Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Anger as boycott of Israeli goods to becomes a criminal offense watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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. If I was in their position I wouldn't give two sh*ts about muslims whining wanting their land back.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Not normally, however consider the inhumane treatment of Jews.
    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.

    Not only by the Nazis but persecution from muslims for centuries.
    What "persecution from muslims for centuries" did you have in mind? Warning in advance, dhimma is not a good example.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Why isn't it?
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    And out of the whole world, a tiny part of the Middle East is where they decided to set up camp?

    I'm sure they weren't overflowing with options.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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.
    I still don't think they're going to appreciate that treatment regardless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    jews run the world right

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    So it's okay if a local authority hands out contracts to the leader of the Council's brother in law?
    Completely different set of circumstances with a completely different set of ethics, as you full know. However, given there's nothing dodgy and the council is getting the best deal from that person when compared to others, yes.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Usually agree with what you say but unless the councils specify they have a mandate of BDS and the local population are given the change to vote on this issue (most aren't they are simply voted in by the council members) then any attempt at BDS is wrong.

    besides the government decides our foreign policy not the local councils who should be more worried about getting the bins emptied and getting improvements to schools not worrying about the conditions in Palestine
    I do agree to a point (that constituents should be consulted), however I don't agree that the government should be telling them where they can/can't buy from. Plus, as I said before, there are other things to consider - such as the environmental impact of imported goods. Say a council buys e.g. oranges from Spain rather than Israel and the government accuses them of boycotting Israeli products but they say they were doing it for less environmental impact, you have a situation where you can't conclusively prove either way, and a council facing sanctions when they weren't making political moves or a useless, waste of time law that sits around doing **** all as you can't prove anything. I also agree with the idea that it's undemocratic to impose a ban on boycotting, if not in councils then definitely in universities. Then again, 'undemocratic' is a (nice) way of describing this government.

    Given they barely have the dollar to buy a bin atm I can see why they aren't talking about it much no I agree they need to focus on local issues, but I don't see why they can't talk about/carry out action on global issues
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Completely different set of circumstances with a completely different set of ethics, as you full know. However, given there's nothing dodgy and the council is getting the best deal from that person when compared to others, yes.
    I think the whole premise of his point was that there is something dodgy


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    It wasn't defensive, several contemporary Israeli cabinet ministers and generals have admitted that the supposed imminent Egyptian attack they claimed to be pre-empting was a fiction
    Egypt blockaded Eilat and then ordered the UN peacekeepers out of Sinai. In doing so, they signed their own death warrant. Nasser is 100% to blame for bringing about conditions in which Israel could not do anything other than strike
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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.
    What were those Jews thinking, not being grateful to the Muslims for the repeated pogroms, the massacres, forcing them to wear yellow stars, banning repairs to synagogues and allowing them to fall into disrepair.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    Egypt blockaded Eilat and then ordered the UN peacekeepers out of Sinai.
    Nasser offered to submit to arbitration on the former, including potentially letting the ICJ decide. UNEF offered to redeploy on the Israeli side of the border, but the Israeli government turned them down.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    What were those Jews thinking, not being grateful to the Muslims for the repeated pogroms, the massacres, forcing them to wear yellow stars, banning repairs to synagogues and allowing them to fall into disrepair.
    I could go through this, but as it's largely a strawman appeal to emotion anyway I don't see the point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Nasser offered to submit to arbitration on the former, including potentially letting the ICJ decide. UNEF offered to redeploy on the Israeli side of the border, but the Israeli government turned them down.
    It's almost funny how much you don't know about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I guess you really are quite gullible. Nasser's intentions are clear from his words and his actions. His actions? Withdrawing the UN troops that were keeping the two countries apart, and blockadings the Straits. His words?

