Protests against Israel?

Morlar

H&#250 wrote: »

Hardly. Not that much stuff is actually made in America.

What would really be difficult is boycotting China. That's a pity, because if any government deserves a boycott, it's China.

Just to clarify I didnt say that - you made a mistake with the quote tags there - here is the original post from the 27th July

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51799853&postcount=18

The Saint

Deleted User wrote:

Regardless, boycotts even if they work, are like sanctions. They're not going to hurt the military, since the government will raise taxes or reallocate funds to support them, because they're needed (kinda different to a country like Ireland). All you're doing by boycotting is hitting firstly the people that import Israeli goods into ireland, the people that haul the goods, the people export the goods, and the people that produce the goods. I wonder how many "innocents" are affected by a successful boycott? :rolleyes:

Yes, governments raises taxes to fund the military, people don't like having more money taken off them therefore people put pressure on the government to take action to stop the action that is causes the raising of taxes. People don't like to see their livelihoods put at risk so if exports decline there is the likelihood of job cuts. Also the people who haul the stuff to Ireland won't be affected. Products can be obtained from alternative sources so it's just a matter of changing the direction from which the product is coming from. So if importers can't sell their Israeli oranges they'll import them from Spain. The idea is to put pressure on the people of the country as well as the government to make them take action against their government. Everyone has a bottom line.

Deleted User wrote:

Or use more aggressive tactics to bring the conflict to a close? The Israeli people are, for the most part, already behind their government on this. If they feel pinched economically, they may just push for far harsher measures to get the war part finished (which would in turn create more civilian deaths, due to worse weapons being used).

Then they could just go back to their usual existance of having hostile neighbours and random attacks, and people abroad would forget (or get bored), and their products get bought again.

I assume you don't feel that applying the same measures to countries that support Hezbollah would have the same chance of succeeding as just targeting Israel?:

Do you have anything other than pure speculation and guesswork to suggest that this would happen? If Israel were to step up their actions and killing became more widespread through the use of indescriminate force then the boycott would probably widen causing more trouble for Israeli exports.

As people said, you can't boycott Hizbollah. However it is possible to boycott Syria and Iran which is perfectly reasonable. I however have never seen any Iranian or Syrian consumer products in my local Tesco or Dunnes stores. If you'd like to point some out I'd be more than happy to avoid these products. Israel on the otherhand accounts for 68% of imports to the EU from the Levant countries: Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria as well as the Palestinian Authority with Syria accounting for 9.8% of trade with the EU from the Levant.

Also, 80% of Iranian imports to the EU are oil products. Unfortunately we as consumers cannot distinguish between oil from one country or another so it makes it quite difficult to boycott that. Given that oil is also a commodity that is essential for the running of our economy the liklihood of people stopping importing Iranian oil is very slim given that it would drive up oil prices and hurt our own economy. The same goes for Syria with oil accounting for 68% of exports. Israel on the other hand exports a lot of consumer items that can be boycotted and sourced from elsewhere without hurting our own economy.

The Saint

The Saint wrote:

Do you have anything other than pure speculation and guesswork to suggest that this would happen? If Israel were to step up their actions and killing became more widespread through the use of indescriminate force then the boycott would probably widen causing more trouble for Israeli exports.

Nope. No More than you have that boycotting Israel would pressure them into withdrawing or suing for peace sooner. It was an opinion of what might happen as an alternative to his remarks.

Israel on the other hand exports a lot of consumer items that can be boycotted and sourced from elsewhere without hurting our own economy.

So its easier to boycott Israel. Ok. That answers some of my question.

The Saint

Deleted User wrote:

Nope. No More than you have that boycotting Israel would pressure them into withdrawing or suing for peace sooner. It was an opinion of what might happen as an alternative to his remarks.

I know it's an opinion but its one based on absolutely nothing. Generally affecting a countries economy affects how it behaves so the idea that Israel would sue for peace sooner seems like a more logical outcome. Even if it didn't work this time it might make Israel consider such actions in future.

Deleted User wrote:

So its easier to boycott Israel. Ok. That answers some of my question.

