Controversial Plans for First Feis in Israel

Kalman

timhorgan wrote: »

As a matter of fact Irish passport holders are automatically red-flagged and given special interrogation treatment by the Israelis. Indeed Ireland should insist on a visa regime between the EU and Israel as Isrel discriminates always against Irish passport holders.

Israel has many enemies and for that reason, she has to be ever alert.

Jayop

Deleted User wrote: »

But as we know from the manner in which refugees are treated in neighbouring countries, their apparent Islamic allies really couldn't give a toss about what happens Palestinians. Using Israel's actions against a people they don't care about is the smallest of fig leaves for their terrorism.

Maybe they don't care, maybe they do. But what they do care about is using the actions of Israel and the US/UK/France etc as propaganda to drive their recruitment.

Irish Praetorian

Jayop wrote: »

Held partly responsible doesn't equate to "Israel's fault" now does it.

When people talk about the cause of the rise of Islamic terror groups they regularly trace a lot of the origins back to Western Imperialism, Israel's actions in the Gaza and the treatment of prisoners at the hands of American forces for increased radicalisation.

This isn't a new concept.

You keep ****ting on people, eventually they throw **** back.

Because as we all know, the big proponents of Western Imperialism in the Middle East have been Yazidis, Eastern Christians, Shia Muslims and women...

Jayop

I never said they were logical. Fanatics rarely are, but that doesn't change their original motivation.

hatrickpatrick

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

So in other words, we're sending a message to the world that a regime is not welcome at the dinner table of the free world if it commits atrocities against civilians, unless of course they have goods or services that we would like to purchase?

Great message!

Read my post, I don't agree with that stance. I wish countries like Saudi Arabia were being attacked with as much vitriol as Israel is for what they're doing, and shame on EU leaders for not doing so.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

What's being boycotted to send the message to Hamas to stop committing atrocities against civilians?

Hamas is a reactionary movement. It cannot be battled using the same tools. First and foremost, Israel's policy must change.

Liken Hamas to the PIRA for a moment - do you imagine the IRA would ever have been minimised to the extent that it has without the UK government dropping their anti-Catholic policies in Northern Ireland? When a violent terrorist movement forms within an oppressed population, the only effective way to dismantle it is to remove the oppression.

Jayop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Read my post, I don't agree with that stance. I wish countries like Saudi Arabia were being attacked with as much vitriol as Israel is for what they're doing, and shame on EU leaders for not doing so.

Haha, really?

Every EU government openly does business with Israel and none of them ever openly criticise them. You're mistaking a people's movement of critical thinking against Israel for a governmental movement.

Irish Praetorian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Read my post, I don't agree with that stance. I wish countries like Saudi Arabia were being attacked with as much vitriol as Israel is for what they're doing, and shame on EU leaders for not doing so.

But that's my point, people are deluding themselves with the misapprehension that Israel is some superlative vile foe and that they're making a great moral stand in condemning/boycotting them. In reality, it's simply an exercise in going along with far more virulently anti-Israeli sentiment in other parts of the world, whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to the far more troubling actions of many of those countries, because doing something about them is too inconvenient. It's one thing to neglect the crimes of others on the international stage, but to turn that stage into a weapon for many of those vile regimes in the first place is very objectionable.

Jayop

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

But that's my point, people are deluding themselves with the misapprehension that Israel is some superlative vile foe and that they're making a great moral stand in condemning/boycotting them. In reality, it's simply an exercise in going along with far more virulently anti-Israeli sentiment in other parts of the world, whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to the far more troubling actions of many of those countries, because doing something about them is too inconvenient. It's one thing to neglect the crimes of others on the international stage, but to turn that stage into a weapon for many of those vile regimes in the first place is very objectionable.

No, it's almost exactly the opposite. People are more repulsed by what Israel do because they're supposed to be a western democracy.

I just can't believe u need this explained to you.

Irish Praetorian

Jayop wrote: »

No, it's almost exactly the opposite. People are more repulsed by what Israel do because they're supposed to be a western democracy.

I just can't believe u need this explained to you.

Have you ever considered just how ridiculous such an idea is? Ten countries, nine are dictatorships and people are content to see slaughter and violence whilst still continuing to do business with them, the tenth resembles more closely a society like ours and people find them repulsive.

I often wonder when I look at campaigns like BDS, is their objective to solve this problem by making the country they target the kind of brutal regime whose excesses they can more easily ignore.

Jayop

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Have you ever considered just how ridiculous such an idea is? Ten countries, nine are dictatorships and people are content to see slaughter and violence whilst still continuing to do business with them, the tenth resembles more closely a society like ours and people find them repulsive.

I often wonder when I look at campaigns like BDS, is their objective to solve this problem by making the country they target the kind of brutal regime whose excesses they can more easily ignore.

Who are content to do business with the other ten? I really think you don't understand who it is that's critical of Israel. Out of your ten countries, the only one that's not being criticised by the establishment is Israel. The reason the anti Israel voice is so loud us because our governments don't say anything about them.

