Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    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"?
    The far left will always throw gays and women under the bus if it gives them a chance to feel, even vicariously, like a revolutionary. It's pathetic.

    You do also have to question why the focus on the world's only Jewish state. I criticise Israel myself. I want the occupation to end (where there will be mutual security guarantees and an agreement that the treaty is final and not open to dispute). But many on the far left have internalised, as if by osmosis, the Islamofascist belief that there must not be a Jewish state on "Muslim lands", even though most Israelis are descended from Jews who never left the Levant and Jews who were made refugees from Arab countries in the 1950s due to the intolerability of dhimmi status and new added oppressions to "punish" them for Zionism
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I
    I don't see how a cultural blockade can achieve much of anything. Economic sure, but not cultural.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In the 1960s, the Anti-Apartheid Movement world-wide began to campaign for cultural boycotts of apartheid South Africa. Artists were requested not to present or let their works be hosted in South Africa. In 1963, 45 British writers put their signatures to an affirmation approving of the boycott, and, in 1964, American actor Marlon Brando called for a similar affirmation for films. In 1965, the Writers' Guild of Great Britain called for a proscription on the sending of films to South Africa. Over sixty American artists signed a statement against apartheid and against professional links with the state. The presentation of some South African plays in Britain and America was also vetoed.

    After the arrival of television in South Africa in 1975, the British Actors Union, Equity, boycotted the service, and no British program concerning its associates could be sold to South Africa. Sporting and cultural boycotts did not have the same impact as economic sanctions, but they did much to lift consciousness amongst normal South Africans of the global condemnation of apartheid.

    These facets of social remoteness from the worldwide hamlet made apartheid a discomfiture and were most trying for sports and culture fans. These boycotts effectively egged on little changes to apartheid policy, and corroded white South Africans' dedication to it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...ring_apartheid


    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    I love the moronic idea that because there is an assymetry, the less powerful party must only be in the right, but noble as well.

    If a child attacked me with a knife, they could do a lot of damage. To disarm and render them safe I might have to kick them in the head, or do something unpleasant. At that point people like you would come out of the woodwork shrieking "Look! He kicked a child in the head! Boycott!"
    Ever felt that was moronic analogy? If a child attacked you with a knife, it could be either out of emotional trauma, or retardation

    In any case, no sane mind would retaliate by carrying out a brutal siege, with ever increasing illegal settlements breeding like rabbits.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by WokSz)
    I think it's very important before we proceed that you take note of the fact that I did not say it was antisemitic to criticse Israel. Hence why I asked you to re-read my reply..
    This is what you originally said:

    (Original post by WokSz)
    Rather than criticise Hamas of terrorism, Israel is once again being targeted as a cruel and murderous nation. This truly is bordering on antisemitism.
    As far as I understand it, to 'target [Israel] as a cruel and murderous nation' (which hasn't even happened on this thread) is a criticism. You equate this criticism with antisemitism and keep ignoring requests to explain what you meant by this rather unjustified statement. How else is calling Israel a cruel and murderous nation antisemitism, if not because it's criticising it? You've provided no explanation for that.

    I really do think you're missing the entire point here and going in a direction that is unnecessary to this argument. I shall repeat my stance one last time so please stop making unnecessary assumptions. I am in no way denying that Israel has committed human rights violations. We can all agree that their bombing of civilian targets, even if it was unintentional on their side, is abhorrent. They much too often use unreasonable force to counter any attacks, and are often on the offensive rather than the defensive. However, too often we have failed to address the issue of Hamas and the genuine threat they pose. It does not help that people such as Rowling at no point have boycotted Hamas. Celebrities are, unfortunately, role models for many young people and to grow up with this idea that Israel needs to be the only country that is treated as the evil party in this conflict is unacceptable.
    Explain what you mean by 'address the issue of Hamas and the genuine threat they pose.'

    As far as Rowling is concerned: she opposes the boycott. I don't know what more exactly you want her to say. Nor has anybody said that Israel is the only evil party but you seem to be assuming that any criticism of Israel that does not mention how mean Hamas is to them is unfair; I disagree.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    I love the moronic idea that because there is an assymetry, the less powerful party must only be in the right, but noble as well.

