132 2 mins 14 yrs

Trade Unonists are the new Nazis.

“Trade unionists are to launch a boycott of Israeli goods as part of a major campaign to secure a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, Stormont heard today. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) launched a report on Israel and Palestine compiled by senior members who visited the troubled region. As controversy continues to rage over the death toll in Gaza caused by the recent Israeli military attacks, trade union leaders announced they are to hold a major conference this year to act as a springboard for their campaign. While the DUP dismissed the report as unbalanced and urged unions to concentrate on local economic issues, Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams who hosted the report’s launch in Stormont’s Long Gallery commended the trade unionists.”

So, just to clarify, terrorist godfather Gerry Adams endorses a report compiled by terrorist appeasers attacking Israel for defending itself against terrorists! Wow, now THERE is a surprise, whatever next? The ICTU are natural born anti-semites, disinterested when Hamas kill Jews but very concerned when Israel dares to defend itself. ICTU are vile reprehensible arabists and an affront to the dignity of any worker whose dues they take to then attack the Jews.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

132 thoughts on “TRADE UNIONISTS FOR A SECOND HOLOCAUST

  1. ‘Trade unionists are to launch a boycott of Israeli goods as part of a major campaign to secure a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, Stormont heard today.’

    Excellent development. This has come about after much work /input by various groups. There will be much more of this to come across Europe and the world as activists are finding their footing.
    It is based on the Boycott South African goods that was so successful and which led to the ultimate downfall of the evil system of apartheid.

  2. "But [ICTU President Patricia McKeown] said her colleagues were deeply shocked by the conditions they saw in the Palestinian areas they visited and felt compelled to push for international action, with talks already under way with trade unions in Britain and the United States.

    "But she said she was angry the debate split along unionist/nationalist lines in Northern Ireland."

    As David so ably demonstrates. "New Nazis" and "Second Holocaust" indeed. Good grief. For shame. This blog has gone down terribly of late.

  3. If these creeps want to boycott Israeli goods, let there be a movement to encourage the purchase of Israeli goods.

    Lots of fine food and beauty and other products from the Jewish state.

  4. Phantom:

    Why do you call them "creeps"? They want peace, don’t you? They see a boycott as a way to obtain it.

  5. I very much want peace. But I see this as a very one sided attack on one side to a conflict on which there are very much two sides of the story.

    ( Not to re-fight this thing. Can’t do that every day )

  6. Phantom:

    "I see this as a very one sided attack on one side to a conflict on which there are very much two sides of the story."

    It wasn’t. Read Ms McKeown’s words again:

    "I put that down to a couple of things, an absence of knowledge… but it is also, in some quarters, extreme fundamentalism responding to extreme fundamentalism.""

    It would be next to impossible to boycott the Hamas or the Palestinians since they export nothing. It has to start somewhere so yes, let’s start in this peaceful way.

  7. Unacceptable

    Leverage can indeed be brought to bear against Hamas and the Palestinian Authority by reducing aid to those entities that somehow always have enough spare cash to build rockets

    This is choosing sides, and the wrong side at that.

  8. Phantom:

    Reducing aid? Are you sure you read that article?

    ""To see unemployment on the West Bank rising to 80%, to see people having to get up at three in the morning, and virtually sleep outside the the army controlled crossings in order to get into work – that’s something we didn’t expect to see."

    You wish to see 100% unemployment?

  9. I have a lot more sympathy for the people there than you may think

    And if Gaza has the resources for a rocket industry, then there is surplus aid or diverted aid that can be cut

    The trade union move is a de facto taking sides with Israel’s enemies. Which is not helpful to any effort to bring peace there.

  10. I don’t agree with the Trade Unionist position (are they boycotting any other nation?) but it is a far far cry from supporting any holocaust.

  11. ‘it is a far far cry from supporting any holocaust.’

    Yes, Talk about trivialising the Holocaust!

    Boycotting regimes has been a very effective tactic, in various struggles through-out the world. It’s non-violence is what appeals to me. It is a personal decision to boycott a good- I have not nor will I buy an product from Israel.

    For those who disagree with the boycott, they are free to buy all the goods and products they want.

    Free choice, personal decision, all very appealing concepts to right world, yes?

  12. "(are they boycotting any other nation?)"

    The first thing I did was search the ICTU website for references to China, Burma, Sudan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran. None of them are being boycotted.

    "And if Gaza has the resources for a rocket industry, then there is surplus aid or diverted aid that can be cut "

    Have you seen this article:
    http://www.meforum.org/article/1926

    There is a very strong correllation between levels of international aid and violence.

  13. Ross – good research and I thought as much. Selective boycotts of this nature aren’t based on priciple as much as on fashion.

  14. Mahons,

    do you agree that the boycotts of South African goods during the apartheid years were a good idea built on principle.

  15. Pinky – Yes, and not just the boycott of goods, but the refusal of performers to play there and the refusal of international sports to allow South African teams to participate.

    It had as much to do with South Africa’s size however, as the regime. By that I mean one couldn’t in a practical sense impose the same restrictions on China, a far more terrible player on the world stage. South Africa was an instance where opportunity to effect change met our ability to do so.

    But those who focused on South Africa alone and ignored the plight of others on that continent, or behind the Iron Curtain were mistaken at best.

  16. As the ICTU are cosying up to the terrorist scum, I will be boycotting any products thatmembers of this disgusting neo-Nazi organisation might have had a hand in makng. I have began my boycott by buying Danish rather than Irish butter. I hope others will do likewise.

  17. I agree with you in part Mahons, but disagree that inaction in one case should mean inaction in another.

    And I do think most people boycott on principle. Maybe some ‘stars’ like the fad aspect, but sure an ordinary person is not getting press coverage for their boycott attempt, so it is silly to state they are doing it as a fad.

  18. Pinky – I prefer to call my statement accurate. There are lots of folks who simply fall in line for the boycott du jour, folks who could have discussed Mandela and South Africa but where clueless about the rest of the continent.

    They embrace the prevailing winds, like Claude Rains in Casablanca.

