Would you knowingly buy from israel?

SeanW

The problem, as I see it, with just boycotting Israeli products is that the country is surrounded by crapholes that are much worse, like Saudi Arabia, who are a pack of Islamofascist barbarians, Iran, Syria (which treats Lebanon like an imperial colony, note the murder of Hariri and other anti-Syrian politicians and their support for Hizbollah). Israel, for all its many faults, is no worse than some of these places.

Just boycotting Israel and Israel alone is not the solution.

Zynks

Zynks wrote:

There is one point you are missing. HE made a personal choice. SHE took personally something that should only have a business impact on her.

I still think what he said was unnecessary. He moved the conversation from a business angle to a political one by introducing his beliefs on boycotting.

And you really think that he said all of this in the same tone of voice when talking about the product? Doubtful. I'd suggest his tonality changed, and the pace of his speech probably increased. People speaking about political beliefs tend to get very intense about the subject. (Its one of the reasons I'll never speak about politics with strangers. Gives off the wrong impression.) Especially when its a topic like Israel/Palestine.

He set the frame of the conversation, in both subject and tone. She responded. Simple.

I don't see anything rude in "I told her that i was going to buy something from her until i noticed that they were made in Israel and that i would not knowingly buy anything from Israel".

Why not just say you're not interested and move on? I never give money to the homeless on the street. Should I start saying that I'm boycotting them because they never improve their situation? Get my drift?

How does it count "against everyone that buys the product worldwide"?

Because you're estimating that you & the other boycotters not-buying the product(s) have a large impact on the target country/company, above, the revenue it receives from the customer base that don't give a damn where it comes from.

Yes, and those people vote! Do you get my drift?

Yup. I do. And I'll repeat myself once more. I think that only effective boycotting can come about through with government backing.

I have already admitted my inability to be a "comprehensive boycotter". Do you think that renders my efforts inefective? If you do, let's agree to disagree.

You're missing the point. You listed off who you boycott. All very reasonable. But you don't boycott them completely. If you're making a statement, and trying to influence the target countries by not buying their products, don't you think a full ban would be more effective? Otherwise are you boycotting products themselves, and their respective companies rather than the country..... ?

basically, I'm wondering why you're advocating a boycott on all products out of Israel when you don't boycott all products from the countries you listed?

Why should he? Any sound business person wants to know what are the issues with their products and services in order to see how to improve them. I always give feedback, positive or negative. I also seek feedback when I am doing business.

Sure. About the product or service. Not about where the product is manufactured. :rolleyes: Or the nationality of the workers. Or what colour the walls of the factory are. His feedback had nothing to do with the product itself.

IMO, His announcement was made for himself. To place himself on some sort of pedestal of moral ground.... Otherwise, ignore the sellers, and perhaps actually write the company telling them your feelings?

That's some imagination you have If that was the (extremely unlikely) case, I am sure she would have no issue with volunteering such information instead of becoming aggressive.

Some imagination? We're basing this discussion from a three paragraph post, where the OP says he posted 80% of the conversation summary. I've been wondering since he posted, considering he mentioned that he only posted 80%, what was excluded... Afterall, if there was nothing worth mentioning, why mention 80% at all... lol. Late at night, and getting suspicious....

In any case, my questions stand. He chose to take a stance against a product, which he has no knowledge of, or knowledge of the circumstances of how its produced, or who actually owns the company. While produced in Israel it could easily be a Palestinian owned, Palestinian run company, where all the profits are fed into Palestine proper. He doesn't know, and I doubt he really cares. :rolleyes:

the_syco

imeddyhobbs wrote:

I want to know what you think of this encounter.
I belive that israel is a terrorist state.
I will not knowingly buy anything from Israel
What do you think of her attitude.
Would you knowingly buy from Israel?

You're a bit anal.
So is almost every Eastern state, in that case.
She has a point.
Yes. I buy stuff from a countries which pay about $30 a month, sh|te human rights records, and make the US seem to have freedom of spech.

