Swedish Ports ban israeli Ships from docking in response to flotilla attack

Nodin

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Im not going to boycott Israeli goods (I dont even know what we import from Israel) . This is another vested interest lobby group trying to swing public opinion to their own views. What anyone else does is there own business

Please explain how exactly Swedish unions are "another vested interest lobby group", in detail please, with sources.

Cookie_Monster

I for one am certainly not going to boycott Isreali goods and will certainly not support anyone who does.

Laminations

So I'm completely against Israeli sanctions but I'm not so dumb as to think they are simply there to keep out weapons (I've seen countless people ask why they ban chocolate). The sanctions are used as a pressurising measure, so they force Palestinians to forgo things as long as rocket fire continues, the sanctions are indiscriminate. Likewise a boycott is a pressurising action and is also indiscriminate, it hits all Israelis regardless of their views on the conflict so I can support neither sanction nor boycott.

Secondly if you want to boycott be my guest but to suggest that a union should be our moral compass and make this decision for us is bizarre. And what if Irish unions decided to back Israel and refuse palestinian produce? You only support a union action because it likely coincides with your view, I had a lovely Palestinian falafel yesterday at the maritime festival and if I wanted to wash it down with an Israeli wine i'll be damned if some union worker had decided I couldn't or shouldn't. Since when do we look to unions for the moral highground? And related to my first point, since when is fighting an indiscriminate sanction with an indiscriminate boycott the moral highground?

You all need to start thinking rationally, if unions decided what comes in and out of a country then we are in big trouble.

We need to end the sanctions through political pressure without using the Israeli people as a proxy for this. We need to end rocket attacks through mediation, via international bodies which we should pressure to get more involved and we can lobby the US government to reexamine their unwaivering support for Israel, again without putting Americans through hardship. This idea of punishing a people for the sins of an elite (be they elected or not) is quite frankly wrong

johnnyskeleton

Ireland would actually do quite well with an EU wide boycot of Israel. They are our direct competitors in terms of knowledge economy jobs.

Whether it would achieve anything as regards the middle east or not is a different story. Israel have a history of doing it on their own, and are not likely to be persuaded by international opinion.

Finally, if there was an EU wide boycot of Israel, most likely the US would step up their aid of Israel, so I can't see this having any practical effect.

dlofnep

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Finally, if there was an EU wide boycot of Israel, most likely the US would step up their aid of Israel, so I can't see this having any practical effect.

It might put more pressure in Washington to re-think it's unwaivering support for Israeli actions, good or bad.

philologos

Would this hypothetical boycott apply to all multinational businesses that operate within Israel as well (and by extension support Israel by paying Israeli tax)?

Cookie_Monster

Maybe the defence forces and Gardai will stop using their Isreali made weapons too :rolleyes:

Fuhrer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Maybe the defence forces and Gardai will stop using their Isreali made weapons too :rolleyes:

They've already switched over to Heckler & Koch as their supplier


Oh yeah

:rolleyes:

Palmach

jill_valentine wrote: »

Fair play to Sweden generally, their reaction was proper order and I'd rather like to see more nations and governments willing to show some backbone the way they have.

But the Swedish unions are happy to allow Chinese,Saudi, Burmese, North Korean and other , far worse, human rights abusers dock. That is called rank hypocrisy. The Swedish political system is screwed up and in total hock to the Islamofacists. Witness the goings on in Stockholm when Sweden played Israel in the Davis Cup. Thousands of Muslims and the left wing useful idiots out rioting and the sane Swedes scared to say anything in case they are branded racist.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

But the Swedish unions are happy to allow Chinese,Saudi, Burmese, North Korean and other , far worse, human rights abusers dock. That is called rank hypocrisy. The Swedish political system is screwed up and in total hock to the Islamofacists.(......).

Yes....Sweden...."Islamofacists"......

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

Yes....Sweden...."Islamofacists"......

So you can't explain why Israel is singled out nor do you accept the inherent anti-Jewish hatred that motivates Muslim protesters led by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir whose goals involve Islamising the world. But hey lets not worry about that! Much more fun bashing Israel!

enda1

Way to display your neutrality Sweden :rolleyes:

Sand

Wont Israeli ship owners simply change their ships registration to another port? Like Panama, Belize, Honduras, St Vincent and the Grenadines?