  19. David,

    ICTU supporting a boycott of Israeli produce and they are "For a second holocaust"?

    Pleeeassse, somewhat hyperbolic don’t you think?

    Still could have been worse – they could have been NRG’s ‘neo-Nazi organisation’

    My god! talk about over egging the pudding.

    And there’s me thinking ICTU were all commies.

  20. The republicans should put their money where their mouths are and boycott their mobile phones (technologies designed in Israel) or PC’s (Intel CPU and chipsets are designed and some are developed in Israel). They can use Irish technology if they wish (TCP/IP over peat bog), or even better, current arab technologies (email over bedouin driven camel) to communicate long distance.

  21. ICTU are ‘Republicans’?

    I’m sure that’ll come as a surprise to the members of the P/U/L community of those Trade Unions associated within that body.

  22. I couldn’t care less about the ICTU traitor scum amongst their midst, as bad as republicans in my book.

  23. ‘This is choosing sides, and the wrong side at that.’

    Well, in your opinion, not in ours. I will boycott Israel; you may boycott whomever you want.

    Boycott Irish Butter?

    Try, i dare you! You won’t last long. No one makes butter like us.

    BTW,
    James, we design and make more Intel processors here than in Israel. I boycott them because they are a rip-ff. AMD are much better. BTW, we are very proud of our bogs.

    I fully support this action and will be doing my bit. A western democracy should never act in such a way, and any that do, should be punished. This is probably the best way, along with prosecutions for war crimes.

  24. ‘The ICTU are natural born anti-semites’ – DV
    Is it possible to be a natural born, anti-anything?

    ‘I have began my boycott by buying Danish rather than Irish butter. I hope others will do likewise.’ – NRG

    I’m sure Kerrygold are shitting themselves.

  25. Some 70 billion Dollars has been handed over to the Palestinians and therefore to Hamas. What has this money been used for. Why is Israel constantly accused of ‘closing the crossings’. What about crossings into Egypt. If any Palestinians are short of food or medical supplies, obviously it is because Hamas prefers to use the money to buy more arms

  26. ‘What about crossings into Egypt’

    They are also controlled by Israel.

    ‘Why is Israel constantly accused of ‘closing the crossings’

    Because they do

    ‘obviously it is because Hamas prefers to use the money to buy more arms’

    Not so obvious at all.

  27. ‘Why is Israel constantly accused of ‘closing the crossings’

    Because they do

    And why do they do that?

    You only get very partial credit for answering that Hamas won Gaza elections.

  28. ‘And why do they do that?’

    Because the Palestinians are pretty pissed of and may, i dunno, fire rockets at Israel.

    ‘And why do they do that?’

    They were kicked off their land, not paid for it, and stuffed into a little … camp by the Israelis.

    ‘And why do they do that?’

    Because the Israelis think that it’s their promised land and did not feel that they had to pay their fellow semites or even ask them for permission to buy their land.

    ‘And why do they do that?’

    religion.

    How many credits do i get Phanthom?!

  29. You get a passing grade.

    The rockets were the immediate cause, but the suicide bombers were a cause of checkpoints and border closings before that.

    This goes beyond religion.

    There are many Jews who are atheist or agnostic, openly hostile to religion but who strongly support the existence of Israel. It the home of their tribe. Even if the religion shut down tomorrow, the majority of the Jewish tribe would support Israel’s existence.

  30. Phanthom:

    Sure, they were all causes, but is it not important to attempt to discern the root cause of the problem; i say it’s religion.

    Religion is not important now, from the Israeli standpoint at least, but it is, nonetheless, the root cause, the prime mover, as it were.

    ‘It the home of their tribe.’

    The question is: what is the root cause of this belief? It could be classified as nationalism now, but, of course, the belief that Palestine is the land of the Jews, predates the birth of that concept by centuries. Again, i say religion.

  31. >>It the home of their tribe. <<

    Tribe? And in what sense is it home to any tribe but not home to the Palestinians?

  32. OK

    But some here and elsewhere act as though there was no prior connection of the Jewish people with those lands, that it was the same thing as when the Europeans went to South Africa or America to settle.

    Nothing is further from the truth, as any archaeologist may tell you. You dig a spade anywhere in Israel and you will find a Jewish artifact.There is a tie that goes back millenia, and that means something.

  33. Noel

    I’m not saying that they don’t have rights too.

    They do, and I don’t intend to refight 1948 here today

    I only say that there are some who say that those who say that the refounding of Israel was the result of " European colonialists " are misunderstanding many fundamental things.

  34. ‘But some here and elsewhere act as though there was no prior connection of the Jewish people with those lands’

    Some may, but not i. The question is, if there is a prior connection, does that mean that the prior occupants’ ancestors have the right to take back the land and remove the present occupants? Should Native Americans have to right to send the new occupants of America back to Europe.

    That does not matter in this case. The fact is that the Jews and Palestinians are genetically the same. They are genetically similar and both came from Palestine.

    Why do the Jews regard themselves as a seperate tribe from the Palestinians. What began this separation process millenia ago. The answer is Religion.

  35. >>I only say that there are some who say that those who say that the refounding of Israel was the result of " European colonialists<<

    It’s still wrong to claim that Israel is home to the "Jewish tribe". Israel, it’s true, likes to speak on behalf of the world’s Jews, but the claim is bogus. The majority of Jews choose not to live in Israel, and show no inclination of even wanting to visit the place.

  36. Not sure that you will get too far with that line of argument over there.

    Lots of people are genetically similar ( Czechs, Slovaks ; Chinese, Tibetans ; Vietnamese, Cambodians ) but are culturally distinct. They’re different nations. Such distinctions are to be found everywhere, sometimes involving religion as an add on and sometimes not.

  37. Israel is of course the home of the Jewish Tribe, as Ireland is of the Irish Tribe.

    A majority of Jews may not live in Israel as a majority of the decendants of Irish immigrants choose not to live in Ireland.

    As for showing no inclination to visit the place that seems a stretch ewve nby your standards.

  38. ‘Not sure that you will get too far with that line of argument over there.’