I see you've completely ignored the aspect that there is very little a consumer can do to boycott Iranian and Syrian goods given the nature of their exports. Way to whittle the whole aruement down to a little quip that ignores all the information I have provided. If you'd like to find some consumer items we can all avoid buying from Syria and Iran I'm sure many, including myself, will avoid these products.

The Saint

The Saint wrote:

I know it's an opinion but its one based on absolutely nothing. Generally affecting a countries economy affects how it behaves so the idea that Israel would sue for peace sooner seems like a more logical outcome. Even if it didn't work this time it might make Israel consider such actions in future.

Actually, considering that Israel felt it had no other option except military action, for the kidnapping of its troops and the subsequent missile attacks on its cities, its not far from a possibility. Israel has always met the attacks made on its territory with major force, and increased its commitment when it felt it was needed.

Should they feel the need to bring this conflict to a close quickly the possibility exists that they would reject any existing procedures they have for avoiding civilian casualties, just to do as much harm as possible to Hezbollah.

No more unlikely than your belief that Israel could be pressured into peace after they've risked so much to respond to this attack..

I see you've completely ignored the aspect that there is very little a consumer can do to boycott Iranian and Syrian goods given the nature of their exports. Way to whittle the whole aruement down to a little quip that ignores all the information I have provided. If you'd like to find some consumer items we can all avoid buying from Syria and Iran I'm sure many, including myself, will avoid these products.

No I haven't ignored it. I said it was easier to boycott Israel. Am i wrong? since that is what you suggested. I just don't agree with you that just because Israel can be targeted by a boycott, and Hezbollah can't, that Israel should be boycotted anyway.

HelterSkelter

klaz, the people in this thread have decided for whatever reason they they want to boycott Israel. Why are you hell-bent on trying to convince us we are wrong? Why don't you go to the other thread and debate the whole issue there?

I have never suggested that protesting against israel was wrong. I queried the OP's post about why he was protesting, and why only about Israel. If people want to protest only about Israel, then stop suggesting its about civilian deaths, because they don't seem to concerned with Israeli deaths.

The issue of the boycott I consider wrong, since I don't believe its a fair form of protest since if it succeeds, it will weaken Israel thus helping Hezbollah, without any evidence that such a boycott would actually encourage Israel to withdraw.

Morlar

Deleted User wrote:

If people want to protest only about Israel, then stop suggesting its about civilian deaths, because they don't seem to concerned with Israeli deaths.

Maybe this could shed some light for you :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5245884.stm

'Lebanon says more than 900 people have died since then, most of them civilians. Israel has lost 27 civilians and 40 soldiers.'

Thats approx 33 lebaneese people for each israeli civilian - (getting close to the golden 50-1 ratio) - I dont see how any reasonable person would fixate on and continually try to question why people are more inclined to protest against the state of israel than against an armed resistance group given those figures.

The Saint

Deleted User wrote:

Actually, considering that Israel felt it had no other option except military action, for the kidnapping of its troops and the subsequent missile attacks on its cities, its not far from a possibility. Israel has always met the attacks made on its territory with major force, and increased its commitment when it felt it was needed.

Should they feel the need to bring this conflict to a close quickly the possibility exists that they would reject any existing procedures they have for avoiding civilian casualties, just to do as much harm as possible to Hezbollah.

No more unlikely than your belief that Israel could be pressured into peace after they've risked so much to respond to this attack..

Yes, Israel has always met attack with great force but to say that they felt they had no other option is fairly fanciful. Israel has negotiated with Hizbollah before. Israel has always reacted with great force. When you have a big stick you don't really have to talk. This repeated heavy handed approach is probably partly due to the fact the there have never been any tangiable repercussions from taking such heavy handed actions. If they were shown that taking such actions would have economic ramifications then they might think twice about doing it. Perhaps if they wanted to bring such action to a close they might think about doing it through dimplomatic means.

While both of our viewpoints are based on assumtions and speculation I'd doubt that your view that Israel would increase their actions that have led to tangiable actions being taken against them and therefore widen such actions against them would take place. People care about what's in their pockets. If their governments policies are causing them economic harm and hardship then I'm sure you'd agree that they'd be less in favour of the actions of their government. Even if it did not work this time then they mioght think twice about taking such actions a second time.