    "The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel." – President Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965

    "Brothers, it is our duty to prepare for the final battle in Palestine." – Nasser, Palestine Day, 1967

    "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." – Nasser, May 27, 1967

    "We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel. ... Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel .... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." – Nasser, May 28, 1967

    "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . . to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." – Nasser, May, 30, 1967 after signing a defense pact with Jordan's King Hussein

    "We are now ready to confront Israel .... The issue now at hand is not the Gulf of Aqaba, the Straits of Tiran, or the withdrawal of UNEF, but the ... aggression which took place in Palestine ... with the collaboration of Britain and the United States." – Nasser, June 2, 1967

    "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria is in a position to cut Israel in two at Kalkilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only twelve kilometers wide ... ." – El Akhbar newspaper, Cairo, May 31, 1967

    Cairo Radio Statements:

    May 19, 1967: "This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land"

    May 22, 1967: "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map"

    May 25, 1967: "The Gulf of Aqaba, by the dictum of history and the protection of our soldiers, is Arab, Arab, Arab."

    May 25, 1967: "Millions of Arabs are ... preparing to blow up all of America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America."

    May 27, 1967: "We challenge you, Eshkol, to try all your weapons. Put them to the test; they will spell Israel's death and annihilation."

    May 30, 1967: "With the closing of the Gulf of Akaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of the Arab forces encompassing it from the South from the North and from the East."

    May 30, 1967: "The world will know that the Arabs are girded for battle as the fateful hour approaches.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I could go through this, but as it's largely a strawman appeal to emotion anyway
    Oh really? Definitely an appeal to emotion to mention historical facts like

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_Fez_massacre
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1517_Hebron_attacks
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahdad
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_Thrace_pogroms
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Tiberias_massacre
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_A...riots_in_Egypt
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_A...jda_and_Jerada
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It seems you didn't actually bother to read the context of the post you chose to reply to. The direct point was about the dhimma system of Dark Age, Medieval and Early Modern period Islamic societies, and whether it constituted a level of persecution justifying Zionism as an idea. As you have included in a list of supposed counterexamples several pogroms that took place after the abolition of the dhimma system and the emergence of Zionism, you evidently did not grasp this point.

    That for most of the Dark and Middle Ages, the Islamic world was generally more tolerant to people of other faiths, including Jews, than Christian Europe at the same time is not particularly controversial, it is the position of many historians of the topic, including those hardly politically sympathetic to the Muslim world, such as Bernard Lews and Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    It's almost funny how much you don't know about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I guess you really are quite gullible.
    The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.

    Nasser's intentions are clear from his words and his actions. His actions? Withdrawing the UN troops that were keeping the two countries apart, and blockadings the Straits. His words?
    If you want to play the quote game:

    "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" - Menachem Begin, then Israeli cabinet minister

    "Nasser did not want war. He wanted victory without war." - Abba Eban, then Israeli foreign minister

    "The whole story about threat of extermination was totally contrived, and then elaborated upon a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories." - Mordechai Bentov, then Israeli cabinet minister

    "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." - Yitzhak Rabin, then Chief of Staff

    "I am convinved that our General Staff never told the government that there was any substance to the Egyptian military threat to Israel... All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded toward the full mobilization of our forced, no-one in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary for our 'defence' against the Egyptian threat...To pretend that the Egyptian force concentrated on our border were capable of threatening Israel's existence not only insults the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Zahal [the Israeli Army]." - Mattityahu Peled, then Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces

    "by falsifying the causes of the war and confusing its true motivations, the Israeli government was seeking to render acceptable to the people the principle of partial or total annexation."
    - Peled

    Nasser's public statements, as many have noted, are more consistent with him posturing and seeking to regain prestige in the Arab world, particularly after the Samu raid of the previous year. Egypt stopped bothering to enforce the blockade of Tiran after a few days anyway, Nasser was willing to submit to arbitration or negotiations over it, and the Johnson administration had been prepared to assemble an international effort to force the reopening of the straits. Israel wanted an excuse to go to war and take a punch at Nasser, and jumped at the chance.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why we should involve ourselves in the issues that only Muslims and Jews care about.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Going to leave this here a sec. Apologies for small print, but the article is in a student newspaper and unfortunately not published online. You'll see where I'm going with this shortly.

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Going to leave this here a sec. Apologies for small print, but the article is in a student newspaper and unfortunately not published online. You'll see where I'm going with this shortly.

    I don't know where you're going with this but I sure know where I am:

    "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." - anarchism101
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.