Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public bodi

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Cardinal said:

Oh, and another thing: anybody who argues against Israel's sovereignty in any future state can be categorically dismissed as hopelessly biased at best and a warmonger at worst. I would equally expect you and anybody else to categorically dismiss anyone who would argue against future Palestinian autonomy. In the present, a two state solution in which both states' sovereignty and security are recognized is the most viable option going forward, and so far everybody wanting a different option really just wants to see one side lose, and can be safely and categorically dismissed.

Click to expand...

one one hand you insist you advocate a two state solution
on the other hand, you also advocate continuing to occupy that second state

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Cardinal said:

Despite the present economic and military superiority of the Israeli state, it's actually irrelevant and points to the larger issue of the why the Palestinian Authority's position plays such a significant role in the continuation of the conflict. The Palestinians and Israel can, for all practical purposes, be considered to be at a state of war. If during peace negotiations one side demands a militarily significant vantage point and refuses to recognize the security and sovereignty of the other, that can be considered a deal killer...for anybody. The West Bank is that militarily strategic point and is why Israel, not including fundamentalists such as the Jewish Underground, is forced to occupy the West Bank. The West Bank overlooks the valley to the west containing Israel's agriculture and industry, and without a guarantee that it would not be attacked when control is handed over wholly to the PA, that valley becomes massively vulnerable. The double standard in this case is that no other country on earth would be expected to accept such a demand.

All of this may seem something of a non sequitur, but it bears repeating from time to time as this very basic fact gets lost in the noise quite easily.

Click to expand...

I understand why it may be irrelevant to you and others, but the fact is that one of the primary reasons Israel receives more criticism that Palestine is because people genuinely believe that Israel's political, economic and military power make it worthy of more criticism. Instead of acknowledge that this is behind many people's "unbalanced" criticism of Israel, you jump right to antisemitism and/or ignorance as a motivator which means that you have inaccurately judged the root of people's "unbalanced" opinions.

As far as that article went:

It's really not out of the ordinary at all. Even Abbas referred to the stabbings as the acts of martyrs. And again, in that thread, the question of whether that would be acceptable for an American lawmaker to do the same thing in the case of the Boston marathon attack was pointedly ignored. Hence the double standard.

Click to expand...

You're talking about one word: "martyrs". I stated that the articles I read did not describe the situation as you are describing it. Both the New York Times and Reuters stated that the attackers targeted "Israelis" not "Jews" - a distinction you made clear. The New York Times article also provided both Netanyahu and his allies' perspective as well as the perspective of the lawmakers who met with the family. You simply parroted Netanyahu and his allies' perspective which makes me think that you're a lot more biased in one direction than you're presenting yourself as.

That is, actually, quite antisemitic when you step back and see that Israel is the most democratic and secular country in the entire region (with Turkey in second place as a constitutional republic). Focusing on Israel as being undemocratic and non-secular specifically requires ignoring every monarchy, tin hat dictatorship and theocracy surrounding it. Focusing on Israel requires such a special exemption for every other country as to defy credulity.

Click to expand...

Just because Israel is the "most secular" country does not mean that it is entirely secular. It is thus not antisemitic to think that it should be entirely secular. It sounds like you're looking for reasons to call criticism of Israel antisemitic. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you don't seem to think any focused criticism of Israel can be anything but antisemitic which is something I don't buy into.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Cardinal said:

Oh, and another thing: anybody who argues against Israel's sovereignty in any future state can be categorically dismissed as hopelessly biased at best and a warmonger at worst. I would equally expect you and anybody else to categorically dismiss anyone who would argue against future Palestinian autonomy. In the present, a two state solution in which both states' sovereignty and security are recognized is the most viable option going forward, and so far everybody wanting a different option really just wants to see one side lose, and can be safely and categorically dismissed.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you realize this, but all you're doing is presenting your own opinions on I/P conflict and stating that anyone who disagrees with them should either be dismissed or considered antisemitic, LOL.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

TheDemSocialist said:

:lamo They're called Jaffa cistrus fruits because thats where they are exported from. Theyre are actually picked from occupied Palestinians lands

Click to expand...

