Controversial Plans for First Feis in Israel

Irish Praetorian

I've got about 15 minutes before the whistle blows and I get paid up for today's Israel defending, any last questions?

*For those incapable of detecting it: the above statement is a joke designed to inject some humour into what is ultimately a very complex and nuanced political debate.

wes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

They've been there illegally for what, forty, fifty years now? You may be interested to note that last UN Peace Plan for Cyprus began with the concession that no matter how short a period of time Turkish settlers had been on the island for (at most thirty years) they would be accepted as citizens of the new Cyprus - why is it any peace plan for Palestine demands that the region be 'Judenrein' 'free of Jews'?

Sneaking in some German in there, I see :rolleyes:.

As for the settlements, Israel is demanding that most settlements remain part of Israel, so a rather different situation, as the peace deal you describe, doesn't have Turkey wanting the Turkish part of Cyprus to remain part of Turkey.

Secondly, very few settlers want to be Palestinian, but I can imagine a deal, where some settlers take up Palestinian citizenship.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Still, if we are talking about territorial exchanges I think we're going the right direction, although bear in mind that is completely at odds with BDS thinking.

If you look at the layout of the wall you will see it's designed in such a way that it encompasses areas of the borders which have already been settled, which sadly means crossing Palestinian owned land on occasion.

No, it purposefully grabbing the best Palestinian land, with all the water etc. Not to mention cutting off all access to East Jerusalem, so the wall is a non-starter as border, and a predictable land grab.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

As for why did they not simply stay behind the green line? They tried that, they were invaded twice. Now the Israeli occupation doesn't mean there is no prospect for peace, as Israel has shown with its Sinai and Gaza settlements, it can pull people out in the pursuit of a decent peace deal, but do you think the BDS demands are a recipe for a decent peace deal?

Israel were the ones who started the 1948 and 1967 wars, and the Arabs started the Yom Kippur one. The wall would work just fine on there own land, and I have yet to see any justification for it being on any Palestinians, other than the fact that Israel wants to create facts on the ground and prevent a 2 state solution. BTW, you would have a point if the wall was build after the various Arab Israeli conflicts, but the build started in the 2000s, and the wall would work fine on there own land, if there stated aim is to stop suicide attacks is true.

Also, the BDS deal is basically the 2 state solution, that the entire world claims to support. Its not some new idea they made up, its same 2 status solution that been around for years.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The numbers don't really appear to bear that out, and fall largely in line with the completion of the contiguous wall. Do you have any source that might bear out your cooperation argument?

What numbers do you refer to exactly? Suicide attacks largely stopped long before the completion of huge chunks of the wall, so to claim that its stopped them, is farcical. You can look up the numbers, in the early 2000's there were dozens and they form 2004 onwards they drop, and the wall was no where near finished.

The wall btw has not be completed, and Palestinians sneak into Israel for work all the time. If there was a desire to carry such attacks, then surely the incomplete wall would not stop them, and surely if such desire for attacks existed, and the wall prevented them, then terrorist would resort to rocket attacks, which considering how close the West Bank is to major population centers would cause far more havoc then the ones coming from Gaza.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The polls didn't involve them leaving their homes, it involved the areas they lived in (Arab majority areas) being transferred to a new Palestinian state, they dislike the prospect.

It would involved people being moved as a lot of Arab area's in Israel are not adjacent to the West Bank.......

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

When have I ever claimed that some religious nonsense has any right to impact upon the situation? Having seen my arguments, do you really have me pegged for some manner of religious literalist? Pragmatic concerns dictate my lines of argument - regardless of religious motives we do have to accept that there is a Jewish population in the middle east that wants a state, how or why they got there is irrelevant.

Its relevant if we are going to call the other guy absurd for wanting to return after 60 years. If Palestinians are being absurd, than the Zionists are loony tunes.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I do find the Palestinian demand to return after sixty years absurd, but I would regard Jewish demands to return to the various Arab states that they were expelled from around the same time similarly absurd. We have to work with the populations as they stand, not as we might wish them to be.

