[ennui]

Originally Posted by -Sid-

Hang on, why does opposing Israel's policies in the West Bank automatically make someone anti-semitic?

It does not make them automatically anti-semitic. I described the Co-Op boycott as an anti-semitic stance, as it is clearly taking sides in an international geo political issue with huge consequences and ramifications. I am aware that in my own country there is a volatile and vocal insurgency of people wanting to destroy our way of life much the same as they want to destroy the Israeli way of life. Qatada is just one of their high profile ring leaders. I see no reason to tolerate their ambitions or ideals or side with nor promote their campaign of hate and destruction.

It is therefore my choice to never shop at the Co-Op. I choose to take my business elsewhere, furthermore I will make every effort to buy Israeli produce and products.

Are the Co-Op considering boycotting Poland and Polish goods? Somehow the East Prussian issue doesn't make the same headlines these days. Funny that.

[Eurytus]

Originally Posted by ennui

It does not make them automatically anti-semitic. I described the Co-Op boycott as an anti-semitic stance, as it is clearly taking sides in an international geo political issue with huge consequences and ramifications. I am aware that in my own country there is a volatile and vocal insurgency of people wanting to destroy our way of life much the same as they want to destroy the Israeli way of life. Qatada is just one of their high profile ring leaders. I see no reason to tolerate their ambitions or ideals or side with nor promote their campaign of hate and destruction.

It is therefore my choice to never shop at the Co-Op. I choose to take my business elsewhere, furthermore I will make every effort to buy Israeli produce and products.

Are the Co-Op considering boycotting Poland and Polish goods? Somehow the East Prussian issue doesn't make the same headlines these days. Funny that.

You seem quite unable to distinguish between a boycott of ISRAELI goods and a boycott of goods originating from ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS.

I recommend further education

[ennui]

Originally Posted by Eurytus

You seem quite unable to distinguish between a boycott of ISRAELI goods and a boycott of goods originating from ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS.

I recommend further education

The Co-Op made their choice. I am free to make my choice. It is my money I can spend it where I choose. And there is nothing you can do about it.

I don't need to disentagle the legal semantics to get clarity on this issue, the issue is already clear enough to me, so further or higher education is never going to give them my custom back.

The only illegal settlers that concern me are the ones in Tower Hamlets and Luton and Bradford. Possibly much the same people that have infiltrated the Co-Op through the Sommerfields annexation.

[Eurytus]

Originally Posted by ennui

The Co-Op made their choice. I am free to make my choice. It is my money I can spend it where I choose. And there is nothing you can do about it.

I don't need to disentagle the legal semantics to get clarity on this issue, the issue is already clear enough to me, so further or higher education is never going to give them my custom back.

The only illegal settlers that concern me are the ones in Tower Hamlets and Luton and Bradford. Possibly much the same people that have infiltrated the Co-Op through the Sommerfields annexation.

Nice to see your prejudice extends beyond middle eastern issues.

[ennui]

Originally Posted by Eurytus

Nice to see your prejudice extends beyond middle eastern issues.

There you go. It seems "Racist!" is the new "Fire!".

Are you claiming that we do not have any illegal settlers in Tower Hamlets, nor in Bradford nor in Luton and that I am prejudice for imagining that those communities are a safe haven for those that are plotting and scheming to do us great harm?

[Sniffle774]

Originally Posted by ennui

It does not make them automatically anti-semitic. I described the Co-Op boycott as an anti-semitic stance, as it is clearly taking sides in an international geo political issue with huge consequences and ramifications. .

Are they though ? They make it clear that other Israeli companies will get the business.

[Partisan]

Originally Posted by TelevisionUser

However, you should also be aware that many of us, me included, want a settlement that gives a fully viable independent Palestinian state to the Palestinians which is what they truly deserve and that gives peace and security to Israel and Israelis which is what they deserve too. There is a rather good, and indeed fair, peace settlement blueprint here: http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/static-maps/

A 10/10 also goes to the Brazilian Parliament for their recent endorsement in support of the Geneva Initiative.

Thanks for the link. Some constructive ideas in there.

I'm aware that the creation of a Palestinian state is something which a plurality of people in the UK (who have an opinion) think is a Good Idea, and has been the main middle east policy of successive Labour and Tory governments for decades. Personally I don't think it'll turn out well, and I don't think handing over 50% of Israel to yet another undemocratic Arab state is fair or just and I can't see how it will lead to peace or security for Israel or improve the Palestinian Arabs' woeful lot. I just don't get it. They would all be far better off under Israeli rule (equal rights, democracy, free press, freedom of speech - all things lacking in the PA or anywhere else in the Arab world).

This is just my opinion. I realise it's not mainstream or in line with the foreign office's view, but I live in a democracy and am allowed to dissent.