    If a child attacked me with a knife, they could do a lot of damage. To disarm and render them safe I might have to kick them in the head, or do something unpleasant. At that point people like you would come out of the woodwork shrieking "Look! He kicked a child in the head! Boycott!"
    What a silly analogy. The child in this instance represents two different categories of people: Hamas terrorists and ordinary Palestinian civilians. They are not one and the same even if you'd like to pretend it's as simple as that.

    As far as the 'knife' goes: Do remind me of the success rate for rockets fired into Israel... Israel seems to have managed to defend itself against those just fine; the occasional land invasions and killing of civilians seem to be done for other reasons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    What a silly analogy. The child in this instance represents two different categories of people: Hamas terrorists and ordinary Palestinian civilians. They are not one and the same even if you'd like to pretend it's as simple as that.
    I disagree. If a child became mentally ill and attacked me with a knife, of course it would be terrible that in protecting myself I may do the child harm. But I would not bear the child itself ill will. In both the Israeli case and my case, unfortunately I can't protect myself without harming the child.

    As far as the 'knife' goes: Do remind me of the success rate for rockets fired into Israel... Israel seems to have managed to defend itself against those just fine
    I'm afraid this is where the fact you are not well read and generally ignorant of the history of the conflict will tend to cause you to say stupid things.

    Israel suffered terrible casualties during the Second Intifada. During that flare up of violence, 3000 Palestinians died but 1000 Israelis also died, 600 of them in suicide bombings in nightclubs, on buses and the like. It was a result of this loss that Israel built the separation wall (previously you could easily go between the WB and Israel.. in fact in the 1980s the father of one of my Israeli friends used to drive into Gaza to get his car fixed by Arab mechanics, and go to the beach).

    The reason for Israel's low casualties is that they have invested heavily in measures like the separation wall, Iron Dome, air raid shelters and a radar warning system. The idea that the thousands of rockets fired at Israel are without injury is usually a belief held by people who are too lazy and stupid to actually read up on the conflict. The reason the Israelis have low casualties is because every time the radar system calculates a rocket will fall on a particular area, air raid sirens will blare and people have about 20 seconds to get to an underground bunker. In some parts of the country that was happening 30 times a day during the 2014 conflict. It shut the country down. About half the children in Sderot (including Arab Israeli children) now have PTSD as a result of that traumatic experience.

    No country would say "Well, we'll just take it. We won't actually try to stop the rockets being fired"

    But thanks for justifying Hamas rocket campaign. Now we know where you stand.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    If a child attacked you with a knife, it could be either out of emotional trauma, or retardation
    Precisely. Hamas is a retardation of, and mental illness in, Palestinian society (I hope you would agree... though of course like most of the far left you are happy to roll out the red carpet for your homophobic friends in Hamas on the basis they are "anti-imperialist".

    If the retarded child attacked me, I might have to do it harm in disarming it. It doesn't mean I bear the child itself ill will, but I have to defend myself. The fact I'm the more powerful party doesn't automatically mean I'm in the wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is, of course, utterly predictable that all the far leftists and hand-wringers will always say "I don't support Hamas". But you only have to scratch their shallow exterior to get to the underlying hatred, the vicious thrill they get from justifying the rocket campaign and telling us that Israel should just take it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    Precisely. Hamas is a retardation of, and mental illness in, Palestinian society (I hope you would agree... though of course like most of the far left you are happy to roll out the red carpet for your homophobic friends in Hamas on the basis they are "anti-imperialist".

    If the retarded child attacked me, I might have to do it harm in disarming it. It doesn't mean I bear the child itself ill will, but I have to defend myself. The fact I'm the more powerful party doesn't automatically mean I'm in the wrong.
    you love cherry picking quotes to focus on what is absolutely petty, don't you?

    If you look at the history of Hamas their first military intervention, were at some point in the 1980-1990. And you know what drove them to this path? What caused them to resort suicide bombing and rockets? When did the breeding of illegal settlement begin?

    I bet you'll pretend not.

    Your analogy is still off the mark and moronic. I suggest you find another one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    After the arrival of television in South Africa in 1975, the British Actors Union, Equity, boycotted the service, and no British program concerning its associates could be sold to South Africa. Sporting and cultural boycotts did not have the same impact as economic sanctions, but they did much to lift consciousness amongst normal South Africans of the global condemnation of apartheid.