I disagree that there claim is absurd, when the other side claims is a 2000 year old one. Palestinians may have to give up this right ultimately, but that is a matter for negotiation.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

What pray tell is the alternative for Israel atm? Negotiate with a fractured Palestinian state for terms that may as well be ignored once they are agreed upon? Israel offered good deals in 2000 to Arafat and 2008 to Abbas, guess who turned down those offers?

Israel offered good deals according to Israel and there best pal the US, and seeing as there are no detailed maps, documents of these so called great deals that Israel offered, we have no way to know if these were good deals.

BTW, the Arab peace plan, which we actually have details on has been ignored by Israel for a solid decade:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm

Now, get back to me when you have an official document detailing these wonderful deals, last I checked the 2008 one was drawn on a napkin................

folamh

Deleted User wrote: »

What happens to Irish dancers in Tel Aviv that makes it dangerous for them and their families? Know a few who have been there and they thought it was a great spot.

A more interesting question would be "What happens to Irish dancers in Qatar [or any given Islamic-controlled region]?" My guess is that it's much more dangerous than Tel Aviv, particularly for the female dancers...

KomradeBishop

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

In some ways I can sympathise with a lot of this sentiment, people might well hold different states accountable for various things and are entitled to spend their money in a way that reflects the different concerns that they might have.

I just can't get over some of the absurdities surrounding this debate, such as the idea that a company should be boycotted because it operates in Palestine but getting your jeans from a Vietnamese sweatshop is allright, or the idea that a farmer in Israel selling his citrus fruit abroad is immediately accused of selling 'blood produce' regardless of what his personal political opinions might be, but we are all happy to source our energy from whatever theocratic dictatorship is selling at the best price. It's the ridiculousness of it all that makes me suspicious.

You point out a lot of double standards - many of them perfectly legitimate - but not one of those double standards is a reason for not engaging in a boycott.

Instead, each of them is an argument for having better knowledge/traceability over the products we buy, so we have a better knowledge of exactly what we're contributing to when we buy something - and for raising public awareness of each of these issues.

Cold War Kid

I don't know much about cultural boycotting, but is it not in part punishing ordinary Israelis who aren't responsible for the political situation and just want to enjoy a bit of whatever cultural stuff they're into?
The same boycott of South Africa always struck me as simply further isolating black people there in one sense.

KomradeBishop

Well, in a sense the Israeli population are responsible for voting in governments that continue the current policies, and cultural events that go on in Israel also stimulate their local economy; there's definitely an element of collective punishment about it though, as not all Israeli's support the governments actions, but that's just the cost of putting political/economic pressure on Israel.

It's the same deal with Russia - not all of the people support or even voted for the current government, nor support the invasion of Ukraine, but the international sanctions affect all of them.

Boycott's are just a means of bringing about a similar effect to sanctions, but starting from a grassroots level and possibly gaining more and more political support later (which may eventually result in official sanctions as the public mood sours more and more against Israel).

catbear

Millennia of persecution, Jews won't even notice the Feis. They can keep them.

jank

Do these anti-Israeli hipsters actually believe that this has anything to do with Israel and more so to do with a) being fashionable b) ideologically driven by anti-western groups such as the Irish anti-war party.

200,000 dead in Syria and barely a peep. Boycotting a Feis? Its getting embarrassing tbh.

catbear

jank wrote: »

Do these anti-Israeli hipsters actually believe that this has anything to do with Israel and more so to do with a) being fashionable b) ideologically driven by anti-western groups such as the Irish anti-war party.

200,000 dead in Syria and barely a peep. Boycotting a Feis? Its getting embarrassing tbh.

Muslim is killed by a muslim, no reaction.

Muslim killed by an Israeli, howling hysteria.

Don't understand it myself.

Is the survival of the Jews such a stain on the Christian mind that it blinds them to suffering of others, especially in the middleeast which had been such a back yard of European Imperialism for so long?