    But the point is, that the Jews and the Palestinians are from the same ‘tribe’. They are both descended from the cananites (or whatever you wish to call them), the people who were there before the Jews/Palestinians.

    So, if Jews have a special connection with Palestine, the Palestinians have the same connection.

  39. ‘Israel is of course the home of the Jewish Tribe’

    Well, in the same way, Palestine is the home of the Palestinian tribe. Why should one tribe (populated mainly by people who did not own land in palestine) be able to remove another tribe (with the sane roots and claims as their tribe) from the land that they both claim?

    Pete, the valiant defender of private property rights, is, i am sure, incensed at Israel over this.

  40. The Palestinians and Israels are both descended from the ancient Canaanites.

    You may be under the misconception that the Jews left Palestine and some time later, the Palestinians settled the area, after coming from farther south in the Peninsula. That is untrue.

    Both ‘races’ are descended from the Canaanites, the original inhabitants and were probably derived from two separate tribes within cannan. One study states:

    ‘ Both Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA
    genetic pool (Table 3, Figures 4, 5 and 6) that support a
    common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin
    of the long-lasting Jewish-Palestinian hostility is the fight
    for land in ancient times. Religious and cultural have
    enhanced the conflict in the last centuries, together with
    the massive European, American, Asian and African Jews
    settlements in the area, which has also caused a massive
    displacement of Palestinians and wars. A difficult
    problem has now been created between two communities
    that are close genetic relatives.

    Link to study Here

  41. >>A majority of Jews may not live in Israel as a majority of the decendants of Irish immigrants choose not to live in Ireland<<

    Exactly, and that’s the reason they obviously do not consider it their home. Their home is France, the US, Ukraine – wherever they happen to be born and live. To suggest anything else in both dangerous and has very ugly precedents.

    The comparison to the Irish abroad is also silly, as the vast majority of Jews living abroad have no knowledge of any grandparent. etc etc. coming from Israel or with any links to the place.

    It’s also nonsense, even by your standards, to call the Jews of the world a "Tribe". Maybe you’d try to explain to us what tribe these people and this guy belong to?

  42. Noel – Why people left the land of their origin does not mean their descendants don’t have ties to it even if they choose to remain in the land their family emigrated to.

    The majority of Irish-Americans (myself included) don’t have grandparents who came from Ireland. The comparison is apt, you just don’t like it.

    The use of Tribe was perfectly benign, as you know, but you wish to twist into something else.

  43. Mahons:

    I don’t think it is really a fair comparison. Irish emigration to America is very recent and the concept of Irish nationalism was well entrenched during the time that the large majority of Irish went to America.

    The vast majority of Jews left Israel millenia ago. The Jews had a connection to Israel, but it was not the same as Irish immigrants in the USA. It was purely a religuos connection.

    For example, i am part French going back, maybe, 800 years. I do not feel in anyway French.

    Mahons, being of Irish stock, you probably have some French or Scandinavian blood, do you feel French, even a little?

    Anyway, all of this is beside the point. The ancestors of the Palestinians and Jews are the same. They both have equal ancestral claim to Palestine. Why should the Jews be allowed to take the land off of their brethren?

  44. It is not purely a religious connection.

    It is tribal, cultural, or nationalistic as well as religious.

  45. The cultural connection was pretty weak. There are very little cultural connections between the Jews and the Palestinians (who are, after all, derived from the same Canaanite culture). Jews had, at the time, a European culture.

    Nationalism, i disagree. There is no movement for those of Norman origin to reform a nation in Scandinavia nor a wish of Scots to return to Ireland. Ian Paisely, of Scottish origin, can hardly be described as an Irish nationalist!

    The Jews left Israel long before nationalism, as a concept, was created. Zionism is based on a religious foundation. Their religion states that they are a chosen people and that Palestine is their land. It is these religious ideas that underpin modern Israeli nationalism and Zionism. Religion was the prime mover.

    Phanthom: do you accept that the ancestors of the Palestinians were there as long as the ancestors of the Jews? Do you accept that they are both descended from Canaanites?

  46. Guba- of course you don’t think it is a fair comparison. Because it weakens your argument.

    The Jewish connection to Israel was not merely religious, though it was of course also religious.

    Congratulations on your French bloodline, it explains your selective pacifism.

    I don’t feel French, but I’d love to feel a Scandinavian (if she was say a permissive young blond and discrete).

    Israel exists and will continue to do so despite the efforts of its enemies. Once those who seek its destruction (and those who excuse them) recognize that, perhaps peace will be achieved and Palestinian concerns can be addressed.

  47. Haven’t a clue to who is descended from who, but I know that there have been Jews in those lands for a helluva long time.

    And the assertion that they are descended from Canaanites contradicts arguments made in these pages by some that they are just a bunch of European colonial honkies sent there to oppress the righteous indigenous peeps!

  48. Is anybody these days not "the new nazis" in your view, other than reactionary white protestant ulstermen?

  49. Mahons:

    The Scots do not want to return to Ireland.

    The Normans do not want to return to Scandinavia

    The Huns do not want to return to Russia

    The Jews do want to return to Israel.

    What is the difference between these cases? The difference is religion. That is not a controversial thing to say, most Rabbis will say that Israel is the promised land given to them by God. So, it is based on Religion. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is, nonetheless, true. Of course Israeli nationalism and culture has developed and the Jews always had a certain shared identity, but this identity and their believe in their ownership of Palestine is based on Religion.

  50. The Scots, Normans and Huns were not thrown out of their home, scattered and in cases enslaved the way the Jews were.

    Entirely different situations.

    And its not just " Israeli " nationalism. Way before 1948, the chord of " next year in Jerusalem " resounded very deeply with many a nonreligious Jew.

    The Jewish nationalism spoken of precedes modern Israel by many many centuries.

  51. GUBA – Many secular and even atheist Jews return based on reasons that have nothing to do with religion, and believe in the existence of Israel on secular grounds.