Do you really believe I'm happy with Iran, China, Russia, the U.S. or any other of the nations who continuously abuse humSn rights? I'm much more critical of the U.S. Then Israel for example, but this thread isn't about any of hem.

Stop your whataboutery.

Irish Praetorian

Jayop wrote: »

Who are content to do business with the other ten? I really think you don't understand who it is that's critical of Israel. Out of your ten countries, the only one that's not being criticised by the establishment is Israel. The reason the anti Israel voice is so loud us because our governments don't say anything about them.

Do you really believe I'm happy with Iran, China, Russia, the U.S. or any other of the nations who continuously abuse humSn rights? I'm much more critical of the U.S. Then Israel for example, but this thread isn't about any of hem.

Stop your whataboutery.

'Whataboutery' a word invented purely to justify hypocrisy.

To return to the point, yes I think you are pretty content to see China or the US get away with what you like, I imagine your clothes come from one of those countries and the computer you're typing on from another. I'm also slightly peeved that of the countries you listed, you didn't touch on any African countries, which I always find surprising given the magnitude of death tolls you tend to see in places like Sudan or Congo, yet seem to receive as much attention as if they were on Mars.

My line is fairly simple, if you're happy enough to wear clothes made in a sweatshop run by a one party dictatorship with it's own prison camps, I'm fairly sure your conscience will manage orange from a bellicose and bloody democracy.

Jayop

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

'Whataboutery' a word invented purely to justify hypocrisy.

To return to the point, yes I think you are pretty content to see China or the US get away with what you like, I imagine your clothes come from one of those countries and the computer you're typing on from another. I'm also slightly peeved that of the countries you listed, you didn't touch on any African countries, which I always find surprising given the magnitude of death tolls you tend to see in places like Sudan or Congo, yet seem to receive as much attention as if they were on Mars.

My line is fairly simple, if you're happy enough to wear clothes made in a sweatshop run by a one party dictatorship with it's own prison camps, I'm fairly sure your conscience will manage orange from a bellicose and bloody democracy.

Jesus you really don't get my point so if you don't know why I didn't mention African countries when I'm talking about rich western countries with terrible human rights records.

Irish Praetorian

Jayop wrote: »

Jesus you really don't get my point so if you don't know why I didn't mention African countries when I'm talking about rich western countries with terrible human rights records.

China, Iran, are hardly rich and western, heck the Russians despise being called Western apparently.

Not a NSA agent

This thread reads more like Netflix style recommendations of because you boycotted Israel we recommend... rather than why people shouldnt boycott Israel.

FatherTed

If people don't like the feis being in Israel then don't go. It's kinda like gay marriage, if you oppose it then don't marry a person of the same sex or lif you disagree with abortion then don't have an abortion.

So if some group or someone wants to go to Israel, what's it to you?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Hamas is a reactionary movement...

It is a terrorist organisation that wants to establish an Islamic state and will kill both Israeli and Palestinian civilians to further its aims.

You used the phrase about "atrocities against civilians. Simple as..."

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The end goal of BDS is to have Israel totally isolated internationally, to send a message to the Israeli government that a regime simply is not welcome at the dinner table of the free world if it commits atrocities against civilians. Simple as.

So what would you do about Hamas? Boycott? Sanction? Sever diplomatic ties? Or are "atrocities against civilians" acceptable if they are...what was your excuse again..."reactionary"?

lizzyman

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Have you ever considered just how ridiculous such an idea is? Ten countries, nine are dictatorships and people are content to see slaughter and violence whilst still continuing to do business with them, the tenth resembles more closely a society like ours and people find them repulsive.

I often wonder when I look at campaigns like BDS, is their objective to solve this problem by making the country they target the kind of brutal regime whose excesses they can more easily ignore.

Might be something to do with the lobbing of rocket attacks into houses, schools, restaurants and beaches in Gaza last year.

Either that or the quasi-apartheid treatment of Palestinians living in Israel.

And you wonder why the likes of Netanyahu are repulsive?

lizzyman

lizzyman wrote: »

Might be something to do with the lobbing of rocket attacks into houses, schools, restaurants and beaches in Gaza last year.

Which might in turn be something to do with where Islamic terrorists base their operations.

But certainly Israel's reaction (as reacting is apparently an excuse for Hamas terrorism) can be excessive and, even though they warn civilians of incoming fire, can result in horrific loss of life.

timhorgan

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Have you ever considered just how ridiculous such an idea is? Ten countries, nine are dictatorships and people are content to see slaughter and violence whilst still continuing to do business with them, the tenth resembles more closely a society like ours and people find them repulsive.

I often wonder when I look at campaigns like BDS, is their objective to solve this problem by making the country they target the kind of brutal regime whose excesses they can more easily ignore.

A new aspect of Zionist hasbara outlined in their latest propaganda instructions is-"whataboutery". This is designed to shift the spotlight from Israel but it is not working. There are many reaso

Israel has special trading facilities with the EU being treated as if it is a EU Member state. All the new applicants to the EU have had to meet strict human rights requirements- Israel does not comply with these. There are no EU visa restrictions on Israel as there are with most other non-EU countries.