Why is it that the Jews must be the best Christians of all but it not expected of Muslims?

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

So you would be happy with a 1 man 1 vote solution, which would put a end to Zionism then? Return of the refugee's, would be needed, as without a Palestinian state they have not where else to go, and would remain in there current stateless limbo, and Jewish return law already set a precedent for such a return being extended to Palestinian refugees, who are far worse off, as most are stateless.

Now, seeing as you are against Israel returning land, they you must surely support this other solution then, that or you support ethnic cleansing, or leaving millions of Palestinians stateless forever.

It's the lebanese, syrians and Jordanese who have left the palestinian "refugees" there stateless, they've been used by arab governments for decades as political pawns. The palestinians could have easily been integrated into those states if the governments had given a single crap about them beyond their propaganda use against israel.

The right to "return" for palestinians is completely unworkable, there's no way that the Israelis would be so insane as to make themselves a minority in a country dominated by arabs, there's no way that that would end well. It's no surprise that muslims would want to see this happen but there's no way any Israeli would would do it.

Two-state solution fine, but the right of return is a non-runner and the palestinians must know that it's completely out of the question. The BDS movement know it too but their interest is promoting an anti-israeli/anti-jew agenda, not in pushing for a solution equitable to both parties.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Do these anti-Israeli hipsters actually believe that this has anything to do with Israel and more so to do with a) being fashionable b) ideologically driven by anti-western groups such as the Irish anti-war party.

200,000 dead in Syria and barely a peep. Boycotting a Feis? Its getting embarrassing tbh.

Syria under sanctions from various bodies, Israel barely a peep.

Nodin

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I don't know much about cultural boycotting, but is it not in part punishing ordinary Israelis who aren't responsible for the political situation and just want to enjoy a bit of whatever cultural stuff they're into?
The same boycott of South Africa always struck me as simply further isolating black people there in one sense.

I remember various black folk south Africa denouncing that as a cop out (by Thatcher) which it most certainly was.

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It's the lebanese, syrians and Jordanese who have left the palestinian "refugees" there stateless, they've been used by arab governments for decades as political pawns. The palestinians could have easily been integrated into those states if the governments had given a single crap about them beyond their propaganda use against israel.

The right to "return" for palestinians is completely unworkable, there's no way that the Israelis would be so insane as to make themselves a minority in a country dominated by arabs, there's no way that that would end well. It's no surprise that muslims would want to see this happen but there's no way any Israeli would would do it.

Two-state solution fine, but the right of return is a non-runner and the palestinians must know that it's completely out of the question. The BDS movement know it too but their interest is promoting an anti-israeli/anti-jew agenda, not in pushing for a solution equitable to both parties.

Classy.

jank

jank wrote: »

200,000 dead in Syria and barely a peep. Boycotting a Feis? Its getting embarrassing tbh.

But Syria hates Israel and the Jews too, with a whopping 20 or so Jews left in the entire country (Arab population in Israel > 1.5 million).

So they kinda get a free pass on atrocities, genocide etc.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

But Syria hates Israel and the Jews too, with a whopping 20 or so Jews left in the entire country (Arab population in Israel > 1.5 million).

So they kinda get a free pass on atrocities, genocide etc.

This throwing about of claims of anti-Semitism makes as much sense as claiming being against Apartheid South Africa meant you hated the Dutch.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

This throwing about of claims of anti-Semitism makes as much sense as claiming being against Apartheid South Africa meant you hated the Dutch.

No it doesn't.

It's simply objecting to anti Semitism. I think 20 Jews left in Syria says something. You may dismiss it with some curious reference to anti Dutch prejudice. That is your prerogative. I do not think the history of persecution of the Dutch and the Jews are comparable.

LDN_Irish

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it doesn't.

It's simply objecting to anti Semitism. I think 20 Jews left in Syria says something. You may dismiss it with some curious reference to anti Dutch prejudice. That is your prerogative. I do not think the history of persecution of the Dutch and the Jews are comparable.