Is Israel even a big choice for registering ships?

Scofflaw

OK, let's be clear about this one, too. This is not a thread about why Israel issues are of more interest to people than some other issue X. That's a deflection tactic, and it's also an attempt to drag the thread off-topic.

Usual penalties will apply.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Wont Israeli ship owners simply change their ships registration to another port? Like Panama, Belize, Honduras, St Vincent and the Grenadines?

Is Israel even a big choice for registering ships?

From the OP.....

Swedish Port Workers Union spokesman Peter Annerback says workers will refuse to handle Israeli goods and ships during the June 15-24 blockade. The union has some 1,500 members and supports Ship to Gaza, which took part in the flotilla.
It says the reason for the blockade is "the unprecedented criminal attack on the peaceful ship convoy."

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

So you can't explain why Israel is singled out
!

It isn't.

Palmach wrote: »

nor do you accept the inherent anti-Jewish hatred that motivates Muslim protesters led by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir whose goals involve Islamising the world.

Osama Bin Laden used support Arsenal. Are all supporters of Arsenal thus inherently evil and "wrong"?

Catsmokinpot

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

No doubt the Irish Unions will support it.

Anything to avoid doing anything positive and constructive.

I however, make up my own mind ,and certainly won't be led by a coterie of workers who seem to think that they have any credibility in the correct and proper way to conduct working relationships and the principle of an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

Erm, I'm sure Israeli ships aren't the only cargo vessels docking in Sweden, as far as I'm aware Israel doesn't supply the whole world with goods and services.

So how would this blockade stop anyone from doing an honest days work?

Your logic is flawed

Fail.

bonkey

musings wrote: »

Swedish port worker unions have banned israeli ships from docking in swedish ports in response to the attacks on the Gaza bound flotilla earlier this week. see story: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/thousands-demonstrate-across-the-world-against-israel-s-gaza-flotilla-raid-1.294295

Should our ports do likewise?

No, our ports should not do likewise, nor do I think the Swedish unions are acting appropriately.

While I would line up squarely alongside those who condemn the Israeli actions, I do not believe it is the place of unions to be making what amounts to national policy.

The would be, in effect, taking the law into their own hands....which is effectively the core premise on which condemnation of the Israeli actions rests.

Should our government choose to ban Israeli ships? I doubt that they would, but I certainly wouldn't find have an issue with it.

youcrazyjesus!

The would be, in effect, taking the law into their own hands....which is effectively the core premise on which condemnation of the Israeli actions rests.

Whoa whoa whoa. Whoa. You CANNOT equate Israeli terrorism with the actions of unions in taking a conscientious decision not to handle goods and trade being used to fund said terrorism.

dlofnep

bonkey wrote: »

No, our ports should not do likewise, nor do I think the Swedish unions are acting appropriately.

While I would line up squarely alongside those who condemn the Israeli actions, I do not believe it is the place of unions to be making what amounts to national policy.

The would be, in effect, taking the law into their own hands....which is effectively the core premise on which condemnation of the Israeli actions rests.

Should our government choose to ban Israeli ships? I doubt that they would, but I certainly wouldn't find have an issue with it.

Sometimes, it takes the individual to stand up and do something that their respective Government doesn't have the balls to do. There is absolutely nothing immoral, or wrong with Unions organising nationwide boycotts.

bonkey

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Whoa whoa whoa. Whoa. You CANNOT equate Israeli terrorism with the actions of unions in taking a conscientious decision not to handle goods and trade being used to fund said terrorism.

All I did was point out that the notion of taking the law into one's own hands was the core of both actions.

I'm not trying to say that the actions are comparable...rather that there is a common principle involved.

If you wish to argue that its acceptable to take the law into your own hands in some circumstances, but not in others....you're more then entitled to do so. If you want to make it about the severity, again - you're more then welcome to argue that (for example) its ok to take the law into your own hands as long as no-one gets killed, or hurt, or wherever you want to draw that line.