In any case BDS is a non-violent movement and allows people all over the world to support justice for Palestinians.It is a great cause which is why it is gaining support worldwide.

BDS has been instrumental in moving the EU to insist that illegal settler products from the Occupied Territories must be labelled as such. Nethanyahu himself has stated that this will cost Israel $4.7 billion. In this case it is also all about the money - and that is why the Zionists are bleating. They have stolen Palestinian land and water and are now selling Palestinian produce.

The non-violent option is BDS - take it.

In conclusion, I would go even further. Irish passport-holders are flagged at entry and exit from Israel- their manual instructs the border police to treat all Irish with the same enhanced search and interrogation as they do Palestinians. Ireland should enforce a strict visa regime through the EU for all Israelis and all Israeli government officials and ALL people of military age should be refused visas until Palestinians have freedom of movement as well.

Who can doubt that the arrogant Zionist settlers, many of whom are spivs and crooks from the FSU and US would quickly change their tune if they could not gain entry to the EU.

jank

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Because as we all know, the big proponents of Western Imperialism in the Middle East have been Yazidis, Eastern Christians, Shia Muslims and women...

Don't forget the homosexuals!

hatrickpatrick

Jayop wrote: »

Haha, really?

Every EU government openly does business with Israel and none of them ever openly criticise them. You're mistaking a people's movement of critical thinking against Israel for a governmental movement.

I agree, but the EU is at least starting to make noises suggesting that it is tired of defending the indefensible.

hatrickpatrick

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

But that's my point, people are deluding themselves with the misapprehension that Israel is some superlative vile foe and that they're making a great moral stand in condemning/boycotting them. In reality, it's simply an exercise in going along with far more virulently anti-Israeli sentiment in other parts of the world, whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to the far more troubling actions of many of those countries, because doing something about them is too inconvenient. It's one thing to neglect the crimes of others on the international stage, but to turn that stage into a weapon for many of those vile regimes in the first place is very objectionable.

I don't think that's the reason. Israel is especially despised because the United States supports it and Europe (until recently) has tolerated it. That situation underlines very clearly that Western governments are built entirely on hypocrisy, and that the rhetoric we are subjected to about how the West has morals is complete bullsh!t. Israel has become the biggest sore-thumb indicator of how America preaches one thing and practises another, and Europe goes along with this rather than opposing.

That's why it attracts more controversy than other regimes, in my view. Just an opinion though.

hatrickpatrick

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Have you ever considered just how ridiculous such an idea is? Ten countries, nine are dictatorships and people are content to see slaughter and violence whilst still continuing to do business with them, the tenth resembles more closely a society like ours and people find them repulsive.

How does Israel resemble a society like ours? We haven't taken thousands of miles of land from civilians by military force and used an ancient religious myth as a justification for doing so.

Nodin

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Have you ever considered just how ridiculous such an idea is? Ten countries, nine are dictatorships and people are content to see slaughter and violence whilst still continuing to do business with them, the tenth resembles more closely a society like ours and people find them repulsive.
.............

Who are we colonising? Cork?

AndonHandon

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How does Israel resemble a society like ours? We haven't taken thousands of miles of land from civilians by military force and used an ancient religious myth as a justification for doing so.

Ehhh . . .

wes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm certain the Israelis will be thrilled to know they can expel the Palestinian population wholesale and without exception.

They have done exactly that numerous times. They are demolishing homes on a regular basis, and no one is all that bothered.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Because they don't have a choice. You don't get to negotiate with people you like, you get to negotiate with the people who you are forced to deal with in order to get what you want. Palestine doesn't need to convince the rest of the world that there should be a Palestinian state, it needs to convince Israel and doing that may well require conceding thing it doesn't want to, but there isn't really an alternative.

They tried. Israel refused to budge. Hence BDS, which is an alternative, and is starting to bite, hence a 14 page thread of annoyed supporters moaning about it.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Israel does indeed call itself a Jewish state, as almost all other states in the region ascribe to themselves some kind of religious affiliation, Israel at least commits itself to the equality of its citizenry though, something it out does those other regional states on. Also it's not Biblical, the Jews don't believe the New Testament, just the old one, the Torah, so Torah-ical terms maybe.

Old testament is part of the Bible last I checked, secondly all those Palestinians being occupied aren't enjoying any kind of equality and ignoring that fact is an utter absurdity.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The UN Security Council Veto, yet another reason to abolish that madhouse run by the lunatics institution.

Great idea, because having no UN will be so much better.

Anyway didn't reply to everything, as the multi quotes are annoying people.

wes

wes wrote: »

They tried. Israel refused to budge. Hence BDS, which is an alternative, and is starting to bite, hence a 14 page thread of annoyed supporters moaning about it.

Why are supporters of the BDS moaning about it? Because they overstate its significance or because they are confused by the question, why don't Hamas face at least the same action for their atrocities against civilians?

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are supporters of the BDS moaning about it?

They aren't. You however are.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they overstate its significance or because they are confused by the question,

We know BDS is biting hence all the nonsense coming from those against it.

Deleted User wrote: »

why don't Hamas face at least the same action for their atrocities against civilians?