Ah ok, so being against apartheid SA was fine because the Afrikaans weren't jewish. Do you really think that's a logical position? That the history of Jews means that their colonisation of Palestine is beyond reproach?

And 20 Jews in Syria doesn't say anything about , it's as irrelevant as talking about how many free Presbyterians there are in Italy to justify British involvement in the North. Amusing that the only 2 weapons in a Zionist's arsenal are "but muslims kill muslims" and "but Israelis are Jewish?? So any criticism of Israel basically makes you a neo Nazi!!"

The anti-Semitism lie is right up there with screaming "islamophobia!" when any aspect of Islam is criticised for most cowardly copout tropes we all have to see every time these debates rear their head.

LDN_Irish

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Amusing that the only 2 weapons in a Zionist's arsenal are "but muslims kill muslims" and "but Israelis are Jewish?? So any criticism of Israel basically makes you a neo Nazi!!"

The anti-Semitism lie is right up there with screaming "islamophobia!" when any aspect of Islam is criticised for most cowardly copout tropes we all have to see every time these debates rear their head.

What are you on about?

Observing that 200,000 have died in Syria, which has some 20 Jews left in it, is Zionist and cowardly?

I would have though it merely...counting.

LDN_Irish

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What are you on about?

Observing that 200,000 have died in Syria, which has some 20 Jews left in it, is Zionist and cowardly?

I would have though it merely...counting.

Go have your morning coffee and read my post again, because you clearly didn't understand it the first time. The paragraph you're apparently replying to actually starts with "the anti-Semitism lie..." and not "observing that 200,000 have died..." just to get you started.

FFS why can't people separate the actions of the Israeli government from the general people of Israel?

Why do we hold them to a higher standard than nearly every other country in the middle east?

LDN_Irish

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Go have your morning coffee and read my post again, because you clearly didn't understand it the first time. The paragraph you're apparently replying to actually starts with "the anti-Semitism lie..." and not "observing that 200,000 have died..." just to get you started.

Pointing out anti Semitism, where it exists, is not a lie.

I understood your post. Despite your claim to be amused, you got annoyed when the real massacre in the Middle East, just over the border from Israel in neighbouring Syria, was invoked.

LDN_Irish

LDN_Irish wrote: »

The anti-Semitism lie is right up there with screaming "islamophobia!" when any aspect of Islam is criticised for most cowardly copout tropes we all have to see every time these debates rear their head.

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you on about?

Observing that 200,000 have died in Syria, which has some 20 Jews left in it, is Zionist and cowardly?

I would have though it merely...counting.

So you understood that I was saying that claiming any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is cowardly and a lie, and yet decided to write the post I've just quoted? So, you're a liar basically. Deliberately misinterpreting and replying to whatever you want because if you reply to what's said your arguments fall apart.

You link me to any posts containing anti-semitism in this thread and we can report them together, won't be a big job because if there are any they must be few and far between because I haven't seen them.

Also, nice try pretending that the Syrian civil war that started in 2011 and how many Jewish people there are in Syria is a major factor in the colonisation of Palestine. Typical dishonest nonsense, but what else would you expect?

LDN_Irish

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Ah ok, so being against apartheid SA was fine because the Afrikaans weren't jewish. Do you really think that's a logical position? That the history of Jews means that their colonisation of Palestine is beyond reproach?

And 20 Jews in Syria doesn't say anything about , it's as irrelevant as talking about how many free Presbyterians there are in Italy to justify British involvement in the North. Amusing that the only 2 weapons in a Zionist's arsenal are "but muslims kill muslims" and "but Israelis are Jewish?? So any criticism of Israel basically makes you a neo Nazi!!"

I'll just leave this here again so you can have a bash at replying to what I said rather than deliberately pretending I've said something else that you know how to argue with. Do you want to have a bash at explaining why it was OK to oppose apartheid in SA because the Afrikaans aren't Jewish and so haven't been persecuted as you claimed here?