Who made them Palestinian? You?

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Cardinal said:

Oh, and another thing: anybody who argues against Israel's sovereignty in any future state can be categorically dismissed as hopelessly biased at best and a warmonger at worst. I would equally expect you and anybody else to categorically dismiss anyone who would argue against future Palestinian autonomy. In the present, a two state solution in which both states' sovereignty and security are recognized is the most viable option going forward, and so far everybody wanting a different option really just wants to see one side lose, and can be safely and categorically dismissed.

Click to expand...

What about those of us that recognize that while an independent Palestinian state on some portion of the WB and Gaza is the right idea, there is zero chance of actually making that happen because of the rejectonist ideology and leadership of the Palestinians? Call us "realists"...

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

justabubba said:

one one hand you insist you advocate a two state solution
on the other hand, you also advocate continuing to occupy that second state

Click to expand...

I'd love for them to be independent on most of the WB and Gaza if they were prepared to live at peace next to the Jews.

But they are not, so not really sure what the alternative is at this stage.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

TheDemSocialist said:

So its anti-Semetic because you think its inherently hypocritical?

Click to expand...

It seems to be about the way. It's odd that one cannot criticize Israel without invoking this conspiracy against the Jewish people some want to allude to existing. There's plenty of critique against Israeli policy, and I'm not sure that one needs to constantly list all the things they find objectionable when making a specific argument against some country or some country's policies.

As for this boycott, I wouldn't go out of my way to boycott anything from Israel, but I don't think they are this completely innocent country with benevolent policies and actions just trying to live peacefully. Both Palestine and Israel have created the mess they are in and both proliferate it. We shouldn't really have much to do with either side.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

justabubba said:

one one hand you insist you advocate a two state solution
on the other hand, you also advocate continuing to occupy that second state

Click to expand...

What part of "sovereignty" was I unclear on?

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Cardinal said:

What part of "sovereignty" was I unclear on?

Click to expand...

the part where you continue to defend the occupation of the non-israeli lands

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

justabubba said:

the part where you continue to defend the occupation of the non-israeli lands

Click to expand...

Then you need to go back and read my posts.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

ThePlayDrive said:

I'm not sure if you realize this, but all you're doing is presenting your own opinions on I/P conflict and stating that anyone who disagrees with them should either be dismissed or considered antisemitic, LOL.

Click to expand...

I'm stating that anyone who wants a peaceful solution will want the two state option. However, I'm not always known for thinking outside the box, so if you have a better idea then I'm listening. My IQ isn't a billion, so I'm sure there are avenues I haven't considered.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

CJ 2.0 said:

What about those of us that recognize that while an independent Palestinian state on some portion of the WB and Gaza is the right idea, there is zero chance of actually making that happen because of the rejectonist ideology and leadership of the Palestinians? Call us "realists"...

Click to expand...

The likelihood of the two state solution manifesting in the near future is another can of worms. However, to repeat what I said to Theplaydrive: I'm stating that anyone who wants a peaceful solution will want the two state option. However, I'm not always known for thinking outside the box, so if you have a better idea then I'm listening. My IQ isn't a billion, so I'm sure there are avenues I haven't considered.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

ThePlayDrive said:

I understand why it may be irrelevant to you and others, but the fact is that one of the primary reasons Israel receives more criticism that Palestine is because people genuinely believe that Israel's political, economic and military power make it worthy of more criticism. Instead of acknowledge that this is behind many people's "unbalanced" criticism of Israel, you jump right to antisemitism and/or ignorance as a motivator which means that you have inaccurately judged the root of people's "unbalanced" opinions.

Click to expand...

Those facts are only relevant to those who are hopelessly biased and rely on a massive double standard in order to hold their position. No other country on earth would be expected to accept receiving regular attacks against its citizens and its soil on the basis that its military is superior. That expectation is completely insane, yet it is a regular demand made of Israel. Only someone who was antisemitic would make that demand, seeing Israel's ethnic...uniqueness compared to every other country on earth.