Me...I don't believe its appropriate to take the law into one's own hands. Its not about the circumstances...its about the principle. Hence, the line I've taken.

bonkey

dlofnep wrote: »

Sometimes, it takes the individual to stand up and do something that their respective Government doesn't have the balls to do. There is absolutely nothing immoral, or wrong with Unions organising nationwide boycotts.

I'd have no problem with a union (or anyone) requesting that people freely participate in a boycott.

When a union adopts a policy however, it is doing more then that.

youcrazyjesus!

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not trying to say that the actions are comparable...rather that there is a common principle involved.

There's no common principle involved. Refusing to handle goods you believe to be aiding and abetting crimes under international law is not "taking the law into your own hands". It's a massive, massive stretch.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

No, our ports should not do likewise, nor do I think the Swedish unions are acting appropriately.

While I would line up squarely alongside those who condemn the Israeli actions, I do not believe it is the place of unions to be making what amounts to national policy.

The would be, in effect, taking the law into their own hands....which is effectively the core premise on which condemnation of the Israeli actions rests.

Should our government choose to ban Israeli ships? I doubt that they would, but I certainly wouldn't find have an issue with it.

Should a union go on strike for, say, better conditions? Is that not "making what amounts to national policy"?

Do workers have a right to decide not to handle the goods of an organisation they oppose?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Palmach

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is not a thread about why Israel issues are of more interest to people than some other issue X. That's a deflection tactic, and it's also an attempt to drag the thread off-topic.

No. It isn't. I was merely asking the question as to why Swedish unions would single out Israel for a boycott and not any other country. I feel it is legitimate to ask. This is the European Forum on Antisemitism http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisemitism/english/ and it states among the manifestations of antisemitism "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

The Saint

Palmach wrote: »

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

Yet you state:

But the Swedish unions are happy to allow Chinese,Saudi, Burmese, North Korean and other , far worse, human rights abusers dock.

Nope, no democracies there.

karma_

jill_valentine wrote: »

Blessedly too young to remember such grim days, but wasn't it the Unions who kicked up a fuss about Apartheid?

Best point made in this thread so far, for those that appear to have missed it.

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

No. It isn't. I was merely asking the question as to why Swedish unions would single out Israel for a boycott and not any other country. I feel it is legitimate to ask. This is the European Forum on Antisemitism http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisemitism/english/ and it states among the manifestations of antisemitism "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

Take a couple of days off, read the Charter, note the part on not arguing moderation on-thread, and please follow mod warnings in effect at any given time. You may feel it is legitimate to argue about anti-Semitism on this thread - I have already stated that the moderators will respond to any anti-Semitic posting, and in the absence of that, the term is not in play here - and certainly not for an action that follows from a specific and specified incident which has provoked international condemnation.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

Should a union go on strike for, say, better conditions? Is that not "making what amounts to national policy"?

How so? Better working conditions aren't universal; they only affect the workers' place of work. On the other hand, refusing to handle Israeli goods affects everyone in the locality, including those who do not want to participate in the boycott. It amounts to making a decision on everyone's behalf without a mandate or without any authority.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do workers have a right to decide not to handle the goods of an organisation they oppose?

Of course they do. But the employer shouldn't have to employ those who refuse to do the job they're being paid to do.

Memnoch

bonkey wrote: »

No, our ports should not do likewise, nor do I think the Swedish unions are acting appropriately.

While I would line up squarely alongside those who condemn the Israeli actions, I do not believe it is the place of unions to be making what amounts to national policy.

The would be, in effect, taking the law into their own hands....which is effectively the core premise on which condemnation of the Israeli actions rests.

Should our government choose to ban Israeli ships? I doubt that they would, but I certainly wouldn't find have an issue with it.

And when governments are too cowardly to act? As they have been for the past three years as the Israeli Government has put the squeeze on the population of Gaza?

I can't believe your saying that peaceful, civil protest is somehow equitable to the kind of violent action engaged by Israel.

We all have a right to protest on such issues and if the government disagrees strongly enough with us, they can hire someone else etc.