    The analogy is also moronic because no matter how hard the fascists and their useful idiots on the far left try, they cannot even come close to showing that a country where Arab Israelis have the right to vote, are in parliament, are on the Supreme Court, are prominent in the media and who regularly say in opinion polls they prefer to continue living under Israeli rule (because they see how much a shambles the rest of the Middle East is) could be construed as anything like South Africa.

    Comparing Israel to South Africa is an extremist position pushed by sinister fascists and useful idiots of low intelligence who lack the intellectual horsepower to see the analogy for the idiocy it is
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    I disagree. If a child became mentally ill and attacked me with a knife, of course it would be terrible that in protecting myself I may do the child harm. But I would not bear the child itself ill will. In both the Israeli case and my case, unfortunately I can't protect myself without harming the child.
    You are again assuming that the child represents a singular entity. It doesn't. Hamas fires the rockets (the 'knife' in this case) and Israel hits back, killing mostly civilians (i.e. not Hamas). If you're saying Israel cannot protect itself without killing mostly civilians then, well, it might as well sit and take a sh*t on its billion-dollar military that's apparently the best in the region.

    10/10 for false analogies though. Wouldn't expect much more from a zealot.

    I'm afraid this is where the fact you are not well read and generally ignorant of the history of the conflict will tend to cause you to say stupid things.

    Israel suffered terrible casualties during the Second Intifada. During that flare up of violence, 3000 Palestinians died but 1000 Israelis also died, 600 of them in suicide bombings in nightclubs, on buses and the like. It was a result of this loss that Israel built the separation wall (previously you could easily go between the WB and Israel.. in fact in the 1980s the father of one of my Israeli friends used to drive into Gaza to get his car fixed by Arab mechanics, and go to the beach).

    The reason for Israel's low casualties is that they have invested heavily in measures like the separation wall, Iron Dome, air raid shelters and a radar warning system. The idea that the thousands of rockets fired at Israel are without injury is usually a belief held by people who are too lazy and stupid to actually read up on the conflict. The reason the Israelis have low casualties is because every time the radar system calculates a rocket will fall on a particular area, air raid sirens will blare and people have about 20 seconds to get to an underground bunker. In some parts of the country that was happening 30 times a day during the 2014 conflict. It shut the country down. About half the children in Sderot (including Arab Israeli children) now have PTSD as a result of that traumatic experience.
    Ah, ad hominems... How convinced you must be that they help you make your case...

    I understand the history of the conflict just fine -- I'm just not stupid enough to make flimsy excuses like 'but they started it!!!!!!' for Israeli human rights abuses. You display the typical characteristics of partisan hacks on this issue who classify anybody who doesn't glorify Israel's human rights abuses like you as a Hamas sympathiser who's stupid/doesn't understand history/an anti-Semite.

    Well done for staying on-topic -- this thread is totally about your whinings about the Second Intifada. I would go into a long essay about why you're a moron to side with Israel on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but that would require me to go off-topic beyond a point I consider acceptable.

    No country would say "Well, we'll just take it. We won't actually try to stop the rockets being fired"
    Do you work for Netanyahu's government? This is straight out of their book. Nice job trying to euphemise outright murder of civilians by calling it 'trying to stop the rockets being fired.' Idiot.

    But thanks for justifying Hamas rocket campaign. Now we know where you stand. And yes, you are an anti-semitic douchebag
    Ha -- I've justified nothing. You're a partisan hack who came here with an agenda. You're pretty much beyond help if you equate criticising Israel with antisemitism. Don't expect further reply. :lol:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    you love cherry picking quotes to focus on what is absolutely petty, don't you?


    You call it "cherry picked", I call it salient. If you don't want me to make a fool of you, don't bring up analogies that will tend to support my interpretation of events.

    If you look at the history of Hamas their first military intervention, were at some point in the 1980-1990. And you know what drove them to this path? What caused them to resort suicide bombing and rockets? When did the breeding of illegal settlement begin?


    Instead of desperately scrabbling around to find out that Hamas (which was created in 1987, not "1980-1990" as you so embarrasingly said, yet again demonstrating your laughably poor knowledge of the history of the I/P conflict) may have intended by their creation in 1988 15 years after the first settlements, perhaps we can look to their own words.