  52. It’s funny that many want to align themselves with the Hamas that wants to bring back crucifiction.

  53. >>Why people left the land of their origin does not mean their descendants don’t have ties to it even if they choose to remain in the land their family emigrated to.<<

    But that’s nonsense in the case of Jews at least. You have no reason to think that the ancestors of the Jews in, say, Kazakhstan ever came from what is now Israel. In fact, the majority of them almost certainly didn’t. Just because they have the same religion as the ancient Hebrews doesn’t mean anything, there was a huge amount of intermarriage and conversions – in both directions – over more than a 1500 years! In fact – for those with an inordinate interest in Jewish blood lines – probably most of them have more gentile stuff than Hebrew in them. Guba’s argument is right: everybody in Europe is a total genetic mix. The Irish for example (including Irish Americans whose grandparents didn’t even trod the auld sod) have all got plenty of French, Scot, Scandinavian, German and Gaelic genes, all of which peoples left their respective "homes" later than the Jews left the Holy Land. To trace back some allegiance – and more absurdly some property rights – to a place that for most of the interim was totally forgotten is in this context laughable.
    Most laughable of course coming from Americans, who supplanted a local population only in the last few centuries and would be the first to scream blue murder if that particular diaspora ever tried to do a Zionism on it.

    >>The use of Tribe was perfectly benign, <<

    No. It was perfectly silly. And I notice you didn’t even try to back up your claim and show how the folk I linked to are united in tribal allegiance or cultural ties! Perhaps the latter lad would even enjoy the music of the former, but I find it hard to imagine those hillspeople getting down to the strains of "Venus in Furs" or "Coney Island Baby" as they stir their Injera.

  54. ‘If you disliked "pray away your gay" camp, you should have considered alternative camping sites. ‘

    Many were. The movement of peoples across Europe was as often forced as it was voluntary. What about the Britons who were enslaved by Niall of the Nine Hostages? Why is there not a nationalistic movement among them to return to their homeland, or the, likely, millions of people who are descended from slaves from antiquity.

    The religion is the basis of Zionism, the first cause.

    ‘Many secular and even atheist Jews return based on reasons that have nothing to do with religion, and believe in the existence of Israel on secular grounds.’

    Yes, but the concept itself, is based on religion.

    This is the narrative believed by most Westerners:

    The Jews were led to the promised land by Moses and given it by God (or, at least, the Jews were the original inhabitants of the land. The Jews were kicked out of Palestine or left. The Arabs came in and took the largely vacant land. They are the ancestors of the Palestinians. So, the Jews were there first and, therefore, it can be argued, have a right of return.

    We know that this is untrue. The Palestinians and Jews are descendants of common ancestors. The Palestinians have been there as long as the Jews.

    Is this question really that hard to answer:

    If the ancestors of the Jews and Palestinians are the same and they were there at the same time, why did Jews have the right to take the land without the permission of its inhabitants?

  55. It’s funny that many want to align themselves with the Hamas that wants to bring back crucifiction.

    Who is aligning themselves with Hamas?

  56. Noel – Of course I could attribute your arguments as coming from Germany, not a place noted for its historical kindness towards the Jews.

    In any event, the Jews of Israel aren’t packing up and leaving because you and others don’t believe they belong there.

  57. Mahons;

    Ok, a simpler question. Why do you believe the Jews belong in, say, Tel Aviv and not the former inhabitants?

  58. >>In any event, the Jews of Israel aren’t packing up and leaving because you and others don’t believe they belong there.<<

    I never said they didn’t belong there, and Ive said many times I think Israel was a good – if strange – idea at the time. All I’m saying here is that the claims of Zionism are bogus and the pretext for the ancient crime of landgrabbing is neither historically nor morally justified, and is in fact just a weak excuse to fool the ignorant.

    But I notice you now seem to have realised you won’t be able to win any of the arguments here either.
    What about that Jewish tribe?

    Or maybe you could pit your knowledge on that one, Phantom? After all, it was you who first introduced the term here, and led poor mahons astray.

  59. Don’t think that there were former inhabitants of Tel Aviv

    Or very few in any case

    It is a very young city….it was founded when Jaffa became too crowded, and when the tribes there did not get along…

  60. Noel – Debating you on Israel is like the fight scene in The Holy Grail. You lose your arms and legs and keep pretending they are only flesh wounds.

  61. Guba: "Why should the Jews be allowed to take the land off of their brethren?"

    This question was highly relevant in 1945 when the British Mandate was divided into among other things, Jordan and Israel.

    And, I think you make valid points regarding common ancestry and inheritance of the same land.

    But, it is 2008. Unless you wish for Israel to be dissolved, I think the statute of limitations on this question has run out.

    Israel exists. It is a valid state. And as far as I know is inclusive to Palestinians, and Arabs.

    Wouldn’t it be more practical, humane even, for Hamas to change their Charter and allow for the existence of Israel?

  62. GUBA – Which former inhabitants? I certainly have symapthy for the Delaware, but I ain’t going to suggest they should be given back Manhattan.

  63. >>You lose your arms and legs and keep pretending they are only flesh wounds.<<

    That’s the comfort blanket your ego needs. Because the rest of us can see that you aren’t even trying to argue.

    You’ve failed on the ethnic, the historical and didnt even try on the tribal count.
    A walkover.

    >>that came about when Jaffa became too crowded, and when the tribes there did not get along.<<

    Well, that problem was easily solved. They simply let loose Irgun and Haganah terrorists, who exploded truck bombs in the city centre and then drove out 95% of the Arab population.
    Aah, but those young palestinians throwing stones, they’re the real devils, now aren’t they, Phantom!

    >>I think the statute of limitations on this question has run out.
    Israel exists. It is a valid state. And as far as I know is inclusive to Palestinians, and Arabs.<<

    "the statute of limitations"? Patty, do you realise that people who claim their ancestors left 2000 years ago are still allowed in, yet those who were driven out 60 years ago, and who still hold the title deeds to their land, are not?

    That statute seems to have a very sectarian and racist slant on things.