Fratton Fred

Dontico wrote:

if i see a lable saying "made in israel" then i wont buy it. but its hard to know if something is an israeli product or not. cause israel makes industrial products so something that might say "made in the eu", may be partcially israeli.

i dont buy israeli products for the same reason i dont buy dorrena allen(sp?) ice cream and try not to buy american and english products.

Why American and English products?

What about Welsh and Scottish?

sovtek

El Stuntman wrote:

If I had to live in the middle east, I'd far prefer to live in Israel than any of the other countries there. Suppose Dubai would be a distant number 2 and then....nowhere

Under Apartheid, being a white male, I'd have preferred to live in South Africa rather than all those others around it myself.

philologos

I avoid all things made in Israel like the plague. The reason why? I know that part of this money when it returns to Israel will be taxed and it will go to the Israeli government in the Knesset. This also means that by buying Israeli products we are funding the Apartheid that is happening between the Zionist Jews and the Palestinians. I also don't go to Starbucks as they directly fund the US and Israeli militaries in the Middle East.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

I avoid all things made in Israel like the plague. The reason why? I know that part of this money when it returns to Israel will be taxed and it will go to the Israeli government in the Knesset. This also means that by buying Israeli products we are funding the Apartheid that is happening between the Zionist Jews and the Palestinians. I also don't go to Starbucks as they directly fund the US and Israeli militaries in the Middle East.

Starbucks is a direct sponsor of the US and Israeli militaries? Right. :rolleyes:

Whenever anyone throws out the conflict as the "Zionist Jews and the Palestinians" I always have to wonder how they see both sides. Are the Jews some diabolical group chanting religious mantras while they gleefully fire artillery at beaches? If you're going to call Israeli's, Zionist Jews, then wouldn't you also call the palestinians Muslims (Rather than a territorial designation, Palestinian)? You do realise that there's more than just Zionist jews living in Israel as Israeli citizens? Just as there are Jews living in Palestine who consider themselves as palestinians and not Israeli's........

Lastly. Boycotting Israeli products boycotts all palestinian efforts within the borders of Israel. It also boycotts any production, whether foreign or domestic owned. Its a blanket ban. So you're not actually protesting against israeli actions. You're protesting against the existance of Israel, and all that are contained within. Surely, I'm not the only one that see's this?

Personally, if you're bothered enough to boycott at all, wouldn't you do an hour or two's research and find out what products should actually be boycotted, to display your outrage against The Zionist Jews

philologos

There is a difference between Jews who are Zionists (hence why I mentioned Zionist Jews), and Jews who reject it. You should check out www.jewsagainstzionism.com and the Jews who have been protesting within Israel in relation to the humanitarian issues in Palestine.

As for the latter, Palestinians aren't allowed to export their goods under Israeli rulings. Therefore our monetary sources going into Israel doesn't really affect them. Unless you consider funding the IDF in their attacks and raids.

Also yes, I don't think that Israel should exist. It's religious based, all Jews can become Israeli, but then again anyone can convert to be a Jew. A country for a particular faith won't work... as countries for a particular race don't work. Also there was 66% Palestinians in the land of Palestine at the creation of the Israeli state. There are also more Palestinians exiled and within the borders of Palestine than those who claim to be Israeli. It's ethnic cleansing and to be honest I'm glad that there are people on this forum who are willing to boycott Israel.

As for the Jews who live in Palestinian areas the majority of them are Zionists who are trying to take over Palestinian land. They use excuses like Hebron being a place where Abraham lived. If they claim that why haven't they had claims on Baghdad, the city where Abraham was born (Ur). Also Muslims are an Abrahamic faith too. Although having said that there are a few Jewish activism groups in Palestine campaigning for freedom for Palestinians and I commend them. (more on electronicintifada.net about that actually)

As for Starbucks

Boycott Israel Campaign wrote:

Starbucks support War of Terror

Starbucks have donated a store to the US army to help in the occupation of Afghanistan. See photos below from Afghanistan of US troops thanking Starbucks for their donation:
Starbucks Sponsers Israel Fundraiser

Bowl 4 Israel
Bowl-A-Thon 2002 & Bowl-A-Thon 2003 (9 Nov, 2003)

Starbucks sponsers "bowl 4 israel", one of the fund raisers for Israel organised by Elie Haller. Her last fund raiser was a barbeque that "raised $15,000 for a paratrooper unit in the Israel Defense Forces".[a] This time the money raised - some $50,000 was to be distributed to families of "Israeli terror victims" by the Israel Emergency Solidarity Fund (OneFamily).[a] [d] Innocent enough you may think, but you'd be wrong - apparently their definition of "terror victim" includes israeli soldiers who were killed whilst they were butchering Palestinian women and children during the Jenin massacre (April 2002).

For more where that came from: http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-starbucks.html

talos

yes

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

There is a difference between Jews who are Zionists (hence why I mentioned Zionist Jews), and Jews who reject it. You should check out www.jewsagainstzionism.com and the Jews who have been protesting within Israel in relation to the humanitarian issues in Palestine.

I'm well aware that there is a difference. Actually I was wondering if you were, since you heaped them altogether originally. Hence, my suggestion of calling them Israeli's.

As for the latter, Palestinians aren't allowed to export their goods under Israeli rulings. Therefore our monetary sources going into Israel doesn't really affect them. Unless you consider funding the IDF in their attacks and raids.

I couldn't find any immediate links showing the Israeli ban on Palestinian exports from within the Israeli borders. Could you supply me with the links you have? I'd like to have a look at it. I don't know much about this area, and I'd like to expand that knowledge.

Interesting. So none of the Palestinians living within the Borders of Israel or those crossing the borders each morning, are employed by Israeli companies, and would be affected by a drop in sales? I guess that those Palestinians have some other manner of getting their income....

But hey, I'm picking at straws here I suppose.

Also yes, I don't think that Israel should exist. It's religious based, all Jews can become Israeli, but then again anyone can convert to be a Jew. A country for a particular faith won't work... as countries for a particular race don't work.

And yet whats the % of non-jews living in Israel? Muslim 16%, Arab Christians 1.7%, other Christian 0.4%, Druze 1.6%, unspecified 3.9% (2004) (CIA Factbook, Israel).

Its a country for Jews, that I can't and won't deny. However, Its rare that I hear mention of the thousands of non-Jews who live within their borders, and are allowed access to the country each morning to get to Israeli based jobs.

And we haven't seen anything that a country for a single religion doesn't work. The majority of Arab nations feature their own Muslim beliefs quite highly, and while the official declaration isn't there like in israel, there's hardly a welcome mat to everyone. Their muslim faith, and religious law holds alot of control, and in many ways is more intolerant of those that break those laws.

Also there was 66% Palestinians in the land of Palestine at the creation of the Israeli state. There are also more Palestinians exiled and within the borders of Palestine than those who claim to be Israeli. It's ethnic cleansing and to be honest I'm glad that there are people on this forum who are willing to boycott Israel.

Ok. I'll start with the refugees first since this always crops up. Firstly where was the outrage at the Arab nations that encouraged these people to remain refugees and refused to allow them entrance into their own countries (with the exception of Jordan)? It often that i see the finger pointed at Israel, but its rare that I'll see that same finger willing to point at the Arab nations that invaded Israel as the Liberation Army and then rejected the Palestinians from access from their borders. I'm not excusing Israeli's from responsiblity. They were and are reponsible for those refugees. However all descendents having equal claims is a bit much to swallow.

Secondly, I'm always amazed that the people that deny Israel's existance aren't willing (or rather never volunteer) to apply that very same logic to Jordan, which was created out of a much larger slice of traditional "palestine". Why do you not call for it to be dissolved, and the Palestinians be given that land granted to Jordan?

Don't you think that Israel is a very convenient target? Afterall, if they were an Arab nation would we be having this discussion? In fact, considering the actions of the Arab nations in the past, would the state of palestine as it exists today, even have had a chance? I certainly don't think so. In many ways, the existance of israel has given a better chance for a state of Palestine than they would have had from their own peoples.........

As for the Jews who live in Palestinian areas the majority of them are Zionists who are trying to take over Palestinian land. They use excuses like Hebron being a place where Abraham lived. If they claim that why haven't they had claims on Baghdad, the city where Abraham was born (Ur). Also Muslims are an Abrahamic faith too.

Totally Agree about the excuses. There's soo many excuses floating around by both sides over the years. Like if the palestinians were in such a rush to have their own state/independence why did they allow an Arab occupation by two different countries, without making a whimper of protest. Or how the Palestinian people were suddenly a single entity when needed, but most can agree that the Palestinians were just the people living in the area, when Britain withdrew and the partition was proposed...

So many excuses. I prefer looking at the more recent ones, than looking back into religious history. But it amounts to the same thing really. Neither side has really show that much absolute claim to the territory. Pity the original UN plan was rejected by both sides. It would have solved alot of things.

For more where that came from: http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-starbucks.html

[/quote]

Thanks for the link on Starbucks. Interesting reading. Just curious though. Would you boycott products/companies that were tied to financing paramilitary attacks in Israel?

philologos

Deleted User wrote:

I couldn't find any immediate links showing the Israeli ban on Palestinian exports from within the Israeli borders. Could you supply me with the links you have? I'd like to have a look at it. I don't know much about this area, and I'd like to expand that knowledge.

Interesting. So none of the Palestinians living within the Borders of Israel or those crossing the borders each morning, are employed by Israeli companies, and would be affected by a drop in sales? I guess that those Palestinians have some other manner of getting their income....

I actually heard that to my horror from a woman who lives in Ramallah, she was over at my school to talk to us about the current Intifada and how the occupation affects their daily lives.

Deleted User wrote:

And yet whats the % of non-jews living in Israel? Muslim 16%, Arab Christians 1.7%, other Christian 0.4%, Druze 1.6%, unspecified 3.9% (2004) (CIA Factbook, Israel).

Its a country for Jews, that I can't and won't deny. However, Its rare that I hear mention of the thousands of non-Jews who live within their borders, and are allowed access to the country each morning to get to Israeli based jobs.

Israeli-Arabs are different to Palestinians. Although many of them were Palestinians who were forced to accept the Israeli state to keep their land. They are Arabs who have accepted and recognised the Israeli state. Also can I ask you, who gets preference into Israel? Would a Muslim from Jordan be given the same preference as a Jew from America. I don't think so.

Deleted User wrote:

And we haven't seen anything that a country for a single religion doesn't work. The majority of Arab nations feature their own Muslim beliefs quite highly, and while the official declaration isn't there like in israel, there's hardly a welcome mat to everyone. Their muslim faith, and religious law holds alot of control, and in many ways is more intolerant of those that break those laws.

Thats a rediculous statement to make. Can I ask you where the biggest Jewish population in the Middle East live apart from Israel? They live in Iran. Most Arab states are now secular, with the exception of Saudi Arabia (please enlighten me if you have any more). Also can I point you to Lebanon, where several different ethnic groupings live (Druze, Greek Orthodox, Maronite Christians, Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims). You should also take into account the Christian communities in Iraq. Shariah Law also gives women the choice to wear the burqa or not its not forced. Actually the vast majority of Muslim women in the Middle East wear the hijab.

Deleted User wrote:

Ok. I'll start with the refugees first since this always crops up. Firstly where was the outrage at the Arab nations that encouraged these people to remain refugees and refused to allow them entrance into their own countries (with the exception of Jordan)? It often that i see the finger pointed at Israel, but its rare that I'll see that same finger willing to point at the Arab nations that invaded Israel as the Liberation Army and then rejected the Palestinians from access from their borders. I'm not excusing Israeli's from responsiblity. They were and are reponsible for those refugees. However all descendents having equal claims is a bit much to swallow.