    Article Seven - Hamas Charter '88

    The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree


    But thanks for showing us where your sympathies lie
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You display the typical characteristics of partisan hacks on this issue who classify anybody who doesn't glorify Israel's human rights abuses like you as a Hamas sympathiser who's stupid/doesn't understand history/an anti-Semite.
    I don't justify or glorify Israel's human rights abuses. I've criticised the settlements in the most withering terms, I find the Israeli religious right obnoxious in the extreme. I've called Israel on when it forged British passports, when it spied on allies like the United States and Australia, when it takes its allies for granted and behaves in a generally ungrateful way. I want the occupation to end.

    What you won't find me doing is engaging in this kind of snivelling proto-fascist justification of firing thousands of rockets at civilians, and saying it's all okay because the injuries are widespread mental disorders like PTSD rather than physical wounds.

    I would go into a long essay about why you're a moron to side with Israel
    By which you mean to say, "I lack the necessary knowledge and reading to do so".

    Don't expect further reply. :lol:
    That's cool, I don't debate with morons, fascists and anti-semites. Bye
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Leaving aside Article 7 of the Hamas Charter that the proto-fascists above have desperately tried to justify

    Article Seven - Hamas Charter '88

    The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree


    I think this sermon by this mainstream Imam in a Gaza Mosque madly waving a knife around calling for more stabbings goes to show you the people that the far left is claiming Israel must make peace with now, and with no actual security guarantees for the Israelis.

    Notice how he says pretty much nothing about Israeli settlements, or other policies. His anger is about the fact that the Al-Aqsa Mosque (which used to be the Jewish Temple Mount) on which Jews are banned for 364 days a year (a ban the Israeli government upholds, even though they militarily control the area they allow the Muslim ulema control it) is not enough... they must be banned 365 days a year. It shows you how much this is driven by religious hatred of the Jews. (fast forward to 1:20 to see the bit where he pulls out the knife and starts waving it around like a lunatic)

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    I love the moronic idea that because there is an assymetry, the less powerful party must only be in the right, but noble as well.
    Straw man, much?

    If a child attacked me with a knife, they could do a lot of damage. To disarm and render them safe I might have to kick them in the head, or do something unpleasant. At that point people like you would come out of the woodwork shrieking "Look! He kicked a child in the head! Boycott!"
    I very much doubt that you would have to kick a child in the head... Indeed, the law of self-defence recognises that the action taken must be "reasonable". Whether or not kicking a small child in the head was a necessary and reasonable measure to prevent them from attacking you with a knife will depend on the context, but the point is that using disproportionately lethal and harsh force against an ostensible 'threat' is unjustified - yet those on the right are rarely willing to recognise this in the context of Israel's actions against its neighbours (occupied or otherwise).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Unlike you, I don't need to throw-in laced insults to prove a point.

    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    If you think the reason apartheid fell is because of the cultural boycott, you are (1) an idiot, (2) achingly unlettered.

    The analogy is also moronic because no matter how hard the fascists and their useful idiots on the far left try, they cannot even come close to showing that a country where Arab Israelis have the right to vote, are in parliament, are on the Supreme Court, are prominent in the media and who regularly say in opinion polls they prefer to continue living under Israeli rule (because they see how much a shambles the rest of the Middle East is) could be construed as anything like South Africa

    Comparing Israel to South Africa is an extremist position pushed by sinister fascists and useful idiots of low intelligence who lack the intellectual horsepower to see the analogy for the idiocy it is
    1) I posted a wikipedia extract for Aj's information. Nowhere have I said anything about cultural boycott. Now tell me how do you come with that conclusion?

    2) A certain former zionist compared Israel's oppression to South Africa under apartheid. Let me tell you know he is much more credible and informed than you ever will be.

    3) Nowhere I have compared South Africa to Israel until now. Yet you have the mental capacity to discern such a connection. But whatever. I will tolerate your nonsense.


    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    [/font]

    You call it "cherry picked", I call it salient. If you don't want me to make a fool of you, don't bring up analogies that will tend to support my interpretation of events.