Deleted User wrote:

No I haven't ignored it. I said it was easier to boycott Israel. Am i wrong? since that is what you suggested. I just don't agree with you that just because Israel can be targeted by a boycott, and Hezbollah can't, that Israel should be boycotted anyway.

You mentioned why don't we boycott Iran and Syria. I said that this is also a good idea but pointed out the practical issues of doing so. So if we have troub;e boycotting one or more of the parties then we shouldn't boycott any of them? Doesn't that contradict the statement below where you imply that if one is going to boycott one party then it should boycott the other. I agree but you say that this should not be the case if one is easier to boycott than the other. So you're saying that the nature of products that are imported and that a consumer can boycott should determine whether both parties should be boycotted at all?

Deleted User wrote:

Perhaps bycott Syria in the hopes that they'll stop supporting them>? In the end you're boycotting the actions of the IDF, which Israel supports. You could do the same to the very countries that support Hezbollah. Even if thats a stretch for ye guys, compare it to the calls to boycott the US over their support of Israel...

And has been said before, the IDF are the army of the Israeli government over which it's population has control. The populations in Iran and Syria unfortunately do not have that comtrol.

Oddly enough I'm aware of that. It doesn't change my stance though. How are you protesting against civilian deaths, if you're not willing to protest against Hezbollah?

Just acknowledge it, and I'll leave you be. You only care that Israel kills civilians, and don't really care about the Israeli civilian deaths....

Morlar

Deleted User wrote:

Oddly enough I'm aware of that. It doesn't change my stance though. How are you protesting against civilian deaths, if you're not willing to protest against Hezbollah?

Just acknowledge it, and I'll leave you be. You only care that Israel kills civilians, and don't really care about the Israeli civilian deaths....

There is nothing to acknowledge here other than that you have an obvious bias on this one - more people have died on irish roads every month or two than have died in israel since this began - the ratio of 33 lebaneese dead -1 israeli obviously has no meaning to you whatsoever.

Nor does the fact that on the one hand you have a armed resistance group/terrorist organisation - and on the other you have one of the most advanced military powers on the planet in the control of an incredibly aggresive country that appears to have zero compunction regarding civilian deaths so long as they are not jewish ones. There is no comparison in terms of scale to either side here. Claiming that its biased to focus on the (by a ratio of 33-1 ) greatest agressor in this situation seems more an attempt to shift the focus away from israel than anything else in my opinion.

The Saint

Deleted User wrote:

Oddly enough I'm aware of that. It doesn't change my stance though. How are you protesting against civilian deaths, if you're not willing to protest against Hezbollah?

Just acknowledge it, and I'll leave you be. You only care that Israel kills civilians, and don't really care about the Israeli civilian deaths....

I think this is an unfair statement. You seem to think that the differences in the numbers killed on each side doesn't matter but I think to ignore it would be to ignore the way the way this war has been waged and the reason for the calls for a boycott against Israel. Yes, Hizbollah are a terrorist group that are killing Israeli citizens. Israel are an army killing a vast amount of civilians. Israels ratio of killing Hizbollah compared to civilians is piss poor. Hizbollah's ration of killing soldiers compared to civilians is much better. You might argue that intent is important here. I'd argue that bodis on the ground are a more important aspect. Given Israels capabilities surely the statistics and rations should be the other way around. Sorry I know this was off topic.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Just acknowledge it, and I'll leave you be. You only care that Israel kills civilians, and don't really care about the Israeli civilian deaths....

Its crap like this that erks me. Just because you are against Israels response in Lebanon doesn't automatically make you a Hezbollah lover.

The simple fact is the number of dead Israelis vs dead Lebonenise in the incident aren't even in the same ballpark.

So yes what Hezbollah where doing was wrong, but to somehow say Israel is justified in its reponse is laughable.

