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

Northern Ireland Friends of Israel

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    So you promote the death of innocent Israeli civilians by Palestinians merely for wanting to live in Israel? Or what exactly do you promote?

    I 'promote' armed resistance to the colonisation of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and the other areas outside Israels borders by the Israeli state. As they've been denied redress by law, its unforunately the only route open to them.

    You seem to talk about Israel as if it weren't the aggressor...this "merely wanting to live in Israel" nonsense. The Christian "peace patrols" that work with the Palestinians don't operate in Israel. They try to shield the occupied people from the IDF and settlers who are operating outside Israels borders. I'd suggest you take a look into whats gone on there for the last 40 years. Certainly if you think this is about killing ordinary people who "merely want to live in Israel" that should be a very long and hard look.


  • Options
    #93
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You don't actually know that that is the intention

    Actually I do. It is categorically identified as a reactionary movement to the nationalist view on Palestine. Read the first paragraph.

    "It's to counter the IRA supporters calling on a boycott of Israel."

    Jakkass wrote: »
    and even if it was, who says that the Republicans should have the right to have solidarity with the Palestinians

    It's not a "right" that someone has. People see something wrong (Israel's blatant abuse of human rights) and they take a stand on it.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    and the Unionists shouldn't have the right to have solidarity with Israel?

    They should if it's based on merit, and not as a reactionary movement to the "IRA supporters". There is no logical reason for supporting Israel's attacks against the Palestinians. The entire world has condemned Israel. The UN has condemned them. But the continue to treat the Palestinians like filth.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Although, I do think that Unionist attitudes to Israel have been like this for a long time, not just right now.

    Not really. Unionist is a very broad collective term. But a large portion of the 'loyalist' community (Johnny Adair and so forth) often used nazi salutes and were heavily involved with German nazis. Low and behold, a decade or two later - these same guys are now supporting Israel. Go figure.


  • Options
    #94
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's not a "right" that someone has. People see something wrong (Israel's blatant abuse of human rights) and they take a stand on it.

    The reverse: It's not a "right" that someone has. People see something wrong (Palestinian rocket attacks in Israeli homes) and they take a stand on it.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Not really. Unionist is a very broad collective term. But a large portion of the 'loyalist' community (Johnny Adair and so forth) often used nazi salutes and were heavily involved with German nazis. Low and behold, a decade or two later - these same guys are now supporting Israel. Go figure.

    Define a large portion. You still haven't dealt with my point concerning IRA men in Lebanon in 1982.


  • Options
    #95
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Svalbard wrote: »
    I guess the right of a people to fight for the sovereignty of their state, even if its not recognised by the international community.

    No it isn't.
    Svalbard wrote: »
    In essence, they're right to wage war.

    No they aren't.
    Svalbard wrote: »
    It isn't only the US, the UK and Israel who can use their armies to get their own way.

    No they aren't. I think the IDF go too far, likewise with the UK and US militaries.


  • Options
    #96
    Svalbard
    Registered Users Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Svalbard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No it isn't.



    No they aren't.



    No they aren't. I think the IDF go too far, likewise with the UK and US militaries.

    Eh, touché........? At least we can agree on your last point.

    I suppose it's fine for the British to say it's not OK to fight for ones independence. Historically they've always been the oppressor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The reverse: It's not a "right" that someone has. People see something wrong (Palestinian rocket attacks in Israeli homes) and they take a stand on it.

    You've missed my point completely. It was created as a reactionary movement; which dulls the merit of their cause. They are essentially doing it to spite the nationalist community. That pretty much sums it up.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Define a large portion.

    "Large portion" is pretty well defined. Many loyalists have had heavy links to combat-18 - a group of British neo-nazis. Johnny Adair, one of the head loyalist figures found friendship with a known nazi in "Nazi Nick".

    http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Combat-18-Link-To-Pub-Attack-Probed_15936.html

    Not to mention, loyalists distributing leaflets and offering support for the BNP across the north.

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/loyalist-helps-bnp-spread-race-hate-message-13948396.html
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You still haven't dealt with my point concerning IRA men in Lebanon in 1982.

    What was your point? Repeat it again and I'll answer you, no problem.


  • Options
    #98
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You've missed my point completely. It was created as a reactionary movement; which dulls the merit of their cause. They are essentially doing it to spite the nationalist community. That pretty much sums it up.

    There are people both in the North and the Republic who empathise with Israel, I personally empathise with both.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    "Large portion" is pretty well defined. Many loyalists have had heavy links to combat-18 - a group of British neo-nazis. Johnny Adair, one of the head loyalist figures found friendship with a known nazi in "Nazi Nick".