  64. Noel – it isn’t my sense of ego which declares victory but my common sense. My ego just basks in it.

    And of course we note how walk to the edge of arguing that Israel shouldn’t exist and skate back from time to time. Fooling no one, except yourself.

  65. ‘This question was highly relevant in 1945 when the British Mandate was divided into among other things, Jordan and Israel. ‘

    Patty:

    I agree, political solutions and compromises have been sought, but i do not think that one can compromise on justice. The question is: is it just that the Jews could take the land off of its former inhabitants? Is it just that the former inhabitants of land in, say, Siderot, can no longer live there? These are uncomfortable questions – evidently too difficult for Mahons and Phanthom to answer – but should we ignore them because of their evident awkwardness?

    I think that these questions have to be answered, just as the uncomfortable questions over segregation in America had to be answered.

    There is always a temptation to look for compromise, but there are some things that one should not compromise on. If men and women were once not afraid to face compromise on justice in the face of flames, we owe it to them, and ourselves, to not back down just for an easy life.

    Mahons:

    Why do the Jews belong in Israel and not the former inhabitants (the Palestinians? i assume you can answer it?

    Wouldn’t it be more practical, humane even, for Hamas to change their Charter and allow for the existence of Israel?’

    It would be more practical, but is the existence of the state of Israel just? BTW, i am not defending hamas, f*@# hamas!

  66. Regarding Mahon’s comments "arms and legs," etc. "the rest of us can see that you aren’t even trying to argue." —- You read my mind on that one exactly, Noel.

    Regarding my comment on the "statute of limitations" and leaving well enough alone with Israel – I think you are wrong to say that my slant is racist, or sectarian.

    I think my slant is pragmatic. Israel exists. To dissolve this country would be very destructive. For what reason? Because of a Palestinian claim to the land? A claim which can be made by Jews just as easily?

    The time to discuss this was at the end of WWII when the current political boundaries were determined. Not now.

    To continue to dig at this wound – to define a whole people in terms of their professed dedication to the destruction of another group of people – as apparently Hamas has done – is, in my opinion, inhumane, not noble, not right – and ruins the actual real lives and potential of the individual Palestinians who buy into it.

  67. >>we note how walk to the edge of arguing that Israel shouldn’t exist<<

    You say that because you can’t follow arguments. I suppose you are once again listening to that voice in your head that tells you what I "really intended".

    >>it isn’t my sense of ego which declares victory but my common sense. My ego just basks in it.<<

    You are still running from my arguments at 08:58PM.
    You could have at least a stab at your silly "Jewish Tribe" claim. Or is that by now so embarrassing that even that ego of yours can’t handle it?

  68. >>I think you are wrong to say that my slant is racist, or sectarian. <<

    Patty, I meant the "statute of limitations" seems to have a very racist view of things. It lets certain people in, because of their ethnic background, and keeps others out because of theirs.

    >>The time to discuss this was at the end of WWII when the current political boundaries were determined. Not now. <<

    Nobody is disputing Israelis’ right to Israel. The problem is that the "current political boundaries" are anything but determined. Palestinians were allotted the West Bank by the same authority that gave Israel to the Israelis, but Israel continues to deny the Palestinians even this (small) part rightly due to them, holds an army of occupation there, is constantly confiscating more and more Palestinian land and settling Jewish people there in an attempt to establish a permanent territorial claim to the place.
    That’s the problem. If the land Israel occupied in the 1967 war were returned to the Arabs, the problem would be over in a few years, and both people would be living in peace.

  69. Guba- I am not opposed to Arabs in Israel, and I support a seperate Palestinian State whose borders will have to obviously be negotiated.

    Noel – I follow arguments and allusions. Israel’s creation being "strange", references to the 1940’s, etc. I can read between the lines. You don’t like my Tribe reference, too bad. I don’t have to dance to your tune (though Patty might).

  70. ‘To dissolve this country would be very destructive.’

    I agree, it would be very destructive, but the abolition of slavery was also very destructive, and nearly destroyed America. But it was still just.

    ‘Because of a Palestinian claim to the land?’

    Yes, was it just that they were kicked out of their homes, so that the Jews could take it?

    Nationalists and Unionists both claim Northern Ireland, but i feel that it would be unjust if nationalists were to kick protestants out of there homes and take them.

  71. ‘I am not opposed to Arabs in Israel, and I support a seperate Palestinian State whose borders will have to obviously be negotiated.’

    But was it just that the Jews could take Palestinian land without the owners permission?

  72. Guba: " i do not think that one can compromise on justice. "

    I do.

    I think this because "justice" in this case is a political football, and individuals have lost their lives, and their futures in the name of "justice."

    I think Palestinians are used by leadership – in Hamas, in Iran, in the the Arab world to fight a proxy war.

    I think that the Palestinian leadership has defined a generation of Palestinians so that "justice" means living towards the purpose of destroying another group of people.

    I think that is unnecessary and inhumane.

    Justice?

    Do you think YOU can define justice? Do you not see that "justice" is defined by the victor? That war is either won or lost, and that history is then written by the victorious?

    In this case, "justice" was written by the British and Allies after WWII when the British Mandate was divied up.

    Seeking justice is just to seek war. Maybe at some time in the future the Palestinians will obtain "justice," as you see it. Maybe they will win the war. And Israel will be dissolved. It is possible.

    But I don’t see it has some liberating solution, some noble thing. It’s just war. And so many have wasted their otherwise productive lifes on this.

  73. The Irish have ethnically cleansed the Protestants for more than a century in Southern Ireland, who are they to talk about so called ethnic cleansing or peacemaking? They unleashed wave after wave of murder on the Protestant population of Northern Ireland and have zero moral authority to lecture anyone, specifically the Israelis who not only deserve their homeland, but deserve everything they have won in wars of survival, inclusive of all lands gained in war.
    Even in Northern Ireland we have seen a rapid demographic change whereby the west of the country is becoming increasingly catholic as a result of the intimidation and persecution forced upon the Protestants who have had to make their flight eastwards.

  74. GUBA – some was taken, some was not. Some should be returned in an exchange for an end to hostilities. Welcome to the History of the World. If you don’t believe Israel should exist you are entitled to your opinion. But it will endure.