What about the refugees? Also can I remind you that there are more Palestinians than Israelis in the world today. 4 million forced out, 4 million still remaining there, in comparision with 5 million Israelis. You also exclude Lebanon from the places, where refugees flooded into. Also why should Palestinians have to move to other Arab nations for refuge from their oppressors. Can I remind you that Israel was their land in its entirety and after the foundation of the Israeli state, David Ben Gurion destroyed hundreds of Arab villages. If I may quote him "The destruction of Palestine is neccessary for Israel's wellbeing". Of course they invaded, would you invade when a minority of invaders had political claims on your land! 66% of the people who had to be shifted from their homes violently by IDF forces. The Arab nations were right to be outraged. The forcing of people out of their own homes by a foreign army of immigrants. Israeli's have plenty of responsibility, for invading a land that wasn't theirs by mass immigration. This is worse than the Plantations of Ireland, they ruined Palestinian homes and villages, they no longer exist anymore. Can I remind you of an event that occured after Israel came into existence. Haganah and the Irgun forced Palestinians into the sea at Jaffa.

Deleted User wrote:

Secondly, I'm always amazed that the people that deny Israel's existance aren't willing (or rather never volunteer) to apply that very same logic to Jordan, which was created out of a much larger slice of traditional "palestine". Why do you not call for it to be dissolved, and the Palestinians be given that land granted to Jordan?

Palestine was part of Transjordan, Jordan wasn't part of traditional Palestine. The British had mandates over the regions of Transjordan and over Iraq. The Palestinians being given Jordanian land wouldn't make sense, as their homes and families were in modern day Israel. Some people even have the deeds to prove that they owned land in Palestine. Actually I'd recommend that you read Pity The Nation - Lebanon at War by Robert Fisk. It goes into that in detail. Yes I refuse to accept the existence of Israel, because its an immigrant state that wasn't rightfully theirs. Even Zionists have called for a Palestinian state in the past actually. Arthur Ruppin suggested a billateral Palestinian state in 1927, as a stepping stone to getting an Israeli state. Although I don't agree with having an Israeli state at all I think the people of Palestine would be more comfortable this as a whole.

Deleted User wrote:

Don't you think that Israel is a very convenient target? Afterall, if they were an Arab nation would we be having this discussion? In fact, considering the actions of the Arab nations in the past, would the state of palestine as it exists today, even have had a chance? I certainly don't think so. In many ways, the existance of israel has given a better chance for a state of Palestine than they would have had from their own peoples.........

Israel isn't a convenient target, it has made itself a target. You'd think that after the Holocaust the Israelis would reject using apartheid style methods on its citizens. (considering they occupy Palestine at this moment in time) It's funny how one nation can act like their former oppressors. Although I don't consider the Jews a race, I consider them a religious grouping. They through massacres such as Beit Hanoun, and the treating of Palestinians as second class citizens have earned this repuation.

Deleted User wrote:

Totally Agree about the excuses. There's soo many excuses floating around by both sides over the years. Like if the palestinians were in such a rush to have their own state/independence why did they allow an Arab occupation by two different countries, without making a whimper of protest. Or how the Palestinian people were suddenly a single entity when needed, but most can agree that the Palestinians were just the people living in the area, when Britain withdrew and the partition was proposed...

Arab occupation is better than Israeli occupation anyway at least they were being occupied by people of their own culture. By those two countries I assume you mean the Ottoman Empire and Jordan. The fact of the case is we are discussing Israel, and at 1948 66% of the resident population claimed to be Palestinian Arabs and that 33% of the population were Jewish, that doesn't make an Israeli state viable. Britain withdrew because of Zionist terrorism by Haganah and the Irgun, not because of the Holocaust and giving the land to the Jews in my opinion anyway.

Deleted User wrote:

Thanks for the link on Starbucks. Interesting reading. Just curious though. Would you boycott products/companies that were tied to financing paramilitary attacks in Israel?

I reject all forms of violence, so yes if I did know that it was funding the attacks of Israeli people I would also boycott it. However there wouldn't be militants if there was a Palestinian state in my opinion. It's due to the Israelis treating the Palestinians like animals, that resistance groups such as Hamas, the PLO, and the Islamic Jihad exist in Palestinian areas today. You could ask the same question about why partisans existed in occupied countries during World War 2. It's for the exact same reason, to bring down their oppressors and fight for their ultimate freedom. Mind you Palestinians aren't economically powerful enough in comparison to Zionists like Howard Schulz of Starbucks, so I doubt we will see such a scenario taking place.