    You are talking of a rather small percentile of the Unionist population as a whole however.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Not to mention, loyalists distributing leaflets and offering support for the BNP across the north.

    So? Again small minority.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    What was your point? Repeat it again and I'll answer you, no problem.

    Clicky...


  • Options
    #99
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Jakkass wrote: »
    There are people both in the North and the Republic who empathise with Israel, I personally empathise with both.

    Once again, you missed the point. I'm not sure how many times you can miss it, but I'll state it once again.

    The issue is with the fact that this group was created as a reactionary movement to counter the nationalist support for Palestine.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You are talking of a rather small percentile of the Unionist population as a whole however.

    Of course I am. Where did I state Unionist? I stated Loyalist. You are having problems in discerning the difference between the two terms.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Clicky...

    Will have a read now, give me a min.


  • Options
    #100
    Svalbard
    Registered Users Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Svalbard


    May I just point out.......

    dlofnep wrote: »
    Unionist is a very broad collective term. But a large portion of the 'loyalist' community (Johnny Adair and so forth) often used nazi salutes and were heavily involved with German nazis.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You are talking of a rather small percentile of the Unionist population as a whole however.

    So? Again small minority.

    That's loyalist community, being a smaller, more extreme part of the larger unionist community.


  • Options
    #101
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Just read - I've have no problems with the IRA offering support to resist Israeli control of the area. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Unionist population. It is to do with global solidarity to nations who are oppressed by other nations with greater military force.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Svalbard wrote: »
    That's loyalist community, being a smaller, more extreme part of the larger unionist community.

    Exactly. I just stated it in the last post as I came to the conclusion that he is unaware that Loyalist & Unionist have two seperate meanings.


  • Options
    #103
    Svalbard
    Registered Users Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Svalbard


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Exactly. I just stated it in the last post as I came to the conclusion that he is unaware that Loyalist & Unionist have two seperate meanings.

    Eek, maybe they don't!!


  • Options
    #104
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Svalbard wrote: »
    May I just point out.......






    That's loyalist community, being a smaller, more extreme part of the larger unionist community.

    you mean like the republican community being a more extreme part of the nationalist community?


  • Options
    #105
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Dudess wrote: »
    Bingo. It's anti-Israeli, not anti-semitic. Yes, the majority of Israelis are Jews, but it's not an attack on the Jewish faith.
    If people spoke out against Apartheid, did that make them anti Christian?

    then why attack jewish people?


  • Options
    #106
    Svalbard
    Registered Users Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Svalbard


    junder wrote: »
    you mean like the republican community being a more extreme part of the nationalist community?

    Now don't be silly.


  • Options
    #107
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    junder wrote: »
    then why attack jewish people?

    Who attacked Jewish people? Who were these said people representitives of?


  • Options
    #108
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Svalbard wrote: »
    Now don't be silly.

    He does have a point. I don't see the difference between the CIRA and the UVF.


  • Options
    #109
    Grudaire
    Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    Jakkass wrote: »
    He does have a point. I don't see the difference between the CIRA and the UVF.

    I'm a Republican - I want a Republic:)

    Anyway why do these threads always get bogged down on definitions?


  • Options
    #110
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    junder wrote: »
    then why attack jewish people?

    Nobody in this thread has blamed "the Jews" or "The Jew", Hebrews or Judaism as now practiced for the treatment of the Palestinians. Nor does in fact the state of Israel speak for all Jews. If you want to start a thread about "Anti-Semetic Thuggery" however, feel free.


  • Options
    #111
    RealityCheck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭RealityCheck


    Nodin wrote: »
    Nobody in this thread has blamed "the Jews" or "The Jew", Hebrews or Judaism as now practiced for the treatment of the Palestinians. Nor does in fact the state of Israel speak for all Jews. If you want to start a thread about "Anti-Semetic Thuggery" however, feel free.

    I agree. Why do people always try and use the anti semitism issue as a smoke screen. The fact of the matter is most people on this forum who are against Israels occupation are anti Zionist not anti Semetic. I wish people would stop confusing the two as not all jews are zionists and not all zionists are jews. And that is a fact. I disagree with Israels stance but for me religion is a non issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I'm confused, which side are you actually on here? because you seemed to suggest that the Zionists had a right to create Israel, now you seem to be arguing the opposite?


  • Options
    #113
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Svalbard wrote: »
    Now don't be silly.

    not being silly, but since your in the buisness of generlizations i thought i would do the same


  • Options
    #114
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    junder wrote: »
    then why attack jewish people?
    Because such people are ignorant and assume that all Jewish people are Israeli/zionists.


  • Options
    #115
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dudess wrote: »
    Because such people are ignorant and assume that all Jewish people are Israeli/zionists.

