime's actions in Palestine).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,516 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    So, what.....HR call her in and say, "that wasn't very nice, Courtney!"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 837 ✭✭✭Sir_Name


    ''He also said that Channel 4 news hadn't been allowed into Gaza. Why is that I wonder? Hamas strictly controls the narrative coming out of Gaza.''

    Above is your words which questioning why Channel 4 were not allowed into Gaza... Asking the question why and stating Hamas strictly controls the narrative would suggest that Hamas has control over that entry/situation. If thats not what you meant, I'm all ears...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 837 ✭✭✭Sir_Name


    What would be sufficient? UN / Human Rights Watch Amnesty International? This is for educational purposes...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    There is a difference between a moral argument and a legal argument. What Israel is doing is morally wrong, but it may not be legally wrong.

    Those who cry "war crimes" every time Israel does something are in danger of becoming the boy who cries wolf, and when Israel does do something that is illegal, Israel will point to the persecution complex.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    I disagree. International laws on warfare are simply words used to put a framework around a moral and ethical point — they are imperfect as any laws are. They are also written and agreed to by States (not private citizens), and ultimately are heavily influenced by the great State powers of the world — and so the question of what is good warfare and bad warfare is written by them and is written to the advantage of the manner in which they conduct war. So, a State can bomb an enclosed space like Gaza, kill hundreds of children, and say that unlike Hamas they didn't personally and directly target those kids even if by any rational standard they were reckless to the fact of killing children.

    When the shoe is on the other foot, what does the State have done with you when you didn't mean to kill someone but you acted recklessly? Indeed, what would you have done to someone who recklessly killed your child?

    International law is a good thing, but ultimately you must always remember that it can be used as a permission slip for a government to be allowed to bomb your house, kill you, kill your children, kill your parents, kill your neighbours — and coolly explain it all away with a glorified "woopsie" if it didn't fit within some wording that makes it a crime.

    That's why we should all hold States to a higher standard than the standards they apply to themselves.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Geographically and legally, it is the same situation. North Korea has blockaded South Korea, the only difference is the degree of success, the legality of it is exactly the same.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    No, HR say absolutely nothing if it was a personal statement not made while representing or advertising the company.

    Just reading the article, and it says she posted comments on LinkedIn.

    I don't use it myself, but as far as I know your employment history and current employer is a big part of your profile.

    If she had Wix listed as her current employer while making those statements on that platform, then there is grounds for disciplinary action.

    I would say that an immediate termination of contract for an employee of over four years however is going to be an easy win in an unfair dismissal case.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,929 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    No

    There is a process.

    Usually HR give a combination of 2 written warnings and a verbal warning followed by dismissal (differs from company to company).

    IE you're given a chance to stop. If you don't stop, then you get dismissed.

    I think this is fair, there's no surprises, people are given a chance to asses and change the situation, and there can be some degree of negotiation. (which is what we need, not the knee jerk reactions we're seeing)



Advertisement