Well if you can find me some produce made by Hamas, I would be happy to do so, but seeing as Hamas are already being punished and they don't sell any good that can be boycotted, and you know this btw, and as such what you suggest is impossible, as there Hamas have nothing to boycott, and are already under sanction by world governments.

So you knowingly ask a question, that you know the answer to, and I have to wonder why? Seems to me that asking for Israel to punished for murdering civilians is your main issue, for some odd reason, and you seem to pretend that Hamas isn't being punished for some odd reason as well.

wes

wes wrote: »

They aren't. You however are.

"Amused by" and "moaning about" are very different!

wes wrote: »

We know BDS is biting hence all the nonsense coming from those against it.

Well you think it is, and this amuses me, so we're both happy with it.

wes wrote: »

Well if you can find me some produce made by Hamas, I would be happy to do so...

True, there isn't a market for rockets, tunnels and whatever else they are famous for producing. But I think a boycott means more than just not buying produce, denying them the sight of Irish dancers is apparently a growing aspect!

Irish Praetorian

Fair warning, if you hate multi quotes look away now, having a few guys at once is fun but this is something else

lizzyman wrote: »

Might be something to do with the lobbing of rocket attacks into houses, schools, restaurants and beaches in Gaza last year.

Either that or the quasi-apartheid treatment of Palestinians living in Israel.

And you wonder why the likes of Netanyahu are repulsive?

So your complaint is that the media is allowed to see the dark underside of Israel, and you don't like it? Well great, come back when you've seen a few more dark undersides and we might talk.

Oh and if you think I've been defending Netanyahu, take another look at my posts.

timhorgan wrote: »

A new aspect of Zionist hasbara outlined in their latest propaganda instructions is-"whataboutery". This is designed to shift the spotlight from Israel but it is not working. There are many reaso

Israel has special trading facilities with the EU being treated as if it is a EU Member state. All the new applicants to the EU have had to meet strict human rights requirements- Israel does not comply with these. There are no EU visa restrictions on Israel as there are with most other non-EU countries.

In any case BDS is a non-violent movement and allows people all over the world to support justice for Palestinians.It is a great cause which is why it is gaining support worldwide.

BDS has been instrumental in moving the EU to insist that illegal settler products from the Occupied Territories must be labelled as such. Nethanyahu himself has stated that this will cost Israel $4.7 billion. In this case it is also all about the money - and that is why the Zionists are bleating. They have stolen Palestinian land and water and are now selling Palestinian produce.

The non-violent option is BDS - take it.

In conclusion, I would go even further. Irish passport-holders are flagged at entry and exit from Israel- their manual instructs the border police to treat all Irish with the same enhanced search and interrogation as they do Palestinians. Ireland should enforce a strict visa regime through the EU for all Israelis and all Israeli government officials and ALL people of military age should be refused visas until Palestinians have freedom of movement as well.

Who can doubt that the arrogant Zionist settlers, many of whom are spivs and crooks from the FSU and US would quickly change their tune if they could not gain entry to the EU.

Could I trouble you for that manual you're quoting from, you might understand why I'm sceptical to take such claims at face value.

The EU Visa point is actually interesting, something new for a change, although I suspect it might be a by-product of the amount of trade and knowledge transfer going on between Israel and Europe.

As for BDS itself, those claims have been made before, what I haven't had answered is the question of objectives. Are you telling me that you believe the BDS demands are going to lead to ANY improvement in the situation? That dumping a million former settlers and up to five million Palestinian refugees in Israel proper is going to precipitate a better society? And do you seriously claim that such an exchange is going to be enough for the likes of Hamas and friends, that it will bring a peaceful relations between the two sides?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think that's the reason. Israel is especially despised because the United States supports it and Europe (until recently) has tolerated it. That situation underlines very clearly that Western governments are built entirely on hypocrisy, and that the rhetoric we are subjected to about how the West has morals is complete bullsh!t. Israel has become the biggest sore-thumb indicator of how America preaches one thing and practises another, and Europe goes along with this rather than opposing.

That's why it attracts more controversy than other regimes, in my view. Just an opinion though.

That's actually pretty close to my own opinion on the matter if I'm being honest, but then again, I think the implication that if we enforced a peace deal between the two sides that other trouble makers around the world make start to take notice is a bit optimistic.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How does Israel resemble a society like ours? We haven't taken thousands of miles of land from civilians by military force and used an ancient religious myth as a justification for doing so.

Democratic elections? Rule of law? Largely secular principles in justice? A liberal culture for women? A measure of gay rights? I always found the idea of 'gays for Palestine' quite amusing considering the kind of treatment gay people endure there.

Nodin wrote: »

Who are we colonising? Cork?

Yeah the idea that we might be developing parasitic relationships with less developed countries in order to access their raw materials at low prices is certainly unthinkable...

wes wrote: »

They have done exactly that numerous times. They are demolishing homes on a regular basis, and no one is all that bothered.

And yet somehow, the Palestinian population is growing steadily, even the Arab Israeli population is growing - they really need to take some lessons on 'ethnic cleansing and getting away with it' from the Turks.