However, if there is to be a two-state solution (which I accept is probably inevitable, assuming the PA ever returns to negotiations, but I don't have to like it!), then it needs to be based on a negotiated settlement. There are so many complex issues which need to be ironed out such as water distribution, access to Jewish holy sites, electricity supply, sewage treatment, and so on. But you can't have fair negotiations as long as people prejudge the outcome, which is what Co-Op is doing. The message this sends to Israel is: "we don't care what you think or what you want, we will force a Palestinian state upon you whether you like it or not". Some people may applaud this "f*ck Israel" attitude, I don't. And since it's Israelis that we (i.e. British government and business) need to convince of the merits of a two state solution it's not a very good way of going about it.

Two parties are required for negotiations to take place and it's the Palestinian Authority that is currently refusing to return to the table. Settlements are just an excuse and if you've been following the situation you'd know that they are an issue which was only raised in order to avoid negotiations during and since 2009. The Camp David accords deliberately made no mention of settlements so that Israel could retain the right to build them in lieu of a final status agreement.

Last point, and sorry for the rambling post, but I can guarantee that this Co-Op motion was tabled and supported by loud mouthed single issue obsessives who have joined the Co-Op for this sole purpose. The same thing is happening in trade unions (Aslef's chairman is also the chair of the Palestine Solidarity Committee and you should see the anti-Jewish propaganda they're now pumping out). That's not good for the Co-op or British democracy and really should worry people.

[Eurytus]

Originally Posted by Partisan

I'm aware that the creation of a Palestinian state is something which a plurality of people in the UK (who have an opinion) think is a Good Idea, and has been the main middle east policy of successive Labour and Tory governments for decades. Personally I don't think it'll turn out well, and I don't think handing over 50% of Israel to yet another undemocratic Arab state is fair or just and I can't see how it will lead to peace or security for Israel or improve the Palestinian Arabs' woeful lot. I just don't get it. They would all be far better off under Israeli rule (equal rights, democracy, free press, freedom of speech - all things lacking in the PA or anywhere else in the Arab world).
.

I think equal rights within one country is the best solution for the Palestinians. However I don't think the Israelis will go for it because the Palestinians will demand return of refugees. And then the democratic process will not produce a good result for the Jewish inhabitants of Israel.

[Partisan]

Originally Posted by Eurytus

I think equal rights within one country is the best solution for the Palestinians. However I don't think the Israelis will go for it because the Palestinians will demand return of refugees. And then the democratic process will not produce a good result for the Jewish inhabitants of Israel.

Considering that 60% of Palestinian Arabs voted for Hamas and their nihilistic "Death to Jews" policies when given democracy, I think you may be right

The refugee issue is something that the surrounding Arab countries should be pressured to sort out. It's unacceptable that descendants of refugees from a war 64 years ago are still kept in squalid camps and denied basic rights by Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Syria, and those countries should be held responsible for the problem not Israel. This situation doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. They've been kept that way as a deliberate policy in order to maintain a political grievance against Israel. It's disgusting.

[Partisan]

Originally Posted by Mikael

Just out of curiosity, did the bible tell you that Israel has a claim to the West Bank and Gaza or Judea and Samaria as you call it ?

No, Israel's claim to Judea and Samaria (its correct name - West Bank is the name given to it by King Hussein of Jordan when he illegally annexed it in 1950 in order to delete the Jewish connection) is based on binding international agreement, specifically San Reno in 1920 which awarded all of Palestine to the Jewish people, and no subsequent declaration by the UN can or does void that. It still stands even though subsequent governments have reneged on that agreement. Not only that but generally speaking when land is taken in a defensive war (which 1967 was) the country that was attacked has a right to maintain control over it.

[TimMcTVUser]

Isreal can't really come out of this positively. Give in and agree to a 2 state solution, obviously taking into account what the Palastinians ask for and there is created a new uncontrolable 'enemy'. Go the opposite way and incorporate it all into Isreal and population growth will eventually see the end of Isreal. No wonder they can't make their minds up and are sat in the middle. It's all a little pathetic and one wonders if they had the balls to be decisive to begin with and not play God over so many people's lives, the whole area wouldn't be in the state it is today.

[Partisan]

Originally Posted by TimMcTVUser

Isreal can't really come out of this positively. Give in and agree to a 2 state solution, obviously taking into account what the Palastinians ask for and there is created a new uncontrolable 'enemy'. Go the opposite way and incorporate it all into Isreal and population growth will eventually see the end of Isreal. No wonder they can't make their minds up and are sat in the middle. It's all a little pathetic and one wonders if they had the balls to be decisive to begin with and not play God over so many people's lives, the whole area wouldn't be in the state it is today.