Ping Chow Chi

Deleted User wrote:

They were and are reponsible for those refugees. However all descendents having equal claims is a bit much to swallow.

And yet you stick up for a state in which anyone who is Jewish anywhere in the world has a greater claim to the land than Palestinians, even if not one of their decendents ever had set foot in Israel.

Seems a case of double standards, to me at least.

philologos

also Jews can live anywhere in the world. Palestinians aren't allowed to..

Manic Moran

Here's an interesting dilemma for the boycotters:

The Irish Defense Forces have just announced a deal for the purchase of Israeli helmets after a selection contest. They claim to be 40% lighter than other helmets of equivalent ballistic protection. As a soldier, I can definitely see the appeal to that.

So, do you think that the Irish serviceman deserves to be given the absolute best equipment possible? How about if this means buying Israeli? Would you support such a boycott if it comes at a potential cost of Irish lives?

Given Israeli experience at blast trauma and gunshot wounds, they're pretty good at dealing with them, would a boycott extend to Israeli-produced medical equipment?

NTM

philologos

We aren't a hugely militarised nation, so it wouldn't really be of major importance what helmets we have. We don't need the best equipment if we are a neutral nation and unlikely to be in an all out war. Secondly it's usually US made weaponry and military gear that goes to Israel. A boycott won't come to the cost of Irish lives as Irish lives won't be at risk really. A boycott would extend to everything produced in Israel.

Manic Moran

Jakkass wrote:

We aren't a hugely militarised nation, so it wouldn't really be of major importance what helmets we have. We don't need the best equipment if we are a neutral nation and unlikely to be in an all out war.

How many Irish soldiers died in the Congo because they had outdated and obsolescent equipment? All of a sudden, there was an impetus for the Army to buy automatic rifles and proper helmets. Would the Niemba massacre have happened if the Irish troops didn't have WWII-era bolt-action weapons? How about the losses at The Tunnel? There's no way to know those answers for sure, but if you're being sent somewhere as a soldier, and your life depended on your equipment, you'd want the best money could buy.

Just because it's not an all-out-war does not mean that Irish soldiers don't go to places where people can shoot at them. Enough troops have died in the Lebanon to show that.

NTM

FatherTed

Microsoft has 2 R&D facilities in Israel:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3244261,00.html

So I hope all you boycotters stop using Microsoft products right away.

Also Google:
http://www.physorg.com/news11268.html

No more Googling for you!

philologos

I use Linux... so I'm fine
Yahoo is my default search engine.

philologos

Manic Moran wrote:

Just because it's not an all-out-war does not mean that Irish soldiers don't go to places where people can shoot at them. Enough troops have died in the Lebanon to show that.

NTM

sorry for double posting, but in addition Israel and the Phalangist Christian Militia were responsible for the deaths of many Irishmen also. Menachem Begin refused to give the Irish people a proper answer to why they assassinated and kidnapped our UN troops in the late 70's. The Jerusalem Post went on to slander Irish people as Anti-Semites for our outrage agaisnt the assassinations and called us "anti-Christian". I'm sure there are plenty of other decent nations which supply decent equipment if we were at an all out war, which is very unlikely. But hey if you like the hypothetical situations.

Manic Moran

Since you have acknowledged that there have been plenty of people who haven't shown much compunction about taking pot shots at Irish troops in the low-intensity situations that they have found themselves in to date, I fail to see how you can deny that said Irish troops have a need for good equipment. It may not be WWIII to historians, but when you are personally on the receiving end of artillery, you don't much care that it's a 'low intensity fight' or that said inbound rocket was actually aimed at Syrians, not you, and just missed.

NTM

philologos

Manic Moran wrote:

Since you have acknowledged that there have been plenty of people who haven't shown much compunction about taking pot shots at Irish troops in the low-intensity situations that they have found themselves in to date, I fail to see how you can deny that said Irish troops have a need for good equipment. It may not be WWIII to historians, but when you are personally on the receiving end of artillery, you don't much care that it's a 'low intensity fight' or that said inbound rocket was actually aimed at Syrians, not you, and just missed.