  75. Noel: "The problem is that the "current political boundaries" are anything but determined. Palestinians were allotted the West Bank by the same authority that gave Israel to the Israelis, but Israel continues to deny the Palestinians even this (small) part rightly due to them, holds an army of occupation there, is constantly confiscating more and more Palestinian land and settling Jewish people there in an attempt to establish a permanent territorial claim to the place.
    That’s the problem. If the land Israel occupied in the 1967 war were returned to the Arabs, the problem would be over in a few years, and both people would be living in peace."

    If this is the case, you are correct. I don’t know if your facts are correct, however. But before you label me an ignoramus (and a racist one at that) let me bow out of this exchange.

    Mahons, you’re so right – I’d rather dance to Noel’s Irish tunes, then your light weight elitist Manhattan lawyerman blather. Sorry.

  76. That is very philosophically pacifist of you, there Patty. Though, you are correct. This isn’t about Justice. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are intitled to this land, both in secular terms and in relgious terms.

    I find it hypocritical that many here in the West want Hamas to state that Israel has a right to exist before the West will talk with them yet they don’t apply the same standard to Likud. Bibi Netanyahu has stated that the Palestinians won’t get a homeland if he is Prime Minister. Will the West refuse to negotiate with Netanyahu and Likud?

  77. ‘Do you not see that "justice" is defined by the victor? That war is either won or lost, and that history is then written by the victorious?’

    You are very right! The weak are beaten by the strong, and the strong get to define what is just.

    But is that right? Justice is a precious thing, freedoms and rights are there to stop domination.

    ‘It’s just war. And so many have wasted their otherwise productive lifes on this.’

    Countless have died fighting for justice and it has led to unspeakable suffering, but look at what they achieved: freedom of speech, freedom of belief and freedom of property. I think that, though it is painful and bloody, we have to fight for justice. We owe it to those after us who will benefit from it.

  78. ‘Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are entitled to this land, both in secular terms and in religious terms.’

    Why are the Jews entitled to it?

    It had owners, a people who have been there since the time of the Jews. They did not pay for the property nor did they ask the owners permission for it.

  79. "The Irish have ethnically cleansed the Protestants for more than a century in Southern Ireland, who are they to talk about so called ethnic cleansing or peacemaking?"

    Alright, James, I am addressing this at your head, because you seem to be talking out of your arse a lot.

    In the South, there has been a drop in the % of Protestants in the South since the freedom of the South. This is for many reasons.

    1) Emigration: Many Protestants moved to the North or over to Britain after the British withdrew from the South.
    2) Assimilation: The Catholic Church had a rule, still do actually but it isn’t enforced, that if there was a mixed marriage then all children must be raised as Catholics. Most Catholics obeyed this and so the children a union betwene a Catholic and a Protestant resulted in Catholic Children.
    3) The War: Protestants were more likely to fight in both World Wars than Catholics were. More of them died. Thus there was a % drop in Protestant Population.
    4) Catholics, statistically, had more kids.

    All of these reasons resulted in decline in the Protestant Population of the North, so stop talking shite.

  80. "Why are the Jews entitled to it?"

    Now, because shit loads of them were born there. The majority of the Israeli population was born in Israel. It is there land as well, in a secular notion. Secondly, to a certain % of Jews, they can, at least in part, ethnically trace their routes back there.

    In religious terms, because the whole promise to the descendants of Abraham bit, which because of Isaac and Ishmael, actually refers to both Jews and Arabs.

  81. James: Them bloody taigs! My thoughts are with you and i do not find your constant whining, the least bit annoying.

    ‘Some should be returned in an exchange for an end to hostilities.’

    Ok, that which was bought fairly or previously owned by the Jews is, of course, theres. That which was not should be returned. That sounds fair? Alas, i would say that the large majority of Jews would then have to leave. I think that the only just solution would be that Western Europe and America should give them land and new homes. Maybe a new homeland could be created in Russia or the USA? Israel is, at present, tiny. I’m sure a nice corner of the east coast could be found and given to them. I wouldn’t put them near the rednecks, Jews are far too sophisticated, educated and liberal to be exposed to that rabble!

  82. Guba – Lucky for them, they don’t have to rely on your fake generosity. They’ve carved out their nation and they aren’t going anywhere.

  83. ‘Now, because shit loads of them were born there.’

    What about then, when it was created?

    ‘Secondly, to a certain % of Jews, they can, at least in part, ethnically trace their routes back there.’

    I’m sure most could trace their ethnic routes back there, so can the Palestinians. They are both descended from the Canaanites.

    Where the scot settlers entitled to take the land of the Ulster Irish because they could trace their roots there? Obviously, you think they were right, or your above statement would be hypocritical.

    Pete Moore and i are sticklers with regards to property rights.

    Religious rights! Jebus was handing out real estate ?! hmm, how would you go about getting a piece of the action?

  84. "Many Protestants moved to the North or over to Britain after the British withdrew from the South." Because the Protestants of Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan and the neighbouring counties just decided to flee for the hell of it, no catholic intimidation and IRA violence there! How many Protestant farmers had to flee because of continual attacks by catholics and the IRA? You’re the one talking out of your arse.

    The spiritual cleansing of the Protestants by vatican decree that all children of mixed marriages must be brought up Catholic contributed plus the continual discrimination of Protestants by refusal to accept Protestant job applications based on their schooling backgrounds was one of the larger factors in Protestant flight to the North as well.

    And let’s not forget that catholic supremacist and hitler lover De Valera’s hand in enforcing catholic supremacy on the entire population through his sectarian and bigotted constitution, an extension of roman hatred against "heretical" Protestanism. The Irish constitution and by extension, the republic of Ireland is steeped in bigotry and hatred.
    The Protestant flight out of Southern Ireland is one that is all but forgotten except by those who were the victims of irish/catholic hatred and ethnic cleansing.

  85. ‘They’ve carved out their nation’

    your right there.