They tried. Israel refused to budge. Hence BDS, which is an alternative, and is starting to bite, hence a 14 page thread of annoyed supporters moaning about it.

I've gotta confess this is actually one of the more convincing parts of your argument, actually makes me re-consider my own position.

Old testament is part of the Bible last I checked, secondly all those Palestinians being occupied aren't enjoying any kind of equality and ignoring that fact is an utter absurdity.

The 'Palestinians' aren't it's citizenry though are they?

Great idea, because having no UN will be so much better. Anyway didn't reply to everything, as the multi quotes are annoying people.

Might spare us pandering to 3rd world despots with as much interest in democracy as gay rights. If we're going to fund the damn thing I see no reason why it shouldn't be a committed forum for the advancement of liberal principles. And fair enough with the multi quotes.

Nodin

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Yeah the idea that we might be developing parasitic relationships with less developed countries in order to access their raw materials at low prices is certainly unthinkable...

.

A false equivalence if ever there was one.

You know that the Israeli intelligence forces blackmail gay Palestinians into spying?
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/gay-palestinians-are-being-blackmailed-into-working-as-informants

It would seem "gay rights" and all that respect stuff are actually "Israeli gay rights"
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.617280

hatrickpatrick

AndonHandon wrote: »

Ehhh . . .

Ehhh...?

Irish Praetorian

Nodin wrote: »

A false equivalence if ever there was one.

You know that the Israeli intelligence forces blackmail gay Palestinians into spying?
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/gay-palestinians-are-being-blackmailed-into-working-as-informants

It would seem "gay rights" and all that respect stuff are actually "Israeli gay rights"
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.617280

Some choice quotes from your first piece

"While his sexuality remains hidden from his direct family, Saif said local Palestinian Authority police are aware and keep files on him and other homosexuals, blackmailing them into working as spies and informants."

“If I didn’t go, I was sure the Israelis would inform the Palestinian Authority, who view homosexuality as a sickness linked to collaboration with Israel. It would mark me as a traitor.”

"Life for Saif and Majd is one of forced conformity. Saif believes most gay Palestinian men end up marrying to appease family obligations and avoid the truth of their own identities. “Many of these men don’t like women, but there's a social pressure to get married,” he said. “A close friend of mine, who is gay, wants to get married because he sees homosexuality as ‘not right’."

It's fair to blame Israel for quite a few things, but the backward attitude to gay people in Palestine is not one of them.

hatrickpatrick

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

That's actually pretty close to my own opinion on the matter if I'm being honest, but then again, I think the implication that if we enforced a peace deal between the two sides that other trouble makers around the world make start to take notice is a bit optimistic.

I got the impression you were pro-Israel...?

Democratic elections? Rule of law? Largely secular principles in justice? A liberal culture for women? A measure of gay rights? I always found the idea of 'gays for Palestine' quite amusing considering the kind of treatment gay people endure there.

None of that matters. All of the above apply only to Israeli citizens. Nobody is denying that Israel treats its own citizens well, it's the people living on land Israel's citizens feel entitled to steal based on religious dogma who are being treated badly. The Palestinians living in East Jeusalem and the West Bank are not Israeli citizens and do not want to be. Those territories fall outside the internationally accepted border of the Israeli state and as such, any action whatsoever taken in those areas by the Israeli government is undemocratic and oppressive. The very presence of Israeli authority institutions - cops, government, planners - in those geographical areas is anti-democratic, as those areas are inhabited by a majority of people who have never consented to joining the Israeli state, and are only ruled by it through military force.

No amount of good deeds from Israel will change the fact that they are occupiers, and occupying a territory without the democratic consent of the people is always wrong.

And fair enough with the multi quotes.

Some men, just want to watch the world burn. >_>

Irish Praetorian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I got the impression you were pro-Israel...?

I would like to think I'm pro Israel in a sense other than the kind of pro-Israel commentator you see who essentially picks the Israeli side in anything whether right or wrong. Or US Republicans as they are sometimes known. If Israel needs something it's true friends, not empty loons who will just fawn and praise it every-time it sneezes, but people who can actually say 'I understand your position, but that is not carte blanche to do whatever you like'.

None of that matters. All of the above apply only to Israeli citizens. Nobody is denying that Israel treats its own citizens well, it's the people living on land Israel's citizens feel entitled to steal based on religious dogma who are being treated badly. The Palestinians living in East Jeusalem and the West Bank are not Israeli citizens and do not want to be. Those territories fall outside the internationally accepted border of the Israeli state and as such, any action whatsoever taken in those areas by the Israeli government is undemocratic and oppressive. The very presence of Israeli authority institutions - cops, government, planners - in those geographical areas is anti-democratic, as those areas are inhabited by a majority of people who have never consented to joining the Israeli state, and are only ruled by it through military force.

No amount of good deeds from Israel will change the fact that they are occupiers, and occupying a territory without the democratic consent of the people is always wrong.

I think we might agree on the common ground that there should be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and it should not be littered with Israeli settlements and checkpoints. There should indeed by no Israeli occupation precisely because it is without the democratic consent of another people who, to put it mildly, want the Israelis to get the hell out.