    What other solution would have been better for the Jewish people apart from the right to return to their ancestral homeland is the question I want to know. There is no reason why both cannot live in the land of Israel if both sides are willing to compromise. I personally support a model for Israel which would be a state with an Abrahamic heritage, rather than exclusively Jewish, but I don't see the problem with them living there. I don't know of any logical reason why anyone would oppose Israeli residence in the land of their ancestors considering that they have been maligned by just about everyone else for centuries.
    dlofnep wrote:
    Just read - I've have no problems with the IRA offering support to resist Israeli control of the area. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Unionist population. It is to do with global solidarity to nations who are oppressed by other nations with greater military force.

    So you support Palestinian attacks on an innocent Israeli population living in Galilee? (context behind 1982 Operation Peace for Galilee). Not only that, but you also support foreign assistance to combattants in war. Why are the US less justified in their support for the Israelis?

    You argue that this is to do with global solidarity to nations who are oppressed by other nations with superior military force. I would say that people are just as right to advocate for the cessation of terror attacks within the Israeli state. Who are you to say that innocent people in Sderot and Beersheva should be killed by rocket fire? This is a two way problem, and if you are unwilling to consider the innocents on the Israeli side you are truly not interested in peace in my book anyway.


  • Options
    #116
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Jakkass wrote: »
    So you support Palestinian attacks on an innocent Israeli population living in Galilee? (context behind 1982 Operation Peace for Galilee).

    Of course I don't support attacks on civilians. Where did I state otherwise? I have no inherent problem however with the Palestinians engaging with the IDF in retaliation for their acts of aggression.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not only that, but you also support foreign assistance to combattants in war. Why are the US less justified in their support for the Israelis?

    Sure, why not? The more people that support the Palestinians the better. The US are less justified because Israel is the oppressor. Israel is the one who is confiscating land, creating an economic blockade, stopping medical supplies, shooting women and children, using 11 year olds as a human shield..

    I'm not inherently against the US meddling in other affairs, where it warrants it. North Korea for example could do with a good bitch-slapping due to the intolerable conditions in which it's civilians live in, and the daily public executions that occur there.

    But I don't support the US giving Israel 3 billion a year which results in 1000's of innocent Palestinian life lost.

    It's not all black and white. If Israel backed up off the Palestinians, gave them back their farms, allowed access to everyone for free entry, and treated them with respect - then Hamas would have little support. But the reason that they have the support that they do, is because Israel creates an environment which allows them to grow.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Who are you to say that innocent people in Sderot and Beersheva should be killed by rocket fire?

    Where did I say that? I think you're having a conversation with yourself at this point.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is a two way problem, and if you are unwilling to consider the innocents on the Israeli side you are truly not interested in peace in my book anyway.

    Where have I not considered the innocents on the Israeli side? You want to know why I'm focusing on the Palestinian deaths? That's very easy to answer.. because they are dieing at a ratio of 30 to every 1 Israeli. It's very simple really. Does that mean that I support Hamas killing Israeli civilians? Of course not. But why on earth would I not address the greater evil?


  • Options
    #117
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What other solution would have been better for the Jewish people apart from the right to return to their ancestral homeland is the question I want to know. There is no reason why both cannot live in the land of Israel if both sides are willing to compromise. I personally support a model for Israel which would be a state with an Abrahamic heritage, rather than exclusively Jewish, but I don't see the problem with them living there. I don't know of any logical reason why anyone would oppose Israeli residence in the land of their ancestors considering that they have been maligned by just about everyone else for centuries.

    The bible is not a historically accurate document, there is no ancestral homeland, and the only person on this thread you will convince with this argument is you. What "right" are you referring to when you say 'right to return to their ancestral homeland'? Has this solution been good for the people of Palestine?
    Israel is a completely constructed concept-if it wasn't then there wouldn't have been plans initially to situate it in Cyprus or Mozambique or even Madagascar. But there was. In addition, the state of Israel is a colonising force, which takes the land of its neighbour Palestine at gunpoint. This is indefensible, yet you still try?
    Christian pro-Zionism was and always will be just a sort of inverted anti-semitism; give them a home over there out of our way, but keep them sweet, we might need them. It is not a secret that when Britain artificially constructed the Zionist homeland with the Balfour declaration it did so in large part because it felt keeping people who were traditionally involved in the financial world sweet was a good idea.
    Finally the Zionist homeland, when it was regrettably created, was never meant to expand to its present size. This sort of colonial expansionist policy is completely unacceptable.


