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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is it time for the West to Boycott Israel like we did South African Pre-1993?

24

Comments

  • #52
    paulaa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭paulaa


    The EU needs to stop all preferential treatment that Israel is getting at the moment. The associate member status, the special trading rates and the monetary aid needs to be withdrawn until Israel starts to abide by the International laws that most countries try to adhere to.

    They also need to strictly enforce and run regular checks on the labelling system that is mandatory for EU states if they want to export to us. At the moment they are labelling goods from the illegal settlements as "Made in Israel".

    The sooner the west starts to make it known to Israel that renegade behaviour is not acceptable the better


  • #53
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    The Mustard wrote: »
    From the UN Treaty Collection website:


    In general terms, if a state has not ratified an international treaty, it is not bound by it.

    Israel is not a state party to the International Criminal Court Statute/Rome Statute and not therefore not subject to ICC jurisdiction without a referral by the UN Security Council. The United States is one of the five permanent members of the UNSC, who can veto any proposal.

    Here is an article by Global Post, arguing why it is unlikely that Israel will be prosecuted before the ICC.

    This is true, however, all countries signed up to the ICC are obliged to enforce its rulings. So if the Palestinians were to go to the ICC and the ICC summoned Israeli officials, it would make it very difficult indeed for them to travel, particularly in Europe. This can happen with or without security council approval.

    An ICC case is something the Israelis should be trying to avoid at all costs.


  • #54
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    This can happen with or without security council approval.
    The ICC cannot prosecute Israelis if it has no jurisdiction. Similarly, the Hazzard County Court has no jurisdiction over me, speeding on the M8. If there is no jurisdiction, the matter doesn't even get off the ground.

    Israel is not a state party to the ICC. If Israel does not consent to ICC jurisdiction, and if the UNSC does not refer a matter to the ICC for prosecution, no Israeli can be prosecuted.

    Of the options to ground jurisdiction, the only possible way is by way of UNSC referral. However, subject to correction, I reckon that the USA is likely to veto proposals to prosecute Israeli allies.

    In my view, prosecuting Israelis in the ICC is non-runner, as matters stand. Reported crimes are not even going to be investigated by the ICC. No Israeli officials can be summoned or brought before the ICC, unless the ICC has jurisdiction.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    An ICC case is something the Israelis should be trying to avoid at all costs.
    Agreed.


  • #55
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Mustard wrote: »
    The ICC cannot prosecute Israelis if it has no jurisdiction. Similarly, the Hazzard County Court has no jurisdiction over me, speeding on the M8. If there is no jurisdiction, the matter doesn't even get off the ground.

    Israel is not a state party to the ICC. If Israel does not consent to ICC jurisdiction, and if the UNSC does not refer a matter to the ICC for prosecution, no Israeli can be prosecuted.

    Of the options to ground jurisdiction, the only possible way is by way of UNSC referral. However, subject to correction, I reckon that the USA is likely to veto proposals to prosecute Israeli allies.

    In my view, prosecuting Israelis in the ICC is non-runner, as matters stand. Reported crimes are not even going to be investigated by the ICC. No Israeli officials can be summoned or brought before the ICC, unless the ICC has jurisdiction.


    Agreed.

    Well the ICC ruled on the Israeli wall some years ago, afaik. However, without the backing of the UNSC to enforce a ruling, this matters not a whit.


  • #56
    paulaa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭paulaa


    Israelis suspected of committing crimes, including war crimes can be tried in the ICC under the rules of Universal Jurisdiction. Livni and several others involved in Cast Lead are still afraid to travel abroad unless they are guaranteed immunity . This was adopted by the SC in 2006
    "The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, "Reaffirm[ed] the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" and commits the Security Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.[7][8]!

    States can also in certain circumstances exercise jurisdiction over acts committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory

    Palestine, as a recognised state, can now bring charges against Israeli officials , one of the reasons Israel and the US were so against their bid for statehood

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction


  • #57
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    paulaa wrote: »
    Palestine, as a recognised state, can now bring charges against Israeli officials , one of the reasons Israel and the US were so against their bid for statehood

    They won't do it however, regardless of rhetoric on the airwaves. If they do, Hamas must be taken to task also and this would be pushed if it ever happened.


  • #58
    paulaa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭paulaa


    JustinDee wrote: »
    They won't do it however, regardless of rhetoric on the airwaves. If they do, Hamas must be taken to task also and this would be pushed if it ever happened.

    Unless Hamas and the PA join forces and Hamas recognises Israel as the PA have done, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be treated the same as Israel.


  • #59
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Nodin wrote: »
    Well the ICC ruled on the Israeli wall some years ago, afaik. However, without the backing of the UNSC to enforce a ruling, this matters not a whit.
    Can you post a link on that. I'm interested in checking that out.
    paulaa wrote: »
    Israelis suspected of committing crimes, including war crimes can be tried in the ICC under the rules of Universal Jurisdiction. Livni and several others involved in Cast Lead are still afraid to travel abroad unless they are guaranteed immunity . This was adopted by the SC in 2006



    Palestine, as a recognised state, can now bring charges against Israeli officials , one of the reasons Israel and the US were so against their bid for statehood

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
    This is quite interesting, but what you assert is not correct with regard to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Look at what is stated on the ICC website, with regard to its own jurisdiction.

    If you are talking about this UN resolution, it aspires to protect civilians in armed conflict, to uphold the rule of law, etc. It doesn't give jurisdiction to the ICC, universally.

    It seems more likely that Israeli officials are afraid to travel abroad for fear of the domestic laws of particular states with respect to the 'universal jurisdiction' of those states.


  • #60
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Mustard wrote: »
    Can you post a link on that. I'm interested in checking that out.

    .

    Fourth from the bottom there
    http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=5&p3=-1&y=2004


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Nodin wrote: »
    Fourth from the bottom there
    http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=5&p3=-1&y=2004

    Dude, that is the ICJ, not the ICC.


  • #62
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Mustard wrote: »
    Dude, that is the ICJ, not the ICC.

    .....soz, 'I am a poor old man. My sight is poor, my legs are old and bent'.


  • #63
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Nodin wrote: »

    .....soz, 'I am a poor old man. My sight is poor, my legs are old and bent'.
    Lol


  • #64
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    paulaa wrote: »

    Unless Hamas and the PA join forces and Hamas recognises Israel as the PA have done, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be treated the same as Israel.
    For the very reasons you bring up originally: war crimes.
    Gaza would also be targetted as to possibilities for prosecution of its martial ruling organisation following earlier mentioned purges that followed Cast Lead as well as its persistant denial to its citizens of any right to democratically choose their own governing body/party/whatever Hamas choose to portray themselves as these days.


  • #65
    paulaa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭paulaa


    The Mustard wrote: »
    Can you post a link on that. I'm interested in checking that out.


    This is quite interesting, but what you assert is not correct with regard to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Look at what is stated on the ICC website, with regard to its own jurisdiction.

    If you are talking about this UN resolution, it aspires to protect civilians in armed conflict, to uphold the rule of law, etc. It doesn't give jurisdiction to the ICC, universally.

    It seems more likely that Israeli officials are afraid to travel abroad for fear of the domestic laws of particular states with respect to the 'universal jurisdiction' of those states.

    You're right. But from what I've read if a case is strong enough it can be passed on to the ICC. (I can't find the link to an article I thought I had saved)

    UJ continues to cause problems for some politicians in several countries including Britain
    The principle of universal jurisdiction has almost led to the detention of Barak while he was visiting England, and Almog, who was just about to disembark from an airplane when he was warned to stay on board and return on the same flight to Israel. The latest case involved Livni, who was due to visit England in December 2009 and was forced to change her plans when a warrant was issued for her arrest.


  • #66
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    JustinDee wrote: »
    For the very reasons you bring up originally: war crimes.
    Gaza would also be targetted as to possibilities for prosecution of its martial ruling organisation following earlier mentioned purges that followed Cast Lead as well as its persistant denial to its citizens of any right to democratically choose their own governing body/party/whatever Hamas choose to portray themselves as these days.

    ... can't see the PA holding back on that account, tbh. Hamas wouldn't be much worse off than they are at the moment either.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    paulaa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭paulaa


    JustinDee wrote: »
    For the very reasons you bring up originally: war crimes.
    Gaza would also be targetted as to possibilities for prosecution of its martial ruling organisation following earlier mentioned purges that followed Cast Lead as well as its persistant denial to its citizens of any right to democratically choose their own governing body/party/whatever Hamas choose to portray themselves as these days.

    I was agreeing with you


  • #68
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I might add that all this talk of various courts is largely irrelevant. Any judgement, should it be given, would not translate into action without the support of the US.


  • #69
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    paulaa wrote: »

    I was agreeing with you
    Saw that on second read. Apols


  • #70
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Nodin wrote: »

    ... can't see the PA holding back on that account, tbh. Hamas wouldn't be much worse off than they are at the moment either.
    PA wouldn't be acting on behalf of Gaza therefore case is limited even further.


  • #71
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    JustinDee wrote: »
    PA wouldn't be acting on behalf of Gaza therefore case is limited even further.

    Yes they would.

    The PA is the officially recognised government of all Palestine as far as the UN is concerned. If The PA put something forward they do so for all of Palestine not just the west bank.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    The Mustard wrote: »
    The ICC cannot prosecute Israelis if it has no jurisdiction. Similarly, the Hazzard County Court has no jurisdiction over me, speeding on the M8. If there is no jurisdiction, the matter doesn't even get off the ground.

    Israel is not a state party to the ICC. If Israel does not consent to ICC jurisdiction, and if the UNSC does not refer a matter to the ICC for prosecution, no Israeli can be prosecuted.

    Of the options to ground jurisdiction, the only possible way is by way of UNSC referral. However, subject to correction, I reckon that the USA is likely to veto proposals to prosecute Israeli allies.

    In my view, prosecuting Israelis in the ICC is non-runner, as matters stand. Reported crimes are not even going to be investigated by the ICC. No Israeli officials can be summoned or brought before the ICC, unless the ICC has jurisdiction.

    As far as I know (will try and find my original source for this later), the ICC can prosecute non-signed up members, even without UNSC approval, if they commit crimes on another state's territory and that state asks the ICC to investigate. This again would force any country bound by the ICC to hand over Israeli government officials should they be targeted.
    And as the UN has now recognized "Palestine" on the entire per 1967 West Bank and Gaza, Israeli settlements now count as crimes committed on Palestinian territory, which as far as I know, the ICC can prosecute even if the people committing the crimes are not parties to it.

    In other words, from what I've heard, it's more a question of whether the sovereign of the land on which the crime was committed consents to ICC action, rather than the individuals who committed said crimes.


  • #73
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Nodin wrote: »
    I might add that all this talk of various courts is largely irrelevant. Any judgement, should it be given, would not translate into action without the support of the US.

    It would ultimately force many EU nations to cut diplomatic ties entirely, or virtually all diplomatic ties to the Israeli officials named by the court. Which would be at the very least impossibly inconvenient.


  • #74
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    It would ultimately force many EU nations to cut diplomatic ties entirely, or virtually all diplomatic ties to the Israeli officials named by the court. Which would be at the very least impossibly inconvenient.


    You're an optimist. Bear in mind that the US will use all its weight to ensure that doesn't happen.


  • #75
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    paulaa wrote: »
    But from what I've read if a case is strong enough it can be passed on to the ICC.
    I don't agree with this, but I'd be interested to see you follow up on it.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    As far as I know (will try and find my original source for this later), the ICC can prosecute non-signed up members, even without UNSC approval, if they commit crimes on another state's territory and that state asks the ICC to investigate.
    I don't agree with this either, and I'd be interested to see you back it up.


  • #76
    gccbrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 9 ✭gccbrrr


    europe and the rest of the world is quick enough to boycot iran in fear of what they might do, israel does what they like and nothing is said.
    I think israel should have been boycotted a long time ago they are way to powerful now after all the help they got and they are tottaly taken advantage of the aid they were given many years ago. and thats because the people who helped create israel are long gone but and so are its original heads of state, now they are just an army state taking over land thats not theres


  • #77
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Seaneh wrote: »

    Yes they would.

    The PA is the officially recognised government of all Palestine as far as the UN is concerned. If The PA put something forward they do so for all of Palestine not just the west bank.
    No they wouldn't. Hamas has an iron grip control of Gaza hence no Fatah elements within, no opposition, the previous purges and no elections there.


  • #78
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    JustinDee wrote: »
    No they wouldn't. Hamas has an iron grip control of Gaza hence no Fatah elements within, no opposition, the previous purges and no elections there.

    Did you read my post?


  • #79
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Seaneh wrote: »
    Did you read my post?
    Yes obviously I did as I was replying to it. Ignoring the actual regime in Gaza doesn't change a thing. The PA, which as you point out doesn't include Hamas, has no adminstrative, political or martial power there regardless.


  • #80
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Yes obviously I did as I was replying to it. Ignoring the actual regime in Gaza doesn't change a thing. The PA, which as you point out doesn't include Hamas, has no adminstrative, political or martial power there regardless.


    how is that relevant to the fact that the PA represent all of Palestine at the UN and to Intetnational bodies like the ICC?

    or is that just too hard for you to get your head around?


  • #81
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    I don't think you can boycott Israel without also boycotting the Gaza Strip (which I realize a lot of countries already do), so I wouldn't support a boycott in the region, I think it would be counter productive.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I don't think you can boycott Israel without also boycotting the Gaza Strip (which I realize a lot of countries already do), so I wouldn't support a boycott in the region, I think it would be counter productive.


    How is even.possible possible to boycott Gaza? they have no exports or imports and thier boarders are closed... Or have you failed to notice the ilegal blockade its been under for the past several years?


  • #83
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Keep it civil, please. Those who can't contribute anything better than "boo hoo anyone who says anything nasty about Israel hates Jews" shouldn't bother, because you'll be infracted and deleted - and those who respond to such posts in kind will too.

    If you genuinely think there's anti-Semitic posting, please report it, if you believe there's trolling, please report it. Genuine anti-Semitism will be penalised, but so will fake accusations of anti-Semitism.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #84
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Seaneh wrote: »
    How is even.possible possible to boycott Gaza? they have no exports or imports and thier boarders are closed... Or have you failed to notice the ilegal blockade its been under for the past several years?

    That is some what missing the point. A boycott of Israel would be largely symbolic (the vast majority of exports go to countries which will never boycott Israel), but be a symbolic gesture. You would have to do the same to the Gaza Strip, even if it has little actual economic effect.


  • #85
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    Zombrex wrote: »

    That is some what missing the point. A boycott of Israel would be largely symbolic (the vast majority of exports go to countries which will never boycott Israel), but be a symbolic gesture. You would have to do the same to the Gaza Strip, even if it has little actual economic effect.


    Boycot it how? its the worlds largest open air prison... your comparssion is extremely flawed.


  • #86
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Seaneh wrote: »
    Boycot it how? its the worlds largest open air prison... your comparssion is extremely flawed.

    The same way you boycott any country, through refusing to have any economic or diplomatic relations with the country either directly or by proxy.

    Have you ever been to Gaza? Did you spend money in any of the local shops?


  • #87
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Mustard wrote: »
    When I read your post, I took a look to see what volume of exports Israel is making. The following figures look disproportionately high, so perhaps somebody with a better understanding of economics (than I have) could comment. In any event, these are figures from the CIA factbook website, concerning exports from Israel to Ireland. I'm guessing that these are mostly software exports to American multinationals located in Ireland.

    According to wikipedia the total exports of Israel in 2011 were 62 billion, so not sure how they could export 118 billion to Ireland alone. The vast majority of Israeli exports go to America, who are never going put trade restrictions on Israel.


  • #88
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Zombrex wrote: »
    According to wikipedia the total exports of Israel in 2011 were 62 billion, so not sure how they could export 118 billion to Ireland alone. The vast majority of Israeli exports go to America, who are never going put trade restrictions on Israel.

    Sorry a quick read of the CIA website shows that I was reading comparisons with exports, not actual exports. So complete boll0cks by me. Kindly excuse.

    EDIT: I have something which should be more accurate from the Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labour.
    In 1988 Israel exports to Ireland were valued at 23.5 million USD, while Irish exports to Israel were valued at 32.8 million USD. A decade later, Israeli exports to Ireland amounted to 196 million USD, while Irish exports amount to 230 Million USD. Today Irish exports are 344 million and Israeli exports are approaching 200 million USD.

    So overall, an Irish boycott of Israeli products wouldn't have grave economic consequences for Israel. It would be symbolic, as you say.


  • #89
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    The EU needs to stop all preferential treatment that Israel is getting at the moment. The associate member status, the special trading rates and the monetary aid needs to be withdrawn until Israel starts to abide by the International laws that most countries try to adhere to.

    Why on earth do we give monetary aid to the Israelis?


  • #90
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Why on earth do we give monetary aid to the Israelis?
    We get such good repayment rates, that we can borrow what we like and splash the cash on our Israeli chums.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I don't think you can boycott Israel without also boycotting the Gaza Strip (which I realize a lot of countries already do), so I wouldn't support a boycott in the region, I think it would be counter productive.

    I think you'll find they're under a vast range of sanctions as is.


  • #92
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Nodin wrote: »
    I think you'll find they're under a vast range of sanctions as is.

    Again that wasn't the point. Boycotts are political statements


  • #93
    Augmerson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭Augmerson


    Israel does have a right to exist, the same as Palestine does. It should be one country with two peoples, sharing the land, working together as a society, that's what I believe. I know many will see that as an idea coming from Cuckoo land but it's what I believe. One nation does not have more of a right to exist than the other.

    I don't know about a boycott. I was too young to remember the one against South Africa. It was very fashionable I think to boycott SA, at a time when the world was still locked in the idealogical struggle of the Cold War (well up until the late 80s, early 90s) and there were clearer lines of morality but boycotting Israel would be harder, it won't have the support of countries like the US (every country on Earth can boycott Israel it won't matter as long as the US supports them) and it won't be "fashionable" or popular I think.

    That said, if we are going to start boycotting countries, shouldn't we include China, the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia? Those countries have done seriously questionable things in the past to their own citizens and other nations.


  • #94
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Again that wasn't the point. Boycotts are political statements

    Well in the case of Israel, I support a boycott because there are no legal sanctions in place. During Apartheid SA there was minimal sanctions for a long period, so same thing.


  • #95
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Augmerson wrote: »
    Israel does have a right to exist, the same as Palestine does. It should be one country with two peoples, sharing the land, working together as a society, that's what I believe. I know many will see that as an idea coming from Cuckoo land but it's what I believe. One nation does not have more of a right to exist than the other. .

    There are many that believe that. Personally I think its misguided as it would end in disaster. Theres too much hate there.
    Augmerson wrote: »
    I don't know about a boycott. I was too young to remember the one against South Africa. It was very fashionable I think to boycott SA, at a time when the world was still locked in the idealogical struggle of the Cold War (well up until the late 80s, early 90s) and there were clearer lines of morality but boycotting Israel would be harder, it won't have the support of countries like the US (every country on Earth can boycott Israel it won't matter as long as the US supports them) and it won't be "fashionable" or popular I think. .

    For a very long time the US and Britain blocked sanctions against Apartheid SA.
    Augmerson wrote: »
    That said, if we are going to start boycotting countries, shouldn't we include China, the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia? Those countries have done seriously questionable things in the past to their own citizens and other nations.

    China and Russia are the only two currently in a contemporary comparable situation. Unfortunately boycotting China is a virtual impossibility. I disagreed (and disagree) with the notion of international events being held there, however.


  • #96
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Augmerson wrote: »
    Israel does have a right to exist, the same as Palestine does. It should be one country with two peoples, sharing the land, working together as a society, that's what I believe. I know many will see that as an idea coming from Cuckoo land but it's what I believe. One nation does not have more of a right to exist than the other.

    To say that both countries have a right to exist is to entirely miss the point.

    It's not good enough to ask 'why can't we all just get along' when one nation invades another.

    Are Tibetans right to be upset about China's occupation, or should they just make the best of it with their Chinese overlords?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    The Mustard wrote: »
    Sorry a quick read of the CIA website shows that I was reading comparisons with exports, not actual exports. So complete boll0cks by me. Kindly excuse.

    EDIT: I have something which should be more accurate from the Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labour.


    So overall, an Irish boycott of Israeli products wouldn't have grave economic consequences for Israel. It would be symbolic, as you say.

    It wouldn't just be Ireland I feel should boycott Israel, I think every one should. But even if it was just the EU, (Israel's biggest trading partner) then it would force Israel to change their policies.


  • #98
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Seaneh wrote: »
    It wouldn't just be Ireland I feel should boycott Israel, I think every one should. But even if it was just the EU, (Israel's biggest trading partner) then it would force Israel to change their policies.

    If we look at these figures, the EU accounts for about two thirds of exports ($64.74bn) or €47bn odd.
    Israel is an important trading partner for the EU in the Mediterranean area, and the EU is the first trading partner for Israel with total trade amounting to approximately €29.4 billion in 2011.
    The EU is Israel's major source of imports (34.5% of the import market) and the second largest market for exports (26.1% of the export market), behind United States
    EU exports of goods to Israel are dominated by machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, and other semi-manufactures. The EU is Israel's major source of imports, accounting for more than 30% of the country's total imports.
    EU imports from Israel are dominated by chemicals, machinery and mechanical appliances, and precious and semi-precious stones.
      An EU-wide boycott would have a major impact on the Israeli economy. I doubt that it would happen though, especially when you consider US influence in the EU.


    • #99
      Seaneh
      Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


      The Mustard wrote: »
      If we look at these figures, the EU accounts for close to half of Israeli exports ($64.74bn)

        An EU-wide boycott would have a major impact on the Israeli economy. I doubt that it would happen though, especially when you consider US influence in the EU.

        I don't think it will happen myself, but I really believe it should happen.


      • #100
        Nodin
        Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


        Indeed. Every measure taken should be done in the hope that the cumulative effect will take its toll.


      • #101
        JustinDee
        Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


        Seaneh wrote: »
        how is that relevant to the fact that the PA represent all of Palestine at the UN and to Intetnational bodies like the ICC?

        or is that just too hard for you to get your head around?
        Enough with the smart-Alec tone, thanks.

        It is relevant because there is no power in Gaza to anyone but the Hamas regime. The PA link you mention is nothing more than tokenistic. Worthless until Hamas come to the table. This could happen if they openly democratised Gaza but as everyone knows the likelihood of this is slim as it is. More sides to this conundrum than some folk care to admit.


      • Advertisement
      Advertisement