InFront

Originally posted by Klaz:
The issue of the boycott I consider wrong, since I don't believe its a fair form of protest

I couldnt help notice your signature, a quote from a great Indian believer in the boycott as a means of resistance. Mahatma Gandhi. He urged the people to boycott British and courts, educational system, customs and products. It was called the Swadeshi Policy.

Do you honestly think the Israelis will listen to a (inevitably small) group of protestors outside the Israeli embassy in Dublin? Or the Iranian embassy for that matter.

New_Departure06

kaz wrote:

Just acknowledge it, and I'll leave you be. You only care that Israel kills civilians, and don't really care about the Israeli civilian deaths....

Well far fewer of them are being killed (less than 10% of the Lebanese civilian casualties). And Israel brought it on itself by its absurd over-reaction to 2 soldiers being captured. Boycott their goods.

Trode

New_Departure06 wrote:

And Israel brought it on itself by its absurd over-reaction to 2 soldiers being captured.

I'm not looking to get into this, but you do see the irony in this statement, yes?

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

No more unlikely than your belief that Israel could be pressured into peace after they've risked so much to respond to this attack.

The political leadership of Israel risked nothing of any value to them. Or perhaps I should say they did not think there was much risk involved. Only gain for minimal risk.

The pain Israel has felt as a result of this war [e.g. Hizbollah still firing rockets despite 3 weeks or so of their war, death of civilians in the north, disruptions to life, resultant damages to Israel's economy] was a nasty surprise IMO.

It was obviously supposed to be quick and easy with the IDF both destroying Hizbollah and giving the Lebanese (and Iranians) a sharp lesson from on high with their super-dooper wonder-weapons while the US cheers from the sidelines - but it hasn't turned out like that.

Húrin

The Saint wrote:

Also, 80% of Iranian imports to the EU are oil products..

Let's make that number 100%.

Morlar

Morlar wrote:

There is nothing to acknowledge here other than that you have an obvious bias on this one - more people have died on irish roads every month or two than have died in israel since this began - the ratio of 33 lebaneese dead -1 israeli obviously has no meaning to you whatsoever.

I do have a bias here, but not about the casualties themselves. I am pro-israeli (which doesn't make me automatically support their Air Attacks). However its a separate bias I'm trying to highlight here. The bias you people seem to have about Israeli versus Lebanese casualties based solely on the numbers involved. The only reason that you seem to be protesting about Israel is that they have killed more civilians than Hizbollah.

I asked this before. If Hizbollah had killed more people than Israel would you protest against Hizbollah? Nobody answered that question.

The ratio of deaths does have meaning for me. Its impossible not to notice since just about every poster & news agency refers to it. But I wonder does it have almost too much meaning for ye guys. I wonder why those Israel deaths have no meaning for you, and aren't worth protesting about.

Nor does the fact that on the one hand you have a armed resistance group/terrorist organisation - and on the other you have one of the most advanced military powers on the planet in the control of an incredibly aggresive country that appears to have zero compunction regarding civilian deaths so long as they are not jewish ones. There is no comparison in terms of scale to either side here. Claiming that its biased to focus on the (by a ratio of 33-1 ) greatest agressor in this situation seems more an attempt to shift the focus away from israel than anything else in my opinion.

LoL. I haven't asked for people to stop protesting against Israel. I haven't claimed that Israel is in the right. I haven't even suggested that Israel is the victim in this thread. I've asked from the very beginning why you don't protest against both Israel & Hizbollah.

The Saint wrote:

I think this is an unfair statement. You seem to think that the differences in the numbers killed on each side doesn't matter but I think to ignore it would be to ignore the way the way this war has been waged and the reason for the calls for a boycott against Israel.

I've never said the numbers don't matter. I've never asked you not to protest about it. But if you're going to protest about civilian deaths, would you not also protest about Israeli civilians killed. I really can't understand why you have such a problem with this. Protesting to Hizbollah about its actions will not lessen your effect on Israel (if anything they might give your opinions more credit). But at least you would actually be protesting about civilians being killed. And not just Lebanese civilians.........