Deleted User wrote: »

No it doesn't.

It's simply objecting to anti Semitism. I think 20 Jews left in Syria says something. You may dismiss it with some curious reference to anti Dutch prejudice. That is your prerogative. I do not think the history of persecution of the Dutch and the Jews are comparable.

LDN_Irish

LDN_Irish wrote: »

So, you're a liar basically.

Oh dear.

Insert "trope" about having your morning coffee. Or something about the Dutch and the Italians and Presbyterians.

Pity, because only a few posts back you were "amused"!

LDN_Irish

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh dear.

Insert "trope" about having your morning coffee. Or something about the Dutch and the Italians and Presbyterians.

Pity, because only a few posts back you were "amused"! Do you think anyone will notice if I dodge every point made? I've already mentioned that he said he was amused in his first post twice, I don't know how long I can keep saying that and pretending I'm still replying to the posts that have been made.

Yes Conor, everyone will notice.

LDN_Irish

LDN_Irish wrote: »

You link me to any posts containing anti-semitism in this thread and we can report them together, won't be a big job because if there are any they must be few and far between because I haven't seen them.

*tumbleweed*

You link it, I'll report it. If you're not lying, it will actually be easier than evading so you've got no excuse.

Crooked Jack

Deleted User wrote: »

FFS why can't people separate the actions of the Israeli government from the general people of Israel?

Why do we hold them to a higher standard than nearly every other country in the middle east?

Well to be fair the people of Israel, with notable exception, elect the people who make these decisions and by and large condone what israel does in gaza and the West Bank.

Until Israeli aggression stops Im all for a total boycott of Israel in everything from international trade and expelling diplomats right down to artists not performing there and athletes refusing to compete with their international teams

Crooked Jack

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Until Israeli aggression stops Im all for a total boycott of Israel in everything from international trade and expelling diplomats...

Seriously?

Expelling diplomats?

I think that would be insane. People are entitled to boycott, to seek labelling etc. But to sever diplomatic ties with Israel while maintaining them with so many others...including Syria...that has no basis in reality at all.

Crooked Jack

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously?

Expelling diplomats?

I think that would be insane. People are entitled to boycott, to seek labelling etc. But to sever diplomatic ties with Israel while maintaining them with so many others...including Syria...that has no basis in reality at all.

The situation in Syria is vastly different from that in Palestine. There's a dozen different sides out there knockin the shite out of each other with hundreds of different agendas. Who knows what sort of government is eventually going to emerge from that.

Israel on the other hand has been systematically punishing the palestinian people since the foundation of the state. Mealy mouthed words of condemnation over specific incidents so terrible that they manage to stand out from the general background noise of horror have no effect. Israel must be totally isolated from the international community until they make real efforts for peace. Of course, there are certain countries that support/prop up israel so that is unlikely to happen but that doesnt mean countries with a conscience shouldnt take any stand they can.

SeanW

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Until Israeli aggression stops Im all for a total boycott of Israel in everything from international trade and expelling diplomats right down to artists not performing there and athletes refusing to compete with their international teams

I'm sure you will also call for the expulsion of diplomats of Russia (occupying Crimea and Eastern Ukraine) and China, (occupying Tibet, East Turkestan, building artificial islands in the disputed South China Sea, claiming the entirety of Taiwan and territory of most of its neighbors).

Or is it just the Jews "Israelis" that have only a small patch of land and nowhere else to go?

jimgoose

Does anyone else keep misreading this thread title as "Fine Gael Ard Fheis in Israel"?? No? I'm just a mental then! :pac:

Crooked Jack

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The situation in Syria is vastly different from that in Palestine.

It is. It is on a whole other scale in terms of numbers and barbarity. Such as the use of chemical weapons by the Government to wipe out hundreds at a time, with bodies of children piled high.

And you would maintain ties with that country, on the basis that sure they're all at it there, but sever them with Israel?

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Syria under sanctions from various bodies, Israel barely a peep.

