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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The fact they are elected doesn't matter. Being elected doesn't give you a broad mandate to do whatever you want. Councils have a specific remit and foreign policy does not fall into that area. The same way a Crime Commissioner can't arbritarily decide to raise a paramilitary army and invade Zimbabwe to topple Mugabe simply because they were elected and have a strong 'moral' stance on the issue.
    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.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You raised the matter with your inflammatory statement but hey ho. Answer me just this though, do you honestly seriously consider Israel to be the world's biggest terrorist state, in a world that includes the likes of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Sudan?
    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.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    political correctness at its very best

    the good thing about political correctness is how easy it is to curve because of how 1-2-3 it is

    so all it means is that they cannnot 'officially' boycott them, thats fine, they just dont have to 'choose' to go them, no one can 'force' you to buy from anywhere

    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    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. Because of this there's no leeway to claim that the institutions are not being targeted on the basis of nationality. 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.
    Institutions aren't protected under the equality act. It's nothing like that, boycotting and imprisoning are completely different.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    That's not a 'mandate', that's an assumed legal right. The government obviously begs to differ. Councils and not elected to take foreign policy stances. I assume it's pretty easy enough to simply not buy things from Israel, however the practice at issue here is the symbolic, politically motivated public boycotts.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    Israel has been documented, as testified to before the United Nations by British Colonel Richard Kemp, to having stricter rules-of-engagement than ISAF forces operated under in Afghanistan. Any and all legitimate cases of collateral damage, once Pallywood propaganda has been dismissed, against civilians and civilian infrastructure is investigated by Israel, and there are numerous instances of IDF soldiers facing sanctions for crimes, unlike Hamas soldiers who become public celebrities for murdering Israeli civilians. To declare an institutional policy of targeting civilian infrastructure is a woefully inaccurate.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    I'd hardly say wholesale human rights violations are trivial, and you've basically completely re-defined a term to suit your own agenda. ISIS are referred to as terrorists for the crimes they commit, not for who the type of people they target.
    Regardless, what of Iranian troops in Syria? Russia carpet bombing of Syrian rebel towns? The many Gulf nations and Turkey that sponsor terror groups in Syria? Or Pakistani ISI sponsoring of the Taliban and Al Qaeda? To compare Israeli actions against Palestinian terror groups to those nations is absolutely astonishing frankly, and yes reeks of anti-semitism. If the situation was flipped and it was a Palestinian nation at war with 'oppressed' Israelis I have no doubt in my mind you people wouldn't give one care in the slightest. It's quite literally only Israel that seems to be an issue for you guys.

    If you don't want to talk about a subject don't bring it up in the first place. You can't make an absolutely inflammatory statement and then pretend later that you want to remain 'on topic' and not discuss the matter.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KungPooPanda)
    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
    It's not enough to get Muslim votes..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Is the BDS movement even legal under the Equality Act 2010?
    They are presumably legal, but many of their actions are not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    Woahhhhh wait.... that law that prevents discrimination against nationality. . It exists?
    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
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Institutions aren't protected under the equality act. It's nothing like that, boycotting and imprisoning are completely different.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    EDIT: I apologise. I've already addressed this point in a earlier post.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheProblem)
    Down with the ZOG

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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    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
    International students pay more tuition fees than home students. ..:sigh:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  ISRAELMUSTPERISHFRONT500.jpg
Views: 68
Size:  55.3 KB

    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?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Mr007)
    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?
    Yes, it is true that some people called for a genocide of Germans, however they were certainly not mainstream views. The Soviets did 'ethnically cleanse' Easter Europe by forced movement of ethnic Germans, but then after WWII they moved on to persecuting Jews. How does that make sense, if they were controlled by Jews?

    Israel has provided birth control to women seemingly without their consent, but probably more to do with the fact that the women did not understand the significance of the medication they were given. This practice has ceased. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-8468800.html

    And where is your source for 'most Jews were Communists'?
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anti ZOG)
    Attachment 505395

    The best way to control opposition is to lead it ourselves - Vladimir Lenin


    Jewish problem. Jewish created opposition/solution.

    With capitalism they created anti-capitalism/Marxism/Trotskyism and so on.

    But it was these revolutions that were in fact financed by bankers. How much more capitalist can you get?
    True Capitalism is a Christian creation, this is includes a nationalized bank that charges no interest.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    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.
    Usury, genocide etc
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dumachi)
    Usury, genocide etc
    Considering the animals they are surrounded by, they obviously would need to get their hands dirty to ensure their safety.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Considering the animals they are surrounded by, they obviously would need to get their hands dirty to ensure their safety.
    They commit Usury on the Western World. (not all Jews only the Talmudist's)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dumachi)
    They commit Usury on the Western World. (not all Jews only the Talmudist's)
    So what? If you don't like the terms then don't borrow the money. Simples.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    The set of institutions being defined on the basis of nationality.
    Institutions do not have nationalities, nationality is a status of persons and their relationships to states. And the Equality Act is designed to protect persons anyway. Israeli academics can and do work at universities in other countries, and Israeli universities can and do employ non-Israeli academics.

    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.
    Well, for a start, Israeli universities are in many cases, an integral a part of the regime. They routinely produce research and work to aid the military and other branches of occupation and discrimination. Now, it's still arguable that this doesn't justify a comprehensive boycott, but it also raises other debates about levels of complicity and responsibility (not just here, but in general) that frankly, don't really have an obvious answer.

    Furthermore, it should be noted that comprehensive sanctions have been routinely used by the international community to exert pressure on states (Rhodesia, Serbia, South Africa to name just a few).

    Finally, a tangential point - the issue is not simply human rights per se (though obviously that is an important part of it) but the political dispute over political rights.

    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
    Well, for a start I'm not a BDS representative or activist, I'm merely trying to interpret their stance. But I don't see how I've implied that at all, having never referred to unofficial contacts and interactions. Additionally, I'm also not quite sure what you're classing as 'unofficial' here?

    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.
    Not really, because imprisonment isn't really comparable to boycotting. It's more like, say, boycotting a publishing company because you view some activity or aspect of them as unethical, and so refusing to buy any books published by them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    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?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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