    Hitler (not comparing him to Jews) tried to carve out his own nation too. If i recall, you never commended his ‘carving’, did you? Is one allowed to just carve out a nation?

    If i went to my neighbours and tried to ‘carve’ out and carve out a bigger home with a shotgun, would i be allowed? Would it be just?

  86. ‘The Protestant flight out of Southern Ireland is one that is all but forgotten except by those who were the victims of irish/catholic hatred and ethnic cleansing.’

    We burned out a few landlords around here alright, i think that most were Protestants. Poor buggers.

  87. "I’m sure most could trace their ethnic routes back there, so can the Palestinians. They are both descended from the Canaanites."

    Hence the fact that I said that both are entitled to it.

    "Where the scot settlers entitled to take the land of the Ulster Irish because they could trace their roots there? Obviously, you think they were right, or your above statement would be hypocritical."

    Of course they are. And I am entitled to do the same. I am also allowed to wish for the destruction of their State. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be allowed a State here. It means we are both right. Both myself and people like David are entitled to this land and to have our people control this land. Both of us can’t have want we want so one of us has to lose out. Currently I am. Hopefully soon David will be the one to lose out. It is the same in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

  88. GUBA – I suppose Hitler is the Post-Grad comparison of choice in most instances. So we have come full cirle from the absurdity of the post to a gross comparison (false denials not withstanding).

    Israel is there, it will endure.

  89. Seamus:

    I am part French (part-time pacifist). Could i go back to Normandy, kick out some toad and keep his nice house?

    Afterall, we are both entitled to his house, are we not?

  90. "How many Protestant farmers had to flee because of continual attacks by catholics and the IRA?"

    I don’t know. How many did? Facts and figures Jimmy. Throw yours down.

    "The spiritual cleansing of the Protestants by vatican decree that all children of mixed marriages must be brought up Catholic contributed plus the continual discrimination of Protestants by refusal to accept Protestant job applications based on their schooling backgrounds was one of the larger factors in Protestant flight to the North as well."

    Again, I would welcome proof. My Great Grandfather was a Protestant living in Tipperary. He had no problem getting a job. He was never discriminated by in his life, except by the "spiritual cleansing" by the Vatican.

    "And let’s not forget that catholic supremacist and hitler lover De Valera’s hand in enforcing catholic supremacy on the entire population through his sectarian and bigotted constitution"

    Dev was a Hitler lover? De Velera’s actions towards both the Axis and the Allies during the war mirrored the actions of FDR before Pearl Harbour. Was FDR a Hitler lover?

    Also, the Bunreacht gave the Catholic Church as special postion. It didn’t give it any Constitutional Power. It recognised the special position the Church had for the majority of Irish people. Considering, in these islands, there is only one State that has an established Church and it wasn’t the Free State.

    "The Protestant flight out of Southern Ireland is one that is all but forgotten except by those who were the victims of irish/catholic hatred and ethnic cleansing."

    Show proof. I gave you the real reasons behind the decrease in Protestant population in the Free State. Counter it instead of spewing the nonesense that you currently are spewing.

  91. "I am part French (part-time pacifist). Could i go back to Normandy, kick out some toad and keep his nice house?"

    No, you wouldn’t. But if you did, and your Children, and Grandchildren, were all born in Frogland, would it be right for the French to kick them out?

  92. ‘So we have come full circle from the absurdity of the post to a gross comparison’

    Hitler and Troll both have mustaches, is that a false comparison?

    ‘Israel is there, it will endure.’

    The Catholic Church thought that too, it was wrong. All the burnings in the world cannot make injustice endure.

  93. The republic of ireland is a bigoted, sectarian statelet of rome that has no right to exist.
    If the Israelis really wanted to learn about cleansing a minority, they could do no worse than look at the catholic irish methods by which innocent Protestants were persecuted with no remorse and whose principles of equality and protection of minority groups were non-existent for almost a century.

  94. ‘But if you did, and your Children, and Grandchildren, were all born in Frogland, would it be right for the French to kick them out?’

    How about this. I lock the French guy in the basement for a few years, create a few youngens and sign the house over to them. Could they keep the house then?

  95. Jesus, James is on the sauce tonight. You would think with his outlandish claims that he would bring forward proof but no, he just continues his xenophobic, sectarian rant. And to think, Unionist claim the Northern Ireland education system is one of the best in Europe. James, obviously, slipped through the cracks.

    "How about this. I lock the French guy in the basement for a few years, create a few youngens and sign the house over to them. Could they keep the house then?"

    Yeah. Possession is 9/10s of the law. They were born there. They own the House, why shouldn’t they keep it. Especially if they have a bigger gun than the guy in the basement.

  96. >>I follow arguments and allusions. Israel’s creation being "strange", references to the 1940’s, etc. I can read between the lines.<<

    Now I know you are paranoid. By "strange" I meant nothing more than unusual, even unique, in historical terms, which it certainly was. Such a broad venture, with resurrecion of an almost dead language, was in many ways even admirable.

    And as for those dark "references to the 1940’s," Oh My GAWD! – nobody expects the 1940’s! (reminds me of how it was forbidden in Russian histories of the Red Army to mention Trotsky, who only founded it.)

  97. What about the poor landlords we kicked out of Ireland?

    They were born there. it was there land. What bloody right had we to kick them out?

    Oh, BTW try my little strategy Ireland 9or any country). I bet the law courts would not see it your way!

    Mahons, that there is what is called victory!

  98. Guba, in the same way the Israelis came in and kicked out the Palestinians in the 1940s, the Palestinians have as much right to do so know. I’m not indicating what the Israelis did was right, I’m just saying that those living in Israel now have a right to stay there, in the same way that those living in Palestine in the 40s had a right to stay there. Neither side is right. Both are wrong.

  99. Seamus:

    "Unionist claim the Northern Ireland education system is one of the best in Europe."

    I happen to know several people in charge of the marking of exam papers. Believe me, it’s skewed. Try holding an intelligent conversation with an Ulster school-leaver and you’ll experience the deficit in learning.

  100. "Try holding an intelligent conversation with an Ulster school-leaver and you’ll experience the deficit in learning."