Perhaps that is what you can tell yourself to rationalise the fact that 200,000 dead in Syria gets nowhere near the same air time or bandwidth in Irish circles then something to do with Israel. The fact is that these people could not give a rats ass about your average Syrian or Palestinian, but the do care about the great Satan of the them all, America and as Israel and the US are very very close allies, Israel is elevated for criticism by using the 'sanctions' pretense.

This is not new. We had the usual Socialist and Marxist suspects in Ireland and Europe during the 60's marching in opposition to all things U.S. purely out of ideology, while in the eastern block in Poland, Berlin, Prague and so on they were trying to escape from a regime that these people were trying to espouse.

wes

SeanW wrote: »

Or is it just the Jews "Israelis" that have only a small patch of land and nowhere else to go?

Palestinians have no where else to go either (not welcome any where else, and treated like garbage in refugee camps), and are still being currently displaced by Israel, who seem unable to stop settlement expansion, which will permanently kill a 2 state solution.

You seem intent on ignoring the simple fact that Israel was created by displacing other people, and that this is still going on to this day.

Far too many people claim to support the 2 state solution, but seem completely unwilling for any action to be taken to save it. IMHO, people support for the 2 state solution is hollow at best, and defacto against it, as all steps to save it are seen as no better than violent terrorism, which of course exposes the hypocrisy of Westerners who called on Palestinians to embrace non-violence, and now that some have done so, a call for boycott is regarded the same as violent terrorism and being called Anti-semtic. Clearly shows me that the problem was not the violence but rather the Palestinians themselves.

We are fast approaching a situation, where a 2 state solution simply become impossible, with a lot of commentators saying we have already reached that point.

Yes, the Israelis have no where else to go, but neither do the Palestinians, and the defacto opposition to the 2 state solutions from supporters of Israel, will ensure that we will see more and more violence, with the Palestinian civilians being the receiving end of it.

SEPT 23 1989

surely the people of Israel have been through enough without inflicting a "feis" on them

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

It is. It is on a whole other scale in terms of numbers and barbarity. Such as the use of chemical weapons by the Government to wipe out hundreds at a time, with bodies of children piled high.

You don't care about Syria, seeing as your using the suffering of the people there to defend Israel. It is a fairly common and rather repugnant debating tactic, to claim someone else doesn't care about this other conflict, when you are solely using it to deflect attention from Israel (supporters of the Russian regime use the same tactic as well).

wes

wes wrote: »

You don't care about Syria, seeing as your using the suffering of the people there to defend Israel. It is a fairly common and rather repugnant debating tactic, to claim someone else doesn't care about this other conflict, when you are solely using it to deflect attention from Israel (supporters of the Russian regime use the same tactic as well).

You don't know me at all. Do you?

Pretending you do "is a fairly common and rather repugnant debating tactic".

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

No it doesn't.

It's simply objecting to anti Semitism. .............

Please link to the anti-Semitic posts in this thread then, if you would.

KomradeBishop

It would be quite idiotic for a post to say, that because something bad happens somewhere else in the world that we aren't doing anything about, then we should not do anything about something bad that Israel does - or should prioritize the 'bad' things that we choose the act on, and ignore all others until we have dealt with the ones at the top of the list (when multiple things can instead be done at once).

These posts always show an inconsistency in their use of this logic, because the same logic is never used to argue against Russia's sanctions or Syria's - showing that these posts have one standard for Israel, and another for different countries, i.e. they show double-standards/hypocrisy, which such posts usually reserve primarily for Israel and the US.

Such posts pretend to display concern - crocodile tears - for innocent life, through deaths in Ukraine/Syria, but it is obvious that the concern is disingenuous/not-real, as there is no concern for the innocent life murdered by Israeli/IDF hands (I'll happily await posters proving this point, by trying to defend Israeli actions as 'not murder').

Crooked Jack

Deleted User wrote: »

It is. It is on a whole other scale in terms of numbers and barbarity. Such as the use of chemical weapons by the Government to wipe out hundreds at a time, with bodies of children piled high.