You're talking about one word: "martyrs". I stated that the articles I read did not describe the situation as you are describing it. Both the New York Times and Reuters stated that the attackers targeted "Israelis" not "Jews" - a distinction you made clear. The New York Times article also provided both Netanyahu and his allies' perspective as well as the perspective of the lawmakers who met with the family. You simply parroted Netanyahu and his allies' perspective which makes me think that you're a lot more biased in one direction than you're presenting yourself as.

Click to expand...

Read the article I'm referring to again, it's all there. The word martyr is regularly used by the Palestinian leadership when describing those who were killed in the line of murdering Jewish citizens. See Abbas's speech in response to the stabbings against Jews. I'm curious: can you show me one example where someone was described as a "martyr" in a non-disparaging manner? In any case, you're getting hung up on one word, and missing the larger point, which is that those who defended those who comforted the families of terrorists and described the terrorists as martyrs point blank refused to answer whether it would be acceptable for American lawmakers to do the same in the case of the Boston Marathon terrorists. They had to avoid answering because to do so would demonstrate their egregious double standard, and you see those double standards pop up instantaneously for those who are ignorant and/or antisemitic.

ThePlayDrive said:

Just because Israel is the "most secular" country does not mean that it is entirely secular. It is thus not antisemitic to think that it should be entirely secular. It sounds like you're looking for reasons to call criticism of Israel antisemitic. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you don't seem to think any focused criticism of Israel can be anything but antisemitic which is something I don't buy into.

Click to expand...

When you criticize Israel for not being quite secular enough for your taste, even though as you say it is the most secular country in the region, but make an exemption for the theocracies, dictatorships and monarchies immediately surrounding it, does that sound rational to you?

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Cardinal said:

The likelihood of the two state solution manifesting in the near future is another can of worms. However, to repeat what I said to Theplaydrive: I'm stating that anyone who wants a peaceful solution will want the two state option. However, I'm not always known for thinking outside the box, so if you have a better idea then I'm listening. My IQ isn't a billion, so I'm sure there are avenues I haven't considered.

Click to expand...

Lol. better folks than us have failed miserably at this, so don't think I have any better ideas.

The closest I've ever gotten is that the Palestinians must completely and utterly lose. Only then will there be a chance that they will give up on the goal at the core of their national identity - the destruction of Israel - and be prepared to accept something less than that (mere independence). Same way that it took the complete crushing of the Japanese to turn them into the amazing culture and country they are today.

Once the Palestinians lose and despair of their goals, out of the ashes of their failed effort to destroy Israel could develop a culture focused on families and prosperity instead of honour and hatred. At that point the Israelis must give them a state and work to help them succeed in their state building exercise. I think the Israeli people would be up to the task, but that depends on the Palestinians truly and completely giving up.

But I don't think that has a chance of happening either, both because the Israelis don't want to do what is necessary to truly defeat the Palestinians and the international community would never allow it and is continuing to pursue a policy that makes it more difficult, rather than less, to actually get to the two state solution.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Cardinal said:

Then you need to go back and read my posts.

Click to expand...

then you do not agree with the israeli occupation of the disputed territories

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

justabubba said:

then you do not agree with the israeli occupation of the disputed territories

Click to expand...

Why? One could support the principle of an independent Palestinian state without the delusion that giving a state to them right now, in exchange for nothing, is a terrible idea for everyone involved.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Cardinal said:

Those facts are only relevant to those who are hopelessly biased and rely on a massive double standard in order to hold their position. No other country on earth would be expected to accept receiving regular attacks against its citizens and its soil on the basis that its military is superior. That expectation is completely insane, yet it is a regular demand made of Israel. Only someone who was antisemitic would make that demand, seeing Israel's ethnic...uniqueness compared to every other country on earth.

Click to expand...

None of the above is true which I have tried to explain. Since you've firmly rejected what I said, I don't see any reason to continue arguing it since neither one of us is going change our position.

Read the article I'm referring to again, it's all there. The word martyr is regularly used by the Palestinian leadership when describing those who were killed in the line of murdering Jewish citizens. See Abbas's speech in response to the stabbings against Jews. I'm curious: can you show me one example where someone was described as a "martyr" in a non-disparaging manner? In any case, you're getting hung up on one word, and missing the larger point, which is that those who defended those who comforted the families of terrorists and described the terrorists as martyrs point blank refused to answer whether it would be acceptable for American lawmakers to do the same in the case of the Boston Marathon terrorists. They had to avoid answering because to do so would demonstrate their egregious double standard, and you see those double standards pop up instantaneously for those who are ignorant and/or antisemitic.

Click to expand...

Read what I said again. I never took issue with the word "martyr". I took issue with your unbalanced presentation of the situation while the articles I read were balanced so that the reader could decide the issue for themselves. I was confused about why you singled out the word "martyr" as the thing you wanted to focus on even though I didn't say anything about that word in my initial post.

When you criticize Israel for not being quite secular enough for your taste, even though as you say it is the most secular country in the region, but make an exemption for the theocracies, dictatorships and monarchies immediately surrounding it, does that sound rational to you?

Click to expand...

I assume you're using the general "you" since I personally don't have a problem with Israel being a Jewish rather than secular state. If you are using the general "you" and referring a hypothetical person with that position, I would say that there are reasons other than antisemitism that a person could criticize Israel for not being secular while not criticizing other non-secular countries as much.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Cardinal said:

I'm stating that anyone who wants a peaceful solution will want the two state option. However, I'm not always known for thinking outside the box, so if you have a better idea then I'm listening. My IQ isn't a billion, so I'm sure there are avenues I haven't considered.

Click to expand...

If you admit that there are other avenues you may not have considered then it makes no sense to outright condemn people who don't agree with you as "not wanting a peaceful solution." I'm not interested in debating what Israel and Palestine should do since those debates never go anywhere. I'm focused on how irrational I think it is that you've decided that people who don't agree with your very narrow view of the I/P conflict are either just ignorant or antisemitic.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

TheDemSocialist said:

What "ties"? The supposed ties to Hamas? The strawman that boycotts have been used by X organization labeled as a "terrorist group" therefore any organization that engages in a boycott is a "terrorist organization"?

Click to expand...

The connection between the BDS movement and the antisemitic terror organizations is real. I'm not referring merely to what's going on during their demonstrations, chants flags and all that nonsense, I'm referring to the cooperation between the BDS movement and organizations that are known to hold actual ties with terror organizations that target Jews.

Then what reason have you gave in this case?

Except it was a major variable in your post...

Click to expand...

He was marked for being a leading Jewish artist - and a Jewish-American on top of that.

So they're Jews part of an anti-Jewish movement? Or, whats the phrase used many times against Jews who speak out against human rights abuses committed by Israelis on Palestinians, or Jews who speak out against violations of international law committed by Israel... "Auto-anti-semites"?

Click to expand...

Are you going to claim that Jews can't be part of an anti-Jewish movement now? Is that it?

See post #18

Click to expand...

Seen. Now what?

But its exactly what you said: "yes that's absolutely antisemitism because when you put one standard for a single nation and another for the entire world and that nation happens to be the only Jewish one out there well that kinda makes no room for any doubt doesn't it."

Click to expand...

Which really doesn't sum up into "It's antisemitism because it's the only Jewish state". I'd say "nice try" but it wasn't.

Again, BDS are an antisemitic movement and that's indisputable when even the most extreme anti-Israelis claim so.
They promote Israel's end, they have ties with terror supporting organizations and their members are driven by racial hatred.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

CJ 2.0 said:

Why? One could support the principle of an independent Palestinian state without the delusion that giving a state to them right now, in exchange for nothing, is a terrible idea for everyone involved.

Click to expand...

it is the right thing to do
and it would demonstrate to the world that the occupation is not a land grab by the government of israel
either you believe in a two-state solution or you do not
you speak of one but also then insist that no action should be taken to effect the two-state remedy
that then gives the appearance of hypocrisy

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Moderator's Warning:

Closed for review.

Re: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public

Moderator's Warning:

The topic of the thread has drifted significantly. The "two-state" solution, what that would comprise nor the discussion of another thread. The topic is: Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public bodi Posts from this point on should be directly related to that discussion. Anything even slightly off that topic will result in infractions. The thread is now reopened.