J.K. Rowling Uses Dumbledore to Explain Why She Opposes Israel Boycott

Why does Israel get such stick? It's surrounded by terrorist nations who want to wipe it off the map!

Want a reason to not support the Israel boycott? Look at their human rights record, compared to others in middle east. They have Pride marches, for smeg sake! Can you imagine that in "Palestine"?

nor have I ever heard of a cultural boycott ending a bloody and prolonged conflict,” Rowling wrote.

To my knowledge there only has been one other cultural boycott of the kind called for by BDS and other groups - against apartheid South Africa - and it did indeed end it, you may recall.

All the same arguments were trotted out for South Africa - that it was surrounded by hostile states that sponsored terrorists against it, or it was more democratic and stable than many of its neighbours, that such a boycott only served to hurt non-whites and whites who didn't vote for the National Party, etc.

Rather than criticise Hamas of terrorism, Israel is once again being targeted as a cruel and murderous nation. This truly is bordering on antisemitism.

I think it's perfectly possible to do both -- criticise Hamas for terrorism and criticise Israel for human rights abuses against the population of the occupied territories.

It would be nice if you'd explain what's antisemitic about criticising the contemptible actions of a state that happens to be a Jewish state rather than simply pulling the antisemitism card to derail the discussion.

While I think it's important to criticise both for their respective wrongdoings, I don't see why Hamas is at all relevant to most of Israel's actions against Palestinians. To be very clear about this: the actions of Hamas do not, in any way, mitigate the actions of the Israeli state and armed forces. To say so is merely to say 'well, we're not as bad as them' in defence of human rights abuses -- that wouldn't stand up in court and it shouldn't stand up in any serious discussion about this matter either. I've seen this kind of silly argument being thrown around about this issue a lot and it has to go if any productive debate is to be had.

Agree completely. My point being is that too many people are jumping on the bandwagon of critisicing Israel without taking into consideration the threat posed by Hamas. I do, however, think that at times Israel has used unnecessary force but that does not refute the fact that Hamas is a serious threat to Israel's security.

Re-read my post and think about what I said.

Your logic assumes that cause and effect have no relation. Few on TSR agree with the fact that Israel has not done anything wrong. To do so is simply denying the facts. My point, however, is that if you are going to deal with human rights violations, both parties in the same conflict need to be addressed or else we're essentially playing favourites. Quite a childish approach to a complex situation.

The UN even let them keep arms in their schools, something which the left-wing media went out in force to deny, and then later quietly admitted that it was in fact true.

Rather than criticise Hamas of terrorism, Israel is once again being targeted as a cruel and murderous nation. This truly is bordering on antisemitism.

My point being is that too many people are jumping on the bandwagon of critisicing Israel without taking into consideration the threat posed by Hamas.

You do realise that Israel is occupying Palestine, Hamas are bad as is shown by their behaviour but Israel has been occupying Palestine for over 45 years you cannot make them out to be innocent.

You completely ignore the asymmetry of the imposed occupation.

No, it doesn't refute that, but nor is that relevant to judging the actions of Israel. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by taking into consideration the threat posed by Hamas and bandwagon-jumping certainly is a problem with most issues, I'll agree, but as far as culpability for Israeli actions goes, I do not think that the terrorism perpetrated by Hamas should have any impact at all on that judgement. Hamas needs to be considered when thinking about a solution to the wider problem; human rights abuses are human rights abuses regardless. No number of terrorist attacks justifies, or reduces the severity of, killing civilians.

Or alternatively you could just explain your unjustified accusation of antisemitism. You claimed that Israel was being targeted as a cruel and murderous nation (which it hasn't -- the posts above are civil and, importantly, make reasonable points) and that this borders on antisemitism. I simply don't see the antisemitism and asked you to explain what you meant, which isn't something I can get simply by thinking about it some more; I wouldn't ask if it was apparent in your last post. I don't just skim-read, you know.

Not quite. Both parties need to be addressed to resolve the overall issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but guilt for human rights violations is not to be adjusted to suit the sensibilities of those who think that it's more okay to kill civilians if it's in retaliation for home-made rockets being fired (with an almost zero percent success rate) into Israeli territory than if that didn't happen. As far as the law is concerned, claimed cause and effect should have no relation; a killer doesn't get to say that he deserves lesser punishment because his violence was provoked/caused rather than unprovoked/uncaused, especially when the victims are largely civilians who had little to do with the provocations (rockets in this case).

Erm, the threat that a relatively small rag-tag group of extremists, with no formal military training and with virtually no modern equipment, pose to one of the most militarised nations whose military is heavily subsidised with billions of dollars and the most modern equipment in the world?

You completely ignore the asymmetry of the imposed occupation.

You do realise that Israel is occupying Palestine, Hamas are bad as is shown by their behaviour but Israel has been occupying Palestine for over 45 years you cannot make them out to be innocent.