And you would maintain ties with that country, on the basis that sure they're all at it there, but sever them with Israel?

Not on the basis that "they're all at it." On the basis that it's a fluctuating situation. We dont know who is going to be in power there in a year or what the set up will be. I mean, the government there is basically theoretical in huge swathes of territory. With Israel/Palestine there is very clearly an aggressor (with overwhelming power and an itchy trigger finger) and a resister.

Im not expressing any support for the Assad regime and it's sadly typical of israeli apologists to try and deflect from israeli actions by pointing elsewhere

Crooked Jack

SeanW wrote: »

I'm sure you will also call for the expulsion of diplomats of Russia (occupying Crimea and Eastern Ukraine) and China, (occupying Tibet, East Turkestan, building artificial islands in the disputed South China Sea, claiming the entirety of Taiwan and territory of most of its neighbors).

Or is it just the Jews "Israelis" that have only a small patch of land and nowhere else to go?

Ah that other old pro-Israeli trope. If pointing fingers elsewhere doesnt work, cry anti-semitism. Sorry, that doesn't cut it these days.

LorMal

steddyeddy wrote: »

Irish aren't always very warmly received in Israel.

Can you explain that? Do you mean because we are Irish? I have never experienced that in Israel

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't know me at all. Do you?

Pretending you do "is a fairly common and rather repugnant debating tactic".

I don't need to know you, just know the tactic all to well...

wes

wes wrote: »

I don't need to know you, just know the tactic all to well...

So you don't need to know me to make the personal comment that I don't care about dead children?

Riiiiiiiiiiight. I won't even attempt to analyse that one. If it makes sense to you, fair enough.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Not on the basis that "they're all at it." On the basis that it's a fluctuating situation.

The gas attacks are not a "fluctuating situation". They happened. This idea that we must withhold condemnation until we figure out who might win and whether we like them is...it's as insane as the idea that we sever ties with Israel but maintain them with a Government that gasses it's own civilians by the hundred.

LorMal

Israel has acted in a reprehensible manner for many years now. It has gone beyond political - it is now based on a visceral hatred of the Palestinians - inexcusable and very hard to rationalise given their experiences in the holocaust.
However, I do agree with Conor here -in Ireland, we seem to hold Israel to account much more than we other countries in the region.
Syria, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt.....all states with horrendous civil rights records and horribly repressive regimes that make Israel appear benign in comparison.

Crooked Jack

Deleted User wrote: »

The gas attacks are not a "fluctuating situation". They happened. This idea that we must withhold condemnation until we figure out who might win and whether we like them is...it's as insane as the idea that we sever ties with Israel but maintain them with a Government that gasses it's own civilians by the hundred.

Doesnt really matter whether its insane or not because that's not what I'm saying.
And has been pointed out numerous times, wrongs elsewhere in the world are not an adequate reason to ignore Israel's wrongs.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

So you don't(...............)it's own civilians by the hundred.

Going to link to those anti-semetic posts now conor?

Lormal wrote:

However, I do agree with Conor here -in Ireland, we seem to hold Israel to
account much more than we other countries in the region.
Syria, Libya,
Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt.....all states with horrendous civil
rights records and horribly repressive regimes that make Israel appear benign in comparison.

Those countries in bold are or were all under some type of sanction (unsure about Yemen). Those that were not were considered 'allies' of the US.

LorMal

Nodin wrote: »

Going to link to those anti-semetic posts now conor?



Those countries in bold are or were all under some type of sanction (unsure about Yemen). Those that were not were considered 'allies' of the US.

I'm not sure about your point?

Nodin

LorMal wrote: »

I'm not sure about your point?

Well whats the point in protesting for action against regimes where action has been taken?

LorMal

Nodin wrote: »

Well whats the point in protesting for action against regimes where action has been taken?

I'm not. I said that we tend to focus more on Israel than we do on these other nut job regimes.
I would inflict marathon Fheis Ceols on them all if I could.