As for the boycott, I stated my opinion that it could make matters worse. I also stated my opinion that boycotting Israel while ignoring Hizbollah's actions, give's them unvoiced support.. I am not accusing anyone of being pro-israeli or pro-Hizbollah or pro-Lebanese.

Yes, Hizbollah are a terrorist group that are killing Israeli citizens.

See what I mean. You acknowledge it, but where are the protests? Where are the calls for them to withdraw? Where are the calls against Hizbollah atrocities? Immediately after such an acknowledment will come a comment about Israel. And this is common on these boards.

Israel are an army killing a vast amount of civilians. Israels ratio of killing Hizbollah compared to civilians is piss poor. Hizbollah's ration of killing soldiers compared to civilians is much better. You might argue that intent is important here. I'd argue that bodis on the ground are a more important aspect. Given Israels capabilities surely the statistics and rations should be the other way around. Sorry I know this was off topic.

I'm not arguing at all about the ratio. I'm not arguing at all about whether Israel is doing this intentionally or not. I haven't introduced any suggestion of right ot wrong in this thread regarding Israel.

Hobbes wrote:

Its crap like this that erks me. Just because you are against Israels response in Lebanon doesn't automatically make you a Hezbollah lover.

The simple fact is the number of dead Israelis vs dead Lebonenise in the incident aren't even in the same ballpark.

So yes what Hezbollah where doing was wrong, but to somehow say Israel is justified in its reponse is laughable.

This is what irks me, Hobbes. Not once have I mentioned Israel's invasion of Lebannon. Not once have I voiced approval/disapproval for the airstrikes. Not once have I voiced any approval/disapproval of Israel's actions in Lebanon.

My only focus has been on the protests that this thread is about. That they're protesting against civilian deaths. Right. Which is why they only focus on civilians that Israel kills.

Not once do I say Israel is in any way justified in this thread. Perhaps you're getting confused with the threads?

InFront wrote:

I couldnt help notice your signature, a quote from a great Indian believer in the boycott as a means of resistance. Mahatma Gandhi. He urged the people to boycott British and courts, educational system, customs and products. It was called the Swadeshi Policy.

I doubt very much Gandhi would have supported a singular focus on Israel, considering how this all started. But then I don't really know. The signature I use is in reference to enforced democracy/liberty, and that I liked the phrasing he used.

Do you honestly think the Israelis will listen to a (inevitably small) group of protestors outside the Israeli embassy in Dublin? Or the Iranian embassy for that matter.

Not really. I started this off querying the OP for his reason to protest, not about the effectiveness of such a protest.

But i do believe that such protests have an effect on the people that watch it, or hear about it. Since these protests claim to be about civilian deaths, let them be about civilian deaths rather than just focusing on Israel.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Well far fewer of them are being killed (less than 10% of the Lebanese civilian casualties). And Israel brought it on itself by its absurd over-reaction to 2 soldiers being captured. Boycott their goods.

So how many people dead does it take for you to care? 50? 100? 150?

But its ok. There's no need to answer those questions. I can see you're dedicated to your reasonings. After all, what matters if a few Israeli people die.

Red Alert

Is it wrong to be against Israel and its expansionist policy? The israeli government have done more harm to their neighbours than Saddam Hussein did and yet they are let away with it. Does the holocaust really prevent us giving them a slap for bad behaviour, because the Israeli government cite their history as validation for their 'defensive' action?

Mick86

Red Alert wrote:

Is it wrong to be against Israel and its expansionist policy? ?

Opposition to Israel is a valid point of view. Opposition to Hizbollah terrorism is alsoa valid point of view. By the way if Israel was really interested in expansionism it would control most of the Middle East by now given that it defeated all it's Arab neighbours in 1948, 1956,1967 and 1973.

Red Alert wrote:

The israeli government have done more harm to their neighbours than Saddam Hussein did and yet they are let away with it.

Israel's poor neighbours launched four wars on that country in as many decades in addition to unrelenting terrorist attacks by the PLO, Hizbollah and Hamas. I don't think those neighbours can really complain about Israeli aggression.

Red Alert wrote:

Does the holocaust really prevent us giving them a slap for bad behaviour, because the Israeli government cite their history as validation for their 'defensive' action?