    Cheers, Barry. I happen to be a 20 year old from Northern Ireland, fresh out of the Northern Ireland education system.

  101. Seamus:

    But what of the rule of law and justice? Have can you advocate a system where the strong can dominate the weak? There are such things as rights and freedoms, and we are bloody lucky to have them.

  102. Guba, I don’t advocate it. I just know that it happens. The people of Israel have a right to be there as most of them were born there. The Palestinians have a right to be there as many Palestinians were born there, or are 1st or 2nd generation refugees. Both have a right to be there. To exclude the Palestinians from the land is an injustice. To exclude the Israelis from the land would be an injustice. That is why I currently support the Palestinians. But that doesn’t mean that they should kick the Israelis out.

  103. "The Protestant flight out of Southern Ireland is one that is all but forgotten except by those who were the victims of irish/catholic hatred and ethnic cleansing."

    It’s all true. We used to hide prods in our attic when I was growing up. The gardai would come around with censers to smoke them out.

  104. Seamus:

    "Cheers, Barry. I happen to be a 20 year old from Northern Ireland, fresh out of the Northern Ireland education system."

    Gabh mo leiscéal! There are exceptions of course—and you’re the proof of that.

  105. "The gardai would come around with censers to smoke them out."

    You didn’t need sensors. You can tell by looking at them. Their eyes are too close together.

    "Gabh mo leiscéal! There are exceptions of course and you’re the proof of that."

    Go raibh maith agat.

  106. ‘I just know that it happens’

    Just because it happens, does not make it right. Injustice happens, but that does not mean that it has to happen.

  107. But, Guba, there is no way Justice can be reached in this conflict. The Israelis have a right to be there, as do the Palestinians. The only way for Justice would be the peaceful co-existance between the two and there isn’t a chance that that would happen.

  108. >>You didn’t need sensors. You can tell by looking at them. <<

    Seamus, he meant a censer, the brass thing they swing around in the church when burning incense,
    No flies on our Jimmy.

  109. Oops, some fucking taig I turned out to be. I always just called "on thing that makes me ridicously claustrophobic".

  110. ‘The Israelis have a right to be there, as do the Palestinians.’

    Well, yes, if you believe in the logic you portrayed above.

    If, on the other hand, you believe in liberty and equality and that one cannot take your home from you without your permission, then the injustice in this case is clear.

  111. "you believe in liberty and equality and that one cannot take your home from you without your permission"

    But for the majority of the Israelis today, Israel is their home, the home they were born into. You can’t take it without their permission without creating an injustice as well. You can’t solve one injustice without causing another.

  112. The homes these Israelis are living in were taken illegally. Were that to happen in a Western democracy, the property would be returned to its rightful owners.

  113. Guba, that may be the case, but this isn’t a normal situation. But should a person who was born in Israel be removed from Israel just because his Grandfather wasn’t from Israel and settled there at the expense of a Palestinian?

  114. ‘But should a person who was born in Israel be removed from Israel just because his Grandfather wasn’t from Israel and settled there at the expense of a Palestinian?’

    Not removed from Israel. If the land was taken illegally and the former owner or his family could be found, it should be returned. The Israeli, of course, would be allowed to purchase a home legally like everyone else.

  115. But what would happen if that person, and his or her family, had invested money in that land or had bought it from another Israeli?

  116. ‘But what would happen if that person, and his or her family, had invested money in that land or had bought it from another Israeli?’

    If you knicked a car and put on alloys, would you be allowed to take back the alloys? Also if you buy stolen property, it still isn’t yours.

    I would leave the Israelis keep their personal property and, of course, money. I am sure most would be able to afford a house anyway (prices in gaza city would be fairly cheap), but, many will probably have to emigrate. Europe and America should give them aide and new homes. They are, after all, also responsible for this mess.

  117. Guba, it doesn’t work that way. The Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. The Israelis own those Houses (fairly or not) and thus it is up to them as to whether they want to leave. The Palestinians should be granted compensation from the Israeli Government but not the Israeli people.

  118. ‘Guba, it doesn’t work that way’

    If it works like that in other free countries, why should it not work like that there.

    ‘The Israelis own those Houses (fairly or not) and thus it is up to them as to whether they want to leave. ‘

    If someone steals your car and doesn’t want to give it back, does that mean he can keep it or will he get arrested?

    ‘The Palestinians should be granted compensation from the Israeli Government’

    Brilliant, and if the Palestinians accept it problem solved! But if they want their property back, well, why can’t they have it?

  119. "If someone steals your car and doesn’t want to give it back, does that mean he can keep it or will he get arrested?"

    Not if that someone is the Government and the Police.

    "Brilliant, and if the Palestinians accept it problem solved! But if they want their property back, well, why can’t they have it?"

    Because the Israelis have bigger guns than they do.

  120. ‘Not if that someone is the Government and the Police.’

    Ya but such cronyism would be unjust, do you agree? The law should apply to all equally.

    ‘Because the Israelis have bigger guns than they do.’

    They may have the bigger guns, but that does not make it just. Might is not always right!

  121. Guba, I never stated that it was fair or right. Just the facts of the situation. If everything that was done was right then this situation wouldn’t have ever occured in the first place.

  122. ‘Guba, I never stated that it was fair or right.’

    You stated that the Israeli position was as just as the Palestinian position. What i am saying is that what the Israelis done was unjust.

    Facts can change, Ireland, afterall, was British until the facts changed.

    ‘If everything that was done was right then this situation wouldn’t have ever occured in the first place.’

    On this, we can agree!

  123. Guba, I am not saying that the Israeli position is just. I am saying the position of Israeli civilians is just. If they are forcibly removed from their homes then it is as big an injustice as when it was done to the Palestinians.

  124. The position of the citizens is unfortunate, absolutely. But the citizens are the ones who are occupying stolen property.

    ‘If they are forcibly removed from their homes then it is as big an injustice as when it was done to the Palestinians.’

    I think it would be the only way of sorting out the conflict and dampening fundamentalist