On the contrary, the reason the area is in the "state" it is in today - which is by the way quite calm, peaceful and prosperous compared to most places in the region such as Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, etc - is because of the (Labour) Atlee government's failure to stand by previous promises and commitments to the Jewish people and pursuit of a policy of appeasement to terror, extortion and blackmail. We should not have recognised Jordan's illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria (we did so because the Hashemite clan are extremely wealthy and powerful) and should not have agreed to (and enforced) limits on Jewish immigration following WWII (while actively encouraging Arab immigration). The British political classes betrayed Arab and Jew alike through their weakness and indecisiveness.

The best thing Israel could have done was to follow Jordan's lead in unilateralism and fully annex Judea and Samaria following the Yom Kippor war if not the Six Day War. Instead they put their trust in the international community in believing that a peaceful compromise could be reached with their enemies, an assumption that has been proved wrong time and time again.

[TimMcTVUser]

^^

So what's your thinking?

The way Israel is letting the situation currently stand is not in it's own long term favour. Ignore the 'peace' you seem confused about, and lets even ignore the millions of effectively apartheid Palestinians and ignore the surrounding countries that you claim want to end the existence if Israel, what about it's own population? In 50 years time what do you feel would be the situation?

[Partisan]

I object to your description of Palestinian Arabs as "effectively apartheid" as this has no basis in fact and is purely emotive language.

I don't know what you mean by saying that I seem 'confused' about peace. To me peace means people not blowing each other up and generally tolerating each other. To our enemies peace means the west's subjugation and enslavement. Which one do you mean?

If you're asking me what I'd do if I was Israel's PM then I'd do exactly as Netanyahu is doing. Push for international pressure on the PLO to return to negotiations and until they do so continue to develop the Palestinian economy and build real peace on the ground in lieu of a political solution - i.e. increase freedom of movement (remove checkpoints), maintain security, encourage bilateral trade, education, etc. And hope that tomorrow is better than today. What else can anyone do?

[TimMcTVUser]

Originally Posted by Partisan

I object to your description of Palestinian Arabs as "effectively apartheid" as this has no basis in fact and is purely emotive language.

There was a thread I read on Digital Spy regarding this very issue. I can assure you it holds a lot of fact and truth and is indeed worthy of emotive language. It's not my description, but an opinion based on facts held by many respected people. You are of course free to object all you like.

[Partisan]

The problem I have is that you're drawing a loose and lazy comparison between South African apartheid - a deliberate government policy of racial segregation and discrimination - and the security situation that exists in Judea and Samaria in which Jewish communities have to ghettoise themselves in order to avoid having their children murdered on a daily basis as has been the case since the second intifada.

(I realise that some people would reply to this by saying that Jews shouldn't be living there in the first place and deserve what they get. I find that point of view abhorrent. You?)

There isn't really a comparison, at least you'd have to look hard to find surface similarities, but if people keep using the word then the idea is that eventually Israeli Jews get tarred with the same brush as the South Africans. Except all you actually achieve is to devalue the word and decrease peoples' understanding of what real apartheid was. Same goes for terms like "ethnic cleansing", "genocide", "holocaust".

[Nosegay]

Originally Posted by Partisan

The problem I have is that you're drawing a loose and lazy comparison between South African apartheid - a deliberate government policy of racial segregation and discrimination - and the security situation that exists in Judea and Samaria in which Jewish communities have to ghettoise themselves in order to avoid having their children murdered on a daily basis as has been the case since the second intifada.

(I realise that some people would reply to this by saying that Jews shouldn't be living there in the first place and deserve what they get. I find that point of view abhorrent. You?)

There isn't really a comparison, at least you'd have to look hard to find surface similarities, but if people keep using the word then the idea is that eventually Israeli Jews get tarred with the same brush as the South Africans. Except all you actually achieve is to devalue the word and decrease peoples' understanding of what real apartheid was. Same goes for terms like "ethnic cleansing", "genocide", "holocaust".

Don't expect left-wingers and Islamic terrorist sympathisers to have any common sense regarding the terrible lexicography used when dealing with this issue. Any comparison to South Africa however malicious will be used to its maximum capacity in order to bring hurt to Israelis and specifically Jews. As long as Islamic terrorism reigns in the region the Left will be happy that the 'oppressors' are getting their just desserts.

[TimMcTVUser]

Not really. No one used the term 'Apartheid - the same as South Africa'. Apartheid can and does exist outside of the type we witnessed and understood so well in South Africa.

What's your understanding of the following:

1. The 1952 Law of Entry into Israel
2. The Law of Return
3. The Citizenship Laws of 1952

Just these three to start with, if of course you care to comment.

[Mikael]

Originally Posted by Partisan

The refugee issue is something that the surrounding Arab countries should be pressured to sort out. It's unacceptable that descendants of refugees from a war 64 years ago are still kept in squalid camps and denied basic rights by Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Syria, and those countries should be held responsible for the problem not Israel. This situation doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. They've been kept that way as a deliberate policy in order to maintain a political grievance against Israel. It's disgusting.