NTM

The US manufacture the weapons and equipment for Israel anyway so it wouldn't be on the cards. The discussion is swaying offtopic a bit. The question is would you knowingly buy from Israel. I wouldn't. Maybe a military commander would but I'm not a military commander.

Manic Moran

Not so much, actually. With the exception of aircraft and some warships, the Israelis build most of their own stuff these days, from ammunition and rifles to tanks. This is certainly the case for the helmets: The US-production helmet is the ACH. The Irish have selected a purely Israeli design which is claimed to be almost half the weight of ACH, which, if true, is a wondrous thing. You may not be personally buying the equipment, but your tax Euro are paying for it. Do you object in your taxes being spent in such a manner? If so, how do you justify the objection to the potential detrement of Irish troops?

NTM

Samaris

Hmmm... interesting points.

Ok, what do we know about both countries involved? Israel: A mainly Jewish country (although with strong Christian and Muslim ethnic groups) bordered by Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan, all Arab countries, who quite frankly, hate their guts and want to see them wiped off the map. IN 1948, it was fighting a war on all sides against all it's neighbours.
I'm not saying Israel is defenceless- huge military and the questionable support of USA...who is currently embroiled in a war which isn't going as well as hoped for them.

Lebanon is run under the 'confessional system' meaning lots of different groups (about 6 I think) are in power in various areas. It has close ties with Syria, perhaps the most powerful Arab state in that area.

Now Hezbollah are a nasty bunch. On 12 July, 2006, they captured two Israeli soldiers on patrol, killed a bunch more and launched a missile strike along the border. Israel took exception to this and, after a failed rescue attempt which got several more soldiers killed, declared war.

Lebanon is a bit unfortunate; it is being used as a base by Hezbollah whose main bases are in Syria.

I don't know who's in the right and who's in the wrong. I don't even know if it matters anymore. I do know there's a hell ofa lot of bad blood between Israel and the surrounding states.

Yeah, the rest of the world could boycott Israel. Israel could be bankrupted eventually, brought to its knees. And the surrounding countries could walk in and take over. Do you really think they would be more merciful? The Jews ran from aggression and hatred during the world wars. Many of them are decendents of people who lost everything to other peoples hatred. They now have a home, in a country where there's Muslims and Christians. And they don't want to run any more. Not when they are strong now.

What happened to a lot of innocent people in Lebanon was wrong. But the Israelis were attacked first and I can't blame them for responding. I think Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation and they were cowards to hide behind weak Lebanon.

Oy...went way off the subject and I apologise. But I'm just saying that please remember all the facts before condemming Israel and more to the point; fine, boycott Israel. Boycott Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, whoever. Nigeria, Ethiopia, Rwanda. But remember that it won't be the governments in charge you hurt. It's the ordinary people and their children who will starve in the streets.

Samaris

Sorry- that entered twice for some reason.

philologos

No I wouldn't want my tax money spent on weapons anyway regardless of what they were. Our military serves no purpose in defending us, they merely act as UN peacekeepers....

Hizbullah attacked Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians, Sheikh Nasrallah even said so. If Israel gave Palestinians a nation to live in they wouldn't have such opposition in the Middle East.

Lebanon has close ties with Syria because it used to be part of Syria.

I feel that these groups are being provoked by Israel, if a generous and fair Palestinian state was given, and if Palestinians had an adequate venue to voice their views apart from picking up arms and fighting (Palestinian Authority is useless the Palestinians should be allowed into Israeli parliament as Ahmadinejad has suggested) I would be totally opposed to militants of any form. Fact is it's Israels fault why they exist in the first place, for treating Palestinians who were 66% of the population in 1948 and are about 50% (excluding the other 4 million who were forced into exile) like animals.

Ping Chow Chi

Samaris wrote:

The Jews ran from aggression and hatred during the world wars. Many of them are decendents of people who lost everything to other peoples hatred.

And through aggression forced other people to run and lose everything in order to escape their hatred.

and continue to do so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4180050.stm

Botswana

There's a lot of very poor knowledge of Israel here (particularly from the pro-Israel crowd.)