    [/font]

    Instead of desperately scrabbling around to find out that Hamas (which was created in 1987, not "1980-1990" as you so embarrasingly said, yet again demonstrating your laughably poor knowledge of the history of the I/P conflict) may have intended by their creation in 1988 15 years after the first settlements, perhaps we can look to their own words.

    [/i]

    But thanks for showing us where your sympathies lie
    1) It's called cherry picking. If you ever want a put on a credible discussion, quote the whole post. And address every point.

    2) I'm writing all my posts form what I've read and learn over the years. I'm not racking my head on anything to find out more about Hamas or Israel for the sake of this thread. I'm not compelled to know the year when Hamas was created. I know it was created at some point in 1980-1990 and that's what I precisely said. Generally when you know you can't continue a discussion, you will cling on to childish insults and remarks.

    3) Not sure where you got that Hamas charter nor do I care. I've seen video footage of Hamas spokesman/woman saying their "struggle" is to end the brutal occupation in Palestine. And I have seen several reports were Jews and Arabs have protested together for an end to this conflict. It doesn't mean much to me.

    Hamas is a nasty organization and that was not even the topic of this discussion. You have no idea how to engage in a discussion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    I very much doubt that you would have to kick a child in the head... Indeed, the law of self-defence recognises that the action taken must be "reasonable". Whether or not kicking a small child in the head was a necessary and reasonable measure to prevent them from attacking you with a knife will depend on the context, but the point is that using disproportionately lethal and harsh force against an ostensible 'threat' is unjustified - yet those on the right are rarely willing to recognise this in the context of Israel's actions against its neighbours (occupied or otherwise).
    And what precisely would you do to stop the rockets? Answering "Stop the occupation" is a poor answer because Israel did stop occupying Gaza.

    If you were the Israeli Prime Minister the day the rockets started, what would you do to stop them? And as I have clearly pointed out, the obsession with the putative asymmetry of the conflict is utterly flawed as a basis to claim one side is inherently nobler and more justified than the other.

    The reason the Israelis have low casualties is that after 1000 of their citizens were killed in the Second Intifada, they pulled out of Gaza completely (including forcibly evicting Israelis living there even though Jews have lived in Gaza longer than Islam has existed as a religion), they built the separation wall. When the rockets came, they invested in radar warning, Iron Dome and air raid shelters. By contrast, Hamas invested in bunkers to protect their rockets and their leadership only. The thousands of missiles fired at Israel didn't kill anyone because of the measures Israel took; the corollary of that is every time the radar warning computers calculated a missile would land in a particular area, the air raid sirens would blare and you had about 20 seconds to get into the bunker. In parts of the country this was happening 30 times a day, completely shutting the country down. In Sderot, fully one third of the children are now diagnosed with PTSD. The bizarre justifications and claims that the rockets don't do any damage and so Israel should just take it are fundamentally dishonest.

    If Israel were a dictatorship, the High Rabbi or whatever could dictate that the people would just take it and accept the rockets hitting them, in the interests of Israel's international image. In a democratic country, where the PM is under intense pressure because the people in its largest cities are having to go underground 30 times a day to shelter from rocket bombardment... no such leader could resist calls to hit back and hit back hard where the country under attack has the means to do so.

    Israel offered several ceasefires that Hamas declined. Israel kept firing back until the rockets stopped. It seems pretty clear who is in the wrong there.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    I'm not racking my head on anything to find out more about Hamas or Israel for the sake of this thread.
    If you don't even know what year Hamas was created then you are clearly not well informed enough to have an opinion on this deeply complicated and complex subject.

    Like so many "anti-zionists", you don't actually know very much about the conflict but it doesn't stop you being highly opinionated about it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    X
    Answer this. Do you think Israel should be destroyed, or not? Do you support its right to exist?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    Answer this.
    I do not have to answer any of your irrelevant questions. If you wish to ask me that on a more relevant thread/capacity then I'd be happy to oblige.

    I will respond to your other post(/rant/monologue), however, later.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    I fear answering because it will undermine my claim to being unbiased
    FTFY. If you're scared to answer, even though it's patently relevant to this topic, that's fine. Don't bother to respond later, I haven't really seen anything in your previous posts that would suggest you possess the kind of intellect that would make a discussion worthwhile, and I find reading your clunky prose style tiresome.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 4, 2015

1,738

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.