I would simply make the case that the borders between the two should take account of new realities - I mean you mentioned East Jerusalem, but surely the fact that the area is now more Jewish than Palestinian should mitigate against making it part of a new Palestinian state, if for no other reason than to avoid the mass relocation of a quarter of a million Jews.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

"Amused by" and "moaning about" are very different!

Well you think it is, and this amuses me, so we're both happy with it.

Amused, moaning, doesn't really matter either way.

Deleted User wrote: »

True, there isn't a market for rockets, tunnels and whatever else they are famous for producing. But I think a boycott means more than just not buying produce, denying them the sight of Irish dancers is apparently a growing aspect!

There is a huge market for weapons the world over, but Hamas aren't selling them, seeing as there already sanctioned.

As for the target for BDS, seeing as the Zionist Organization of America are organizing this event, and seeing as there pro-settler, there a valid target for BDS, seeing as for some reason world governments are ok with the supporting of gun toting maniacs running around stealing other peoples land for some reason. So care to provide any reason why a pro-settler organization like the ZOA shouldn't be a target of BDS?

wes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

And yet somehow, the Palestinian population is growing steadily, even the Arab Israeli population is growing - they really need to take some lessons on 'ethnic cleansing and getting away with it' from the Turks.

The Palestinians are being pushed into smaller and smaller Bantustans, with the best land being reserved for settlers. These are then separated into non-contiguous area's, so its easier to control the occupied populace. So yes, removing people from land into smaller and smaller area's is ethnic cleansing.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The 'Palestinians' aren't it's citizenry though are they?

There stateless, and have been made stateless by Israel. As for them not being citizens, the South African apartheid regime tried to pull that trick as well, by saying the indigenous populace they were citizens of Bantustans, which they claims were countries of there own, but in actuality they were nothing of the sort. Israel rules of the Palestinians on land that they have 0 intention of giving up, and as such are denying them basic rights. Denying citizenship is a great way to pretend that people are not your problem, but the fact is that the Palestinians have lived where they are before the state of Israel came into existence, and are being denied citizenship on racial grounds.

IMHO, if Israel wants the land, then they need to take the people as well. The Palestinians have as much right to self determination as Israeli's, IMHO.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Might spare us pandering to 3rd world despots with as much interest in democracy as gay rights. If we're going to fund the damn thing I see no reason why it shouldn't be a committed forum for the advancement of liberal principles. And fair enough with the multi quotes.

I would suggest that the UN for all its issues is still better than no UN. Unfortunately real-politik means dealing with awful people, and I don't see them changing minds in the short term. Yes, the UN needs to change, but the states with vetos, won't allow that to happen, and each will defend there own pet despots.

Irish Praetorian

wes wrote: »

The Palestinians are being pushed into smaller and smaller Bantustans, with the best land being reserved for settlers. These are then separated into non-contiguous area's, so its easier to control the occupied populace. So yes, removing people from land into smaller and smaller area's is ethnic cleansing.

Forgive me but I actually thought the hyperbole crowd had it right the first time when they dubbed it colonization, displacement might be another one. It's occurring slowly and steadily, but it has not a fraction of the death toll that we observed in instances like Yugoslavia or Dafur. As for the chopping up into small bits observation, if you look at the area of control v settlement maps of the West Bank, a lot of those tendrils are nothing more than roads leading to settlements. Most of the actual settlements are concentrated in Eastern Jerusalem and West of Nablus on the border, nothing says the remainder could not easily be transferred back to a Palestinian state.

There stateless, and have been made stateless by Israel. As for them not being citizens, the South African apartheid regime tried to pull that trick as well, by saying the indigenous populace they were citizens of Bantustans, which they claims were countries of there own, but in actuality they were nothing of the sort. Israel rules of the Palestinians on land that they have 0 intention of giving up, and as such are denying them basic rights. Denying citizenship is a great way to pretend that people are not your problem, but the fact is that the Palestinians have lived where they are before the state of Israel came into existence, and are being denied citizenship on racial grounds.

IMHO, if Israel wants the land, then they need to take the people as well. The Palestinians have as much right to self determination as Israeli's, IMHO.

Close but no cigar, the bantustans were essentially the African Colonial Society 2.0, an attempt to encourage Black South Africans to go elsewhere. Israel on the other hand has never recognised the West Bank or Gaza as part of it's territory, with the exception of East Jerusalem, which does allow Palestinian locals to apply for Israeli citizenship. I find it highly unlikely that Israel would not offer the same deal for any territory it receives in a lasting peace agreement, as I find it highly unlikely they would wish to retain control of those tendrils that give Palestine is archipelago look.

I would suggest that the UN for all its issues is still better than no UN. Unfortunately real-politik means dealing with awful people, and I don't see them changing minds in the short term. Yes, the UN needs to change, but the states with vetos, won't allow that to happen, and each will defend there own pet despots.