Most people accept the Israelis aren't going to pack their bags and leave, so they accept Israel and accept they are entitled to defend themselves.

But things like illegal occupations (Israel ARE trying to take over Palestinian land) and building massive walls through Palestinian property, along with totally unreasonable use of force and totally unreasonable policies get people very anti-Israel.

You have to understand that the Palestinians are like trapped animals. If they had lovely helicopters and billions in US military aid every year they wouldn't be using suicide bombs; they'd be using armies. At the moment they are doing whatever they can.

Palestinian land is shrinking every year. In 100 years there may not be a West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Sand

You have to understand that the Palestinians are like trapped animals. If they had lovely helicopters and billions in US military aid every year they wouldn't be using suicide bombs; they'd be using armies. At the moment they are doing whatever they can.

A bit naive? Given how theyre using suicide bombers [to attack civillians] youd have to assume that if they had lovely helicopters and billions in US military aid theyd simply use them to kill more civillians with greater ease.

And whilst I couldnt be arsed, you could take that argument - change "Palestinians" to "Israelis", change a few of the variables and have an apology for Israeli actions that is just as convincing as your stirring defence of Palestinian actions. Try it and see if it persuades you.

leninbenjamin

Sand wrote:

A bit naive? Given how theyre using suicide bombers [to attack civillians] youd have to assume that if they had lovely helicopters and billions in US military aid theyd simply use them to kill more civillians with greater ease.

in WWII the allies bombed civilian targets as well as the Axis. Civilians get hurt in conflict, what's your point? that the Palestinians method of conflict is less moral than the Israeli? The Israelis shoot at children who are merely throwing stones remember?

my own opinion on the matter was that the creation of Isreal was a dumb thing to do, and drawing from our own history the displacement of the Palestinians was just wrong. Israel is still a relatively young state, and as such conflict is to be expected from all sides. It will be centuries, if even, before it is "accepted". As such, I don't much care for Isreal, especially seeing as thier political establishment doesn't seem that sound of mind (far too reactionary and overly aggressive) and they also have nukes... and so i probably would support any boycott.

philologos

Sand wrote:

A bit naive? Given how theyre using suicide bombers [to attack civillians] youd have to assume that if they had lovely helicopters and billions in US military aid theyd simply use them to kill more civillians with greater ease.

And whilst I couldnt be arsed, you could take that argument - change "Palestinians" to "Israelis", change a few of the variables and have an apology for Israeli actions that is just as convincing as your stirring defence of Palestinian actions. Try it and see if it persuades you.

If they were given a Palestinian state the Israelis wouldn't have to endure these resistance attacks. There would be no motive for the Arabs to attack Israel fullstop even if they did have fancy jets. Which the Israelis have, F-16's while the Palestinians have homemade rockets that rarely hit on target and kill anyone. The Israelis haven't quite grasped how to deal with the Palestinians proportionately.

Israelis aren't trapped animals, they can go all over the world. Palestinians aren't even allowed back in their homeland if they are locked outside without permits to re-enter as in the case in Lebanon and Jordan among other countries in which Palestinians have taken into refuge. The others are literally locked in by a wall which inturn steals part of their land because it wasn't made on the exact boundary of the West Bank.

In addition can I remind you that Israel caused conflict because of this Palestinian diaspora particularly in the Lebanese civil war. If Israel hadn't confiscated the lands of Palestine after 1967, then there could have been lives saved.

The fact that the Israeli's mass immigrated to Palestine is enough for me easily. Stole their land and pillaged Arab villages, committed genocide of the worst scale during the 1982 Sabra and Chatilla massacres whereby Phalangists killed 2,000 Palestinians under Israeli command and Israeli military commanders stood and watched. Continued genocide has occured in the past few months though with the Beit Hanoun incident among many.

Sand I suggest you read up on Zionism and how it worked, there are several books out there about it. Fact is it wasn't their land, they weren't the majority, partition merely divided 2 races that were once in harmony in Palestine, and it was an illegal occupation of Palestine and that they have created an apartheid state within Israel with a wall that was deemed illegal. Tell me how that's right.