It should not but the facts of Arab aggression against Israel are the real issues.

InFront

Deleted User wrote:

I am pro-israeli

This is my first problem with your opinion. I understand that it is a nother thread but if you are pro-Israeli (however anyone can take either side is beyond me) what is your problem with people you see as pro Hezbolah?

I cant speak for anyone else here, but I am not pro-Hezbollah. Inevitably some opinions I have would be similiar to opinions expressed by Hezbollah, but as for their involvement in the conflict it is equallyb as disgraceful as Israel's. I agree with you that numbers do not matter.

For myself I have already said why I wouldnt try to boycott Iran and Syria. We cant boycott every single state who may be implicated or it would never end. The Iranians and Syrians themselves take noi part in this conflict.

I've never said the numbers don't matter. I've never asked you not to protest about it. But if you're going to protest about civilian deaths, would you not also protest about Israeli civilians killed.

the man who is pro Israelis is accusing us of taking sides.

You keep talking about boycotting Hezbollah and people keep explaining how this is impossible, yet you choose to keep insisting it without explaining how it would be remotely possible, and pushing the pro-Hezbollah argument when people are telling you they are not pro-hezbollah, and yet we are the ones who have the problem? Do you have any interest in boycotting Israel, which is what this thread is about?

New_Departure06

So how many people dead does it take for you to care? 50? 100? 150?

But its ok. There's no need to answer those questions. I can see you're dedicated to your reasonings. After all, what matters if a few Israeli people die.

They weren't dying before the IDF of the Israeli Reich launched its Blitzkrieg into Lebanon.

Very fitting commentary on the whole thing below, methinks:



Whereas Christ was supposed to have turned water into wine at Qana, Israel's new King Herod has turned the rivers there red with blood.

oscarBravo

New_Departure06 wrote:

They weren't dying before the IDF of the Israeli Reich launched its Blitzkrieg into Lebanon.

I've warned you before - the pejorative you used that time was "zionazi", and this is no more acceptable.

Mick86

New_Departure06 wrote:

They weren't dying before the IDF of the Israeli Reich launched its Blitzkrieg into Lebanon.

Of course they were. 1100 Israelis have died in the last six years at the hands of terrorists, mostly Hamas, but Hezbollah has attacked Israel several times since the IDF pulled out of Lebanon in 2000.

The Corinthian

oscarBravo wrote:

I've warned you before - the pejorative you used that time was "zionazi", and this is no more acceptable.

Why is it not acceptable?

Cork

Israel has killed civilians and UN personnel.



Their actions has increased the popularity of Hezbollah.

Protests are warranted.

Mick86

Cork wrote:

Israel has killed civilians and UN personnel.



Their actions has increased the popularity of Hezbollah.

Protests are warranted.

Hezbollah has killed civilians and UN personnel.

Their actions have increased the popularity of Hezbollah.

Protests are warranted.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Why is it not acceptable?

Indeed. If its the rules I will comply, but I wonder does boards.ie now have a pro-Israel lobby too? :mad:

Of course they were. 1100 Israelis have died in the last six years at the hands of terrorists, mostly Hamas, but Hezbollah has attacked Israel several times since the IDF pulled out of Lebanon in 2000.

And more than 3,000 Palestinians have died. Israels actions are disproportionate to a very extreme degree. It's like bombing Dublin or Cork because of IRA bombs in England.

Mick86

New_Departure06 wrote:

Indeed. If its the rules I will comply, but I wonder does boards.ie now have a pro-Israel lobby too? :mad:

Yes. Me for one. It's called freedom. Deal with it.

New_Departure06 wrote:

And more than 3,000 Palestinians have died.

I know that. But we were discussing Israeli casualties.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Israels actions are disproportionate to a very extreme degree.

So what would be proportionate? One for one. Two Jews for one Palestinian. How many dead Israelis would keep things in proportion for you.

New_Departure06 wrote:

It's like bombing Dublin or Cork because of IRA bombs in England.

Well IRA HQ is in Dublin and if somebody bombed it I would really be cut up. I really would.