  • Options
    #118
    The Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What other solution would have been better for the Jewish people apart from the right to return to their ancestral homeland is the question I want to know. There is no reason why both cannot live in the land of Israel if both sides are willing to compromise. I personally support a model for Israel which would be a state with an Abrahamic heritage, rather than exclusively Jewish, but I don't see the problem with them living there. I don't know of any logical reason why anyone would oppose Israeli residence in the land of their ancestors considering that they have been maligned by just about everyone else for centuries.
    The rest of it I can't be arsed addressing. Also I can't be bothered dealing with the "ancestral homeland" rubbish either. Its a exceedingly stupid justification which has been laid out at length in other threads which have gone around in circles as I'm sure this one will.

    However your idea for a one state solution has been dead since the 1970's. Isreal won't go for it as it will create an Arab majority in the state of Israel and will therefore cease to be a Jewish state which I'd imagine most Jewish Israelis wouldn't go for. Olmert has stated a number of times that a political solution is required due to the "demographic threat" posed by higher Arab birth rates. He warned of a "South African-style struggle" which Israel would lose if a Palestinian state was not established and "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Mr Olmert is quoted saying in Haaretz newspaper. The one state solution is dead as a concept. I'm sure the Arabs would be perfectly happy with it as they will become the majority, however the Jewish Israelis will not go for this in a million years.


  • Options
    #119
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Sure, why not? The more people that support the Palestinians the better. The US are less justified because Israel is the oppressor. Israel is the one who is confiscating land, creating an economic blockade, stopping medical supplies, shooting women and children, using 11 year olds as a human shield..

    You know that Hamas and Hizbullah have used people as human shields consistently in nearly every altercation they have had with Israel. Firing rockets from tower blocks cause civilian casualties when the IDF strike. Infact I'd say it's nearly their intention to cause civilian death in some cases.
    Where have I not considered the innocents on the Israeli side? You want to know why I'm focusing on the Palestinian deaths? That's very easy to answer.. because they are dieing at a ratio of 30 to every 1 Israeli. It's very simple really. Does that mean that I support Hamas killing Israeli civilians? Of course not. But why on earth would I not address the greater evil?

    You should be addressing both evils in this case. If the separation barriers weren't up there would be a lot more death in Israel, both you and I know that if you just compare the figures pre 2002 and now.
    The Saint wrote: »
    However your idea for a one state solution has been dead since the 1970's. Isreal won't go for it as it will create an Arab majority in the state of Israel and will therefore cease to be a Jewish state which I'd imagine most Jewish Israelis wouldn't go for. Olmert has stated a number of times that a political solution is required due to the "demographic threat" posed by higher Arab birth rates. He warned of a "South African-style struggle" which Israel would lose if a Palestinian state was not established and "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Mr Olmert is quoted saying in Haaretz newspaper. The one state solution is dead as a concept. I'm sure the Arabs would be perfectly happy with it as they will become the majority, however the Jewish Israelis will not go for this in a million years.


    The two state solution has been dead since 1948. Palestinians said no. I just can't see how it can work in a region of 20,000 sq km.


  • Options
    #120
    marius
    Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭marius


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I just can't see how it can work in a region of 20,000 sq km.

    Lebensraum?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What other solution would have been better for the Jewish people apart from the right to return to their ancestral homeland is the question I want to know. .

    My "ancestral homeland" is - apparently, and keeping it within 10,000 years - Galway. I can't go to Galway and occupy land there, because other people own it, much as the thought might amuse me. Likewise those who chose Connacht over hell during the plantation. Likewise any French Hugenots who came here in centuries past. Why precisely there should be an exception made in this case?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't know of any logical reason why anyone would oppose Israeli residence in the land of their ancestors considering that they have been maligned by just about everyone else for centuries..

    As long as "land of their ancestors" constitutes the state of Israel as recognised internationally, there shouldn't be. If you're talking about some Biblical fantasy, I have to mention that the Bible is not a valid certificate of land ownership.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You argue that this is to do with global solidarity to nations who are oppressed by other nations with superior military force. I would say that people are just as right to advocate for the cessation of terror attacks within the Israeli state..

    The majority of Palestinian groups have ceased attacks within inside Israel for years now, for all the good thats done them.

    You never seem to address Israels aggression in the OT. In fact, were I to read your posts for information, I'd be left with the impression that the Israeli state was being attacked for being the Israeli state.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You know that Hamas and Hizbullah have used people as human shields consistently in nearly every altercation they have had with Israel...

    ....according to the IDF, when excusing their "collateral damage"....Yet we know that - for a fact - the IDF grab people and use them as shields, and did this as policy for the best part of 30 years.....
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If the separation barriers weren't up there would be a lot more death in Israel,...

    And if that barrier had stuck to Israels borders, that would probably be a valid excuse.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement