- Israel is a high profile case. You hear about it all the time in the news. When 12 Israelis or Palestians are killed, it’s all over the medias. When 12 000 people from some-shitty-country-I-can’t-even-remember-the-name-of are killed it’s barely mentionned. Were the Israelis of non-western culture and background, you’d essentially never hear about them. The issue would be discussed as often as, say, the Tamils issue. Nobody would care, nobody would draft “peace-plans”, and of course nobody would boycott.
- Israel is held to higher standarts as a western democracy. You can’t have it both ways, claiming at the same time that you’re a modern democracy and comparing your actions with the actions of third-world dictatorship.
3)Because it’s an issue people disagree about. There’s not much in the way of arguments concerning Burma, because you’ll have a hard finding someone who will be supportive of its government.
Had you paid attention the post I was responding to, you’d probably have guessed I was sarcastic.
Actually, this article JonBodner is referring to is on the webpage december linked to too.
The page contains a copy of the article. As an intro to the article, an editor of LGF wrote:
“Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen was told that if he met with the bloodstained murderer Yasser Arafat, he would not be allowed to meet with Israeli officials.
He chose to meet with the terrorist.”
Could you tell us JonBodner, did you originally get that article from jpost.com or LGF? I’m only asking because it seems quotes in this thread, while also appering elsewhere as on jpost.com, the shared source is decembers link.
What you neglect to mention is that Sharon would refuse to meet with Brian Cowen if he met with Arafat.
So Sharon’s imposed rules on who dignataries are allowed to meet are responsible for the fiasco.
And it gets spun around to make it look like Cowen refused to meet with them?
What a poor attempt at spin.
Are you december in disguise?
I’m saying I agree with the academic boycott (I have grave reservations about it), but to call it antisemtic is just ignorant. The boycott takes it’s precednt from the academic boycott of South Africa. Steve Rose the man behind the boycott like many of it’s leading proponents is Jewish himself (the son of an anti-facist campaigner to boot).
Well, I guess you aren’t ignorant about history; you just don’t care if Jews die.
Because survival isn’t a legitimate right when you’re a Jew.
No, it shows that once again, Jews will need a place to flee to, when the age-old hatreds rise again. Every other ethinic group has a homeland and is considered to have the right to a homeland. Jews aren’t. Why the difference? Couldn’t be anti-semitism, nope, not at all.
Yeah, and that’s why you should start boycotting the US. After all it stole land from the Indians, and then invited in more people to settle it!
Of course, the same is true for Egypt. The Copts are the native Egyptians, who are now brutally repressed. The Arabs are foreign conquerors. I take it that you have just as much indignation for the Egyptians as you do for Israelis.
Why exactly are religious restrictions an issue? What makes them worse than education-level restrictions or country of origin restrictions or the Francophone restrictions that Quebec and Canada use?
Arafat was born in Cairo. Sharon was born in Palestine. Who has the right to stay? I’m waiting for your answer, but I think you’re just going to skip this one.
The number of people living in Palestine when Jews started returning from Europe was tiny, less than 10% of the current population. And population figures for Jerusalem at this time show that it was overwhelmingly Jewish. It’s not like these foreign invader Jews were pushing the natives out.
Jews had as much right to go to Palestine as Europeans had a right to go to the New World and AU/NZ. Do you consider those countries illigitimate, too?
And, unlike virtually every other people, Jews are honest about where they got their land from. There’s no myth that God fashioned Jews from the soil of Israel (Abraham came from what is now Iraq). Jews consider the land of Israel to have been God-given. It’s more of a reason than any other nation gives for its right to exist. Do you have a problem with the expulsion of the Jews from Mecca, when Mohammed claimed it as the seat of Islam? Or is that history too ancient for it to count?
So, what country do you live in? How far back can we trace the property rights to the piece of land you call your home?
Please tell me the exact number of years that makes a claim valid. Right now, it’s somewhere between 53 years and 2000 years. And then tell me if you will apply this standard to the Palestinians.
Please list the natural-born rights that you think that people have, and tell me where they come from.
Jews had as much right to create the State of Israel as Australia has a right to exist, as New Zealand has a right to exist, as America has a right to exist, as Canada has a right to exist. I take it that you question these other countries, too? And if not, why not?
No, no it doesn’t. But whether or not Israel is oppressing the Palestinians is not the issue. Every Arab country oppresses the Palestinians. The legitimacy of the State of Israel is the issue. Was Israel legitimate before 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were Jordanian and Egyptian?
Look, you clearly have a problem with Israel that you don’t have with other countries in similar situations. You need to ask yourself why you feel this way. Being honest about your feelings will make this all quite a bit easier.
Oh, horseflop. You were implying that Israelis deserve to be attacked by the Palestinians. So, I’m asking if this is true of any terroristic attack, or only those against Israelis?
*I’m not saying I agree with the…
And an academic boycott of South Africa (I didn’t realize there was one) was repugnant, too. It reminds me of the people who criticized Paul Simon for recording Graceland with Black South Africans, because it was breaking an economic boycott. Never mind that Graceland was featuring Black artists and giving them money.
Well again as I said I don’t agree with it (I actually know someone in a very simlair situation: Israeli, served in IDF, currently studying for a PhD at Cambridge, who hasn’t had any problems with the boycott), particlularly as the people who it hits hardest tend to be members of the Israeli peace camp.
I don’t know December at all.
And Brian Cowen chose to meet with a terrorist (who is, according to recent reports, getting money from Libya to continue to fund terror attacks against Israelis) instead of the democratically elected leader of a “western democracy.” Do you think that Bush would meet with someone who decided to have a chat with bin Laden? Would Vicente Fox meet with someone who insisted on meeting with the head of the Zapatistas?
I could keep on citing terror groups and their associated countries, but I hope you get the hint. Arafat is still a terrorist, not a statesman. Calling him democratically elected would be like calling Mubarak or Assad democratically elected. The representative of the Irish government chose a side, and it’s a side that would not have been chosen with any other country.
Apologies; I posted before your correction appeared.
No, I got it from the Jerusalem Post. I have a membership there.
Whether or not you think it’s a bastion of bigotry, LGF is one of the most popular blogs, and it is updated quite frequently with news on Israel. It’s not too surprising that you’ll see something from the Jerusalem Post referenced on LGF.
So, what you’re saying is that Israel is just so highly respected and admired by the world, the world feels the need to hold it to a higher standard than the poor, stupid Arabs. And due to that high respect, the French Ambassador to London couldn’t help but refer to Israel as a “shitty little country”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1721172.stm
Are you serious? From what I can tell, you share these beliefs. That makes you a rather intolorable bigot. Are you ashamed that you think so little of Arabs?
Cowen offered to meet with both sides, it was the Israeli’s who refuesed to meet with Cowen because he planned on meeting with Arafat aswell.
Using your logic, foreign dignataries could refuse to meet with Sharon because of his previous Cosy Cartel with the Phalangists, or is assisting terrorism ok as long as its your enemies getting slaughtered?
Yes, and it’s shameful what the US did. The US refused to take in Jewish refugees. It sent back a boat full of them, and they all later perished in the camps. Anti-semitism in the US has died down quite a bit from its peak, but it’s not perfect. For example, in Northern California (home of San Francisco and Berkeley), attacks on Jews doubled last year.
As for Germans not knowing, it’s absurd. There are documents that show companies requesting Jewish slaves for medical experiments and slave labor. The Poles certainly knew what was going on, as the death camps were all in Poland, not Germany. The smoke from the cremetoria carried quite a distance. If they were ignorant, they were willfully ignorant.
Because Black people in Michigan burned down a town with a majority Black population and a Black mayor, I can’t point out that Europeans have a 1,000 year history of Jew hatred? I’m confused. Did I miss a step in your logic?
Which Muslim hate site did I link to? The BBC? The Jerusalem Post?
As I suspected, you descended into vitrol and hate rather than debate. I’m through replying to you.
Again, Sharon’s refusal made perfect sense, as any head of state would make the exact same choice.
And no, terrorism is never OK. Sharon never said, “OK Lebanese Christians, go slaughters those Muslims for me!” He was told that they were going to go into the refugee camps to get PLO terrorists and instead they killed women and children, too. For this serious error in judgement, there were massive demonstrations in Israel (something like 10% of the country turned out) and he was sacked. It wouldn’t be the first time that a group allied with a government committed an atrocity, and Sharon shouldn’t have been so trusting.
But there is no valid comparison between Sharon and Arafat. If Arafat had foresworn terrorism and was working for peace, that would be one thing, and Sharon would be seriously wrong in insisting that it was either him or Arafat. But Sharon isn’t wrong. Arafat is still a terrorist. He encourages other people (especially children) to be terrorists, and he provides money to help people commit terrorist acts.
Compare Sharon’s attitude towards Arafat with his attitude towards Abu Mazen. Mazen has quite a lot of blood on his hands, and holds some quite disgusting views on the Holocaust. But he is, as far as anyone can tell, an honest broker for peace. The Irish FM’s meeting with Arafat not only undermined Sharon, it also undermined Abu Mazen. Why did they do that? Don’ t the Irish want peace in the Middle East? Or is the need to snub Israel more important than strengthening the Palestinians who are working for peace?
You’re simply demonising your enemy to justify your allies actions. Sharon knew exactly what the Phalangists were capable of, it’s not like it was a break from their normal charitable work or anything.
The Irish certainly want peace in the Middle East, and we have learned the hard way that the only way to work towards peace is to meet with all sides.
Please point out where I demonized. I never said the Phalangists were the Salvation Army. I said that Sharon screwed up. I don’t think Sharon encouraged the Phalangists to commit the atrocity, and I don’t think there is any evidence supporting the belief that Sharon encouraged them. Arafat does indeed support terrorism to this day. There’s incontrovertable evidence of this. It’s not demonization when it’s true.
Then why not meet with Abu Mazen alone? It would have been the diplomatic thing to do, and it would have helped isolate a terrorist from popular support. Seems to me that reducing support for a terrorist would be a pro-peace move.
Because it is not up to Israel to pick and choose which foreign dignataries Irish representatives can meet with.