I'm not so sure, the UNHRC typically spends more time issuing condemnations about Israel, than it does the rest of the world put together. That should give you an indication as to the kind of absurdity that dominates the organisation. I readily concede its use in tackling global affairs such as vaccination against infectious diseases, but it's political use has long since expired.

wes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Forgive me but I actually thought the hyperbole crowd had it right the first time when they dubbed it colonization, displacement might be another one. It's occurring slowly and steadily, but it has not a fraction of the death toll that we observed in instances like Yugoslavia or Dafur. As for the chopping up into small bits observation, if you look at the area of control v settlement maps of the West Bank, a lot of those tendrils are nothing more than roads leading to settlements. Most of the actual settlements are concentrated in Eastern Jerusalem and West of Nablus on the border, nothing says the remainder could not easily be transferred back to a Palestinian state.

Close but no cigar, the bantustans were essentially the African Colonial Society 2.0, an attempt to encourage Black South Africans to go elsewhere. Israel on the other hand has never recognised the West Bank or Gaza as part of it's territory, with the exception of East Jerusalem, which does allow Palestinian locals to apply for Israeli citizenship. I find it highly unlikely that Israel would not offer the same deal for any territory it receives in a lasting peace agreement, as I find it highly unlikely they would wish to retain control of those tendrils that give Palestine is archipelago look.

Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to build in the largest area of the West Bank, Area C, hence putting them into smaller and smaller spaces. Also, they want to control the Jordan valley permanently, mean no border with Jordan for the Palestinians, and also no control of there air space etc. It seem pretty clear that Israel intends to stay, as under every single Israeli government since 1967 settlements have expanded, and they have actually seen some of its greatest growth during the peace process.

The settlement are sitting on water aquifers and taking up the best land, and settlers regularly destroy Palestinian crops. The system of check points destroy any change of them having a functioning economy (you can google the world banks report on this).

BTW, your completely wrong in that Israel doesn't intend to basically split the West Bank, there actively doing exactly that in settlements that they fully intend to keep:

Dividing the West Bank, and Deepening a Rift

---

Construction in E1, in West Bank territory that Israel captured in the 1967 war, would connect the large Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem and create a large block of Israeli settlements in the center of the West Bank. Access to the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem would be limited to narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem. Critics see development of E1 as a threat to the meaningful contiguity of a Palestinian state, such as that endorsed by the United Nations last week, because it would leave some Palestinian areas connected to one another only by roads with few exits or by circuitous routes.

---

Israel towards the Palestinians is to offer a Bantustan, and expect them to accept. If they want the land they should take the people, or give the land to the PA.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm not so sure, the UNHRC typically spends more time issuing condemnations about Israel, than it does the rest of the world put together. That should give you an indication as to the kind of absurdity that dominates the organisation. I readily concede its use in tackling global affairs such as vaccination against infectious diseases, but it's political use has long since expired.

I disagree, despite its fault, it still has political purpose as it gets people talking, and the faults can certainly fixed. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Nodin

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

It's fair to blame Israel for quite a few things, but the backward attitude to gay people in Palestine is not one of them.

"cherry picked" is another nice phrase.

And the whole part about taking advantage of that to their own ends isn't their fault either, I suppose?

jank

Nodin wrote: »

"cherry picked" is another nice phrase.

And the whole part about taking advantage of that to their own ends isn't their fault either, I suppose?

Well if people are cherry picking causes that are fashionable one can't certainly then become critical of truths even if one deems it cherry picked. It is still true.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

"cherry picked" is another nice phrase.

And the whole part about taking advantage of that to their own ends isn't their fault either, I suppose?

Islamic terrorists hate homosexuals?

I wouldn't say his point was cherry picking so much as stating the obvious, I think we all know it's kinda fundamental to fundamentalists.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Islamic terrorists hate homosexuals?

I wouldn't say his point was cherry picking so much as stating the obvious, I think we all know it's kinda fundamental to fundamentalists.

....but it's a bit rich to to say that Israel are a bunch of saints on the matter when they use that very intolerance to force homosexuals to spy on their own people.

Irish Praetorian

wes wrote: »

Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to build in the largest area of the West Bank, Area C, hence putting them into smaller and smaller spaces. Also, they want to control the Jordan valley permanently, mean no border with Jordan for the Palestinians, and also no control of there air space etc. It seem pretty clear that Israel intends to stay, as under every single Israeli government since 1967 settlements have expanded, and they have actually seen some of its greatest growth during the peace process.

The settlement are sitting on water aquifers and taking up the best land, and settlers regularly destroy Palestinian crops. The system of check points destroy any change of them having a functioning economy (you can google the world banks report on this).

Again this all seems to be predicated upon the fault assumption that any peace deal between Israel and Palestine is going to involve Israel giving up nothing. That's already been shown as false not only in the Egyptian peace deal, but also in the complete extirpation of all Israeli settlers from Gaza during the early 2000's. We cannot simply start from the position of assuming the present horrors represent the new everyday of a potential peace deal.

BTW, your completely wrong in that Israel doesn't intend to basically split the West Bank, there actively doing exactly that in settlements that they fully intend to keep:

Israel towards the Palestinians is to offer a Bantustan, and expect them to accept. If they want the land they should take the people, or give the land to the PA.

