Anger as boycott of Israeli goods to becomes a criminal offense

They have a mandate to buy products for their areas. Universities have a mandate to buy whichever products they want for their universities. A crime commissioner does not have a mandate to make decisions outside of his or her area.

Not every brutal dictatorship or regime is necessarily a terrorist state on top of being a brutal regime. Israel has been documented deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and threatening violence against the Palestinians in order to achieve wider political aims, including trying to change the political situation in the Gaza Strip, and so on. Furthermore, by targeting flour mills and other infrastructure integral to Palestinian society, it has sought to ensure that the Gaza Strip in particular is entirely dependent on Israel for its supplies. This is all easily verifiable by independent human rights organisations.

All of the states that you mention do, in a trivial sense, use terror tactics against their own populations, just as ISIS use terror tactics against their own population. In fact, one could argue that all states use violence, or the threat of violence, against their own populations to maintain their political system. But, when we refer to terrorism in the colloquial sense (say, terrorism by ISIS), we generally mean terror tactics used against other populations. I'm also referring to terror tactics used against other populations by the state apparatus, not by groups that they may sponsor. Fair enough, what Saudi Arabia is currently doing in Yemen may constitute state terrorism (again, using information from independent human rights organisations), but Israel's actions have gone on for far longer.

That's the last I'll say on this.

the appropriate reaction is simply to boycott them but unofficially, just dont buy from them, you dont have to justify why you would rather buy from elsewhere

Is the BDS movement even legal under the Equality Act 2010?

Woahhhhh wait.... that law that prevents discrimination against nationality. . It exists?

Institutions aren't protected under the equality act. It's nothing like that, boycotting and imprisoning are completely different.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Down with the ZOG

Zionist occupied governments are the real fascists and threat to true Democracy

Yes. Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 outaws discrimination based on protected characteristics. Section 9 declares race, nationality etc to be a protected characteristic.

By refusing, for example, to allow an Israeli filmmaker to show their film at a film festival purely because they are an Israeli, you are treating them worse than you would treat someone of a different nationality, purely on the basis of their nationality, therefore it is discrimination. This can be applied to many BDS situations that discriminate against all Israelis

This is considered hate speech in some countries.

But the original is Germany must perish which called for German genocide through sterilization and the breaking up of Germany. You should know that Israel has sterilized a number of African migrants.

Anyone who says the Jews didn't do anything to incite the Germans and turned public opinion against them is clueless. History is written by the victors. Germans lost. Arguably Communism won. Most Jews were a threat because they were Communists and even trying to spark a revolution in Germany.

Do I need to say how many these Communists killed?

The set of institutions being defined on the basis of nationality.

The whole flaw with the BDS movement is that targets institutions based on an assumed responsibility for simply existing in a certain geographical area, rather than a direct contribution to human rights violations.

It's also, I dare say, possible to target institutions without explicitly forbidding the dealing with individuals in an unofficial as well as official capacity. Since you've implied this is not the case, it's obvious the problem you have is with the individuals as much as the institutions

It's a bit like if a bad bank caused a financial crisis and you decided to imprison every single employee of the bank for malpractice.

Why do so many people hate Israel anyway? Muslims dominate the entire middle east and half of Europe. I think the Jews deserve at least one strip of land to be safe in.

Do you take this attitude to every stateless ethnic group? That they all inherently deserve a particular area of land for a state, regardless of whether that land already has inhabitants?

Not normally, however consider the inhumane treatment of Jews.

Not only by the Nazis but persecution from muslims for centuries.

I don't accept that being persecuted and oppressed grants a right to persecute and oppress others. I can accept it as a mitigating factor, of course, but that is not the same thing.



What "persecution from muslims for centuries" did you have in mind? Warning in advance, dhimma is not a good example.

Why isn't it?

And out of the whole world, a tiny part of the Middle East is where they decided to set up camp?

Well, for a start, it was not targeted against Jews specifically, but against all non-Muslims. The motive was to incentivise conversion to Islam, rather than anti-Semitism.

More significantly, for its time the dhimmi system was comparatively tolerant. It enshrined a level of institutionalised religious freedom unheard of in feudal Europe, where Jews, Pagans and 'heretics' were routinely hunted down, forced to convert, expelled or massacred. Non-Muslim communities often prospered despite the dhimmi restrictions. Jews in the Islamic world were, in general, more integrated, less persecuted, and more free to practice their religion than Jews in Christian Europe. Take for example Iberia. The period of Muslim rule, or at least the early centuries of it, was considered a Golden Age of prosperity for Sephardi Jewish culture. By contrast, when the Christian Spanish took over in the Reconquista, they forcibly expelled all the Jews - who moved to the Islamic world, as did most Jews fleeing Europe in the period, as they believed they would be treated better there. When the Crusades came, Levant Jewish communities fought on the Muslim side.

Obviously, by modern standards, the dhimmi system was clearly unjust and illiberal, but so was just about everything in Dark Age and Feudal times, and much of it was a lot worse. And it was abolished in the Ottoman Tanzimat reforms of the mid-19th Century, significantly before Zionism (which was, from the start, largely an ideology of European Jews) really kicked off in earnest.