Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    “I have deplored most of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s actions in office. However, I do not believe that a cultural boycott will force Mr Netanyahu from power, nor have I ever heard of a cultural boycott ending a bloody and prolonged conflict,” Rowling wrote.

    “If any effects are felt from the proposed boycott, it will be by ordinary Israelis, many of whom did not vote for Mr Netanyahu.”

    “Dumbledore is an academic and he believes that certain channels of communication should always remain open,”

    Source: http://time.com/4088550/rowling-defe...srael-boycott/


    I think she grossly contradicted herself. Behold her quote from the speech at Harvard:

    "If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped change. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better."

    Seems like she only wrote the Harvard speech for the sake of it. I'm kind of disappointed she didn't mean that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, disregarding whether she is contradicting that previous comment, she is still correct. The money and support that the West has provided for Israel have been towards things like the highly sophisticated missile defense system that stops the Palestinians from leveling the country. If we did not support Israel, there would be another holocaust. Israelies may discriminate against Muslims, but Muslims in the Middle-East hate Jews. Source: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Pol...ws-unfavorably (you may not feel the source is reliable but the statistics they use are from PEW, a very reliable fact tank).

    Secondly, I do not think that the Palestinians have "no voice". Left-wing media and the UN are very supportive of them. 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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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"?
    Offline

    18
    (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"?
    Israel gets such stick because of the way they treat Palestinian civilians. That is quite literally all there is to it, save for the anti-Semitic fringe of the anti-Israeli movement. I'm astounded that people are convinced by this kind of argument. Your implication that Israel should be judged not on its own actions but its actions relative to its neighbours is pretty stupid -- you are, in effect, saying 'Oh look how bad those other countries are! This means Israel definitely should not be boycotted.' A more sensible conclusion to come to from that realisation would've been to say that all countries, including the Arab states, that have poor human rights records should be subject to a boycott and/or other punishing measures. Or better still, that boycotts are not an appropriate way to respond to human rights abuses on the part of governments because they are likely to hurt the citizens more than the government.

    Nor do I see why allowing Pride marches on its territory should exempt Israel from repercussions for any number of offences, be they related to human rights or settlement-building. I can, however, take a hint about why you think like this -- you put quotation marks around the word Palestine in your post, which is something of a warning to me (based on past encounters) that your view on this is biased by your allegiance to one particular side in this conflict and is unlikely to be changed by any amount of debate.

    Feel free to correct me if that's not a fair judgement but I really would love to see why you think that Israel's tolerance of Pride marches and the fact that they apparently have a better human rights record are decent arguments against a boycott.

    Before the expected barrage of accusations of anti-Semitism inevitably pours in, I'll say this: I'm not in favour of this boycott except as a final resort. In any case, I don't think Israel can really be persuaded to stop its abuses and aggression against Palestinians unless the United States gets serious about it, which is unlikely for political reasons.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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.
    I
    I don't see how a cultural blockade can achieve much of anything. Economic sure, but not cultural.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with J.K. Rowling on a lot of things but I do think that her opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is driven more by emotions than fact. As KingBradly said above, were it not for the West's support, Israel would have been destroyed by now and J.K. Rowling fails to accept this. Rather than criticise Hamas of terrorism, Israel is once again being targeted as a cruel and murderous nation. This truly is bordering on antisemitism.
    Offline

    18
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    Re-read my post and think about what I said.

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by WokSz)
    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.
    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.

    Equally, Hamas ought to be judged on its own actions and you may be right in that people are too partisan on this issue and are making unjustified concessions to Hamas but considering this is a thread about one author's view on boycotting Israel, the actions of Hamas are fairly irrelevant, unless the point you're trying to make is that Hamas's attacks on Israel somehow mitigate the actions of the Israeli state and military, which I don't agree with.

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

    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.
    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).

    Although I suppose it again depends on what you mean by 'addressed.' I reject completely any notion of making allowances for any of the parties on the grounds that the other party was mean to them so they couldn't help but hit back, killing civilians in the process -- I don't think that ought to be seen as a lesser crime by putting it 'in context' of the wider conflict. I do see this sort of thing quite a lot, which is why I may have been a bit more terse in my previous post than I would normally be. You also seem to have conflated the general debate about the Israel-Palestine conflict with the specific legal responsibility of both parties for civilian deaths.

    Ultimately, this thread is quite specific so while your criticism of TSR members generally may be true (and I'm inclined to agree), that's not what this thread is about. To point that out is not a defence of Hamas, I hasten to add.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    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.
    I think it was more a case of them smuggling them in than being let keep them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Bull**** if you ask me what does she know...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WokSz)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    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.
    Go back and read what I wrote. Taking something out of context is not helping the debate.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    You completely ignore the asymmetry of the imposed occupation.
    Hardly. The use of force is necessary to subdue a threat. I don't want to imagine what could have happened to Israel had they not been militarised.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this point. You raise some fair points but it does not, in my opinion, justify Israel's portrayal in the media.

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    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..

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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).
    Although I suppose it again depends on what you mean by 'addressed.' I reject completely any notion of making allowances for any of the parties on the grounds that the other party was mean to them so they couldn't help but hit back, killing civilians in the process -- I don't think that ought to be seen as a lesser crime by putting it 'in context' of the wider conflict. I do see this sort of thing quite a lot, which is why I may have been a bit more terse in my previous post than I would normally be. You also seem to have conflated the general debate about the Israel-Palestine conflict with the specific legal responsibility of both parties for civilian deaths.[/QUOTE]

    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Point one. It's bizarre that the Palestinians and their proxies on the European left are constantly shrieking "Boycott!", and in the next minute they are saying it's a "war crime" that the Israelis don't allow certain goods in among the thousands of tonnes a week Israel allows over the Eretz crossing into Gaza each week (or indeed a boycott from the 30,000 Gazans who are allowed into Israel each year for medical treatment in their universal healthcare system)

    You can't have it both ways; either you think the Zionist state is a horrible entity that must be totally boycotted, or it is not.

    Point two. Boycotting Israeli academia and filmmakers is moronic. These are the people who are most likely to be on the left and opposed to the occupation and to Netanyahu personally. How is boycotting them going to make a peace deal more likely? The people who are pushing this are people who believe in the total destruction of Israel (and their useful idiots) and thus they don't actually care that this will probably make peace less likely.

    The Gatekeepers, a 2013 Israeli documentary which interviews five former heads of the Shin Bet intelligence service (who are all utterly opposed to occupation, despite being deeply involved in carrying out the less pleasant aspects of it), is probably the best, the most moving, documentary I've seen in my life. If there was a boycott, that film would never have been made.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    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.
    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!"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    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.
    Are you talking about the land Israel won in a defensive war in 1967, and then offered to give back in full in 1968? At which point the Arabs agreed the "Three Nos"; no to recognition, no to negotiation, no to peace. The same Palestine that rejected peace deals in 2000 and 2008, the latter offer of which was basically 95% of what they want and land swaps for the other 5%, billions in development aid?

    Are you talking about the same Palestine from which Israel gave back Gaza in 2005, in whole including forcibly evicting 10,000 Israelis (despite the fact that Jews have been living in Gaza since before Islam even existed), following which Hamas took over, turned Gaza into theocratic statelet and started firing thousands of rockets into Israel?

    Like most people on the far left, your historical understanding of the conflict is laughable, at best.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.