If it wasn't for Zionism there would be no 6 million Palestinian refugees. These refugees will come back, like it or not.

Originally Posted by Partisan

No, Israel's claim to Judea and Samaria (its correct name - West Bank is the name given to it by King Hussein of Jordan when he illegally annexed it in 1950 in order to delete the Jewish connection) is based on binding international agreement, specifically San Reno in 1920 which awarded all of Palestine to the Jewish people, and no subsequent declaration by the UN can or does void that. It still stands even though subsequent governments have reneged on that agreement. Not only that but generally speaking when land is taken in a defensive war (which 1967 was) the country that was attacked has a right to maintain control over it.

Whilst you can believe that the British had the right to carve up the world and allocate it to different peoples, I do not. The British made a terrible mistake when they invited Zionists to Palestine, this is where the conflict began. Lord Balfour was anti-semite that just wanted to get rid of the Jews. The Zionists quickly used terrorism to start a a civil war, then declared their own country (Israel), the civil war then turned into a real war in 1948.

With regards to the 1967 war, Israel was NOT attacked, Israel attacked its neighbours and stole their land (Sinai, Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights), THIS is why the settlements are ILLEGAL, you cannot attack another people and take their land and then build settlements on it, all the civilized countries in the world including the United States believe the settlements are illegal, you Zionists are the only ones that think that they are not. If you want to live in your own little world, having no respect for international law, then living in your own little world is what you deserve, you should be isolated and sanctioned and left to rot.

Originally Posted by Partisan

If you're asking me what I'd do if I was Israel's PM then I'd do exactly as Netanyahu is doing. Push for international pressure on the PLO to return to negotiations and until they do so continue to develop the Palestinian economy and build real peace on the ground in lieu of a political solution - i.e. increase freedom of movement (remove checkpoints), maintain security, encourage bilateral trade, education, etc. And hope that tomorrow is better than today. What else can anyone do?

Netenyahu not only wants impossible things but he also wants to negotiate and at the same time build settlements, this is why the PLO is not negotiating.The Israeli people need to vote for someone that is going to do the sensible things - Stop all settlements, stop the occupation and accept Palestine's right to exist within the pre 1967 borders including East Jerusalem. Palestinians including Hamas are ready to accept Israel's existence as long as it is not a "Jewish State" and as long as Palestinians within Israel are giving equal rights as Jews. It is up to the Israeli people now to elect someone who wants peace, the clock is ticking and there's not much time left.

[Eurytus]

Originally Posted by Partisan

The problem I have is that you're drawing a loose and lazy comparison between South African apartheid - a deliberate government policy of racial segregation and discrimination - and the security situation that exists in Judea and Samaria in which Jewish communities have to ghettoise themselves in order to avoid having their children murdered on a daily basis as has been the case since the second intifada.

The walls are built to ghettoise the Jews that's for sure. I think you need to look at exactly who is having their freedom of movement curtailed.

[Mikael]

Originally Posted by Partisan

the security situation that exists in Judea and Samaria in which Jewish communities have to ghettoise themselves in order to avoid having their children murdered on a daily basis as has been the case since the second intifada..

I think colonizers will always find it difficult to colonize a land that is already occupied. You thought colonization was that easy ? You just walk into the land you want and build on it without the owners wanting to kill you ?

[Speak-Softly]

Just a question Mikael.

What's wrong with Israel being a jewish state?

[Mikael]

Originally Posted by Speak-Softly

Just a question Mikael.

What's wrong with Israel being a jewish state?

Because when the Palestinian refugee's return to their land (present day Israel), the Jews in Israel will be a minority, how can Israel be a Jewish state when the Jews are a minority? It cannot. It can be Israel, but not Israel that is a Jewish state.

[Partisan]

Not really. No one used the term 'Apartheid - the same as South Africa'. Apartheid can and does exist outside of the type we witnessed and understood so well in South Africa.

This is nonsense, with respect. There has only been one Apartheid in human history, enshrined in law by the racially supremacist South African government. Either it's Apartheid or it's not. Or are you saying that it's okay to use the word to describe any situation where people of different nationalities / religions are prevented from mixing in a normal fashion regardless of the circumstances?

And if you are citing any of those three laws as examples of racial discrimination then you might as well say that the UK practices racial discrimination by excluding non-Britons from citizenship. For other people who are interested and wish to make their own minds up, here is the text of the laws in question.

Law of Return:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive...+5710-1950.htm

1952 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law:
http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/speci...enship_law.htm

[Eurytus]

Originally Posted by Partisan

And if you are citing any of those three laws as examples of racial discrimination then you might as well say that the UK practices racial discrimination by excluding non-Britons from citizenship. For other people who are interested and wish to make their own minds up, here is the text of the laws in question.

Not remotely the same. Treating citizens differently to non-citizens is not remotely the same as treating one set of citizens differently to another.