E1 is an irrelevancy for the simple reason that Maale Adummium is not some outpost on the easternmost border of Israel, it's essentially a Jerusalem suburb. Any attempt to cut the West Bank in two is quickly rubbished by the looming urban area that is Jericho, which is almost exclusively Palestinian.

I disagree, despite its fault, it still has political purpose as it gets people talking, and the faults can certainly fixed. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

People talked before the UN and will talk without it. In it's present form it serves as a talking shop for shameless dictators to wax poetic about how they are being oppressed while they slaughter their own populations. I think the reflections of the Netherlands on the question of civil rights versus public order might be interesting, I think the reflections of North Korea on the matter would be insulting.

Nodin wrote: »

"cherry picked" is another nice phrase.

And the whole part about taking advantage of that to their own ends isn't their fault either, I suppose?

No its a perfectly logical extrapolation on their part when faced with a population holding some pretty reprehensible homophobic views. However much they might exploit gay Palestinians, the Israelis can't claim credit for creating homophobia there.

Nodin

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

No its a perfectly logical extrapolation on their part when faced with a population holding some pretty reprehensible homophobic views. However much they might exploit gay Palestinians, the Israelis can't claim credit for creating homophobia there.

.....but, as they are willing to subject Palestinians to it, shows that they have no interest in gay rights per se, just Israeli gay rights.

Irish Praetorian

Nodin wrote: »

.....but, as they are willing to subject Palestinians to it, shows that they have no interest in gay rights per se, just Israeli gay rights.

It does seem like they have their hands full trying to protect their own citizens let alone anyone else's too. Still, criticism of Israeli failure to advance to cause of gay liberation in the occupied territories is a novel criticism I will give you that.

OneOfThem

Is Israel a big Irish trad music stronghold?

wes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Again this all seems to be predicated upon the fault assumption that any peace deal between Israel and Palestine is going to involve Israel giving up nothing. That's already been shown as false not only in the Egyptian peace deal, but also in the complete extirpation of all Israeli settlers from Gaza during the early 2000's. We cannot simply start from the position of assuming the present horrors represent the new everyday of a potential peace deal.

Israel left Gaza and then grabbed a bunch of land in the West Bank. They didn't really give anything back seeing as they grabbed more land elsewhere.

Secondly, I can only really deal with the present. The Israeli leadership for the last decade made it very clear there not giving anything up, and the current government is even more against a peace deal than the last few, and are actively creating facts on the ground to kill a 2 state solution.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

E1 is an irrelevancy for the simple reason that Maale Adummium is not some outpost on the easternmost border of Israel, it's essentially a Jerusalem suburb. Any attempt to cut the West Bank in two is quickly rubbished by the looming urban area that is Jericho, which is almost exclusively Palestinian.

So the US, UN and everyone else who are also against the E1 expansion are wrong? Sorry, but even when the US are against something, I think it more than fair to say that E1 will cut the West Bank in half. Israel intent is pretty clear as every single government since 1967 has been creating facts on the ground, which tell us all we need to know.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

People talked before the UN and will talk without it. In it's present form it serves as a talking shop for shameless dictators to wax poetic about how they are being oppressed while they slaughter their own populations. I think the reflections of the Netherlands on the question of civil rights versus public order might be interesting, I think the reflections of North Korea on the matter would be insulting.

So? Again, better to have a forum to talk and who cares if some people are insulted, by some rubbish some nutters say. Again, having a UN is far superior to no UN. Its far from perfect, but its the best forum we have right now, and it is in need of a great deal of improvement, which can certainly be done over time.

Irish Praetorian

wes wrote: »

Israel left Gaza and then grabbed a bunch of land in the West Bank. They didn't really give anything back seeing as they grabbed more land elsewhere.

You really think terrorist groups in Gaza launch attacks on Israel because they are aggrieved by the treatment of their kin off in the distance?

Secondly, I can only really deal with the present. The Israeli leadership for the last decade made it very clear there not giving anything up, and the current government is even more against a peace deal than the last few, and are actively creating facts on the ground to kill a 2 state solution.

Sharon was certainly willing to ride roughshod over the extremists if he though a deal was possible and Olmert was at least willing to consider the kind of peace deal that would be needed. It's fair enough to be disappointed by the present government but government in Israel are fragile things.

So the US, UN and everyone else who are also against the E1 expansion are wrong? Sorry, but even when the US are against something, I think it more than fair to say that E1 will cut the West Bank in half. Israel intent is pretty clear as every single government since 1967 has been creating facts on the ground, which tell us all we need to know.

Simply take a look at the E1 Zone on a map of the West Bank, it has much more to do with Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem than it does cutting a potential Palestine in half. You might decry Israeli governments for conducting settlments during the past 50 years, but for half that period the Palestinian leadership refused to consider the right of Israel to even exist.

So? Again, better to have a forum to talk and who cares if some people are insulted, by some rubbish some nutters say. Again, having a UN is far superior to no UN. Its far from perfect, but its the best forum we have right now, and it is in need of a great deal of improvement, which can certainly be done over time.

Well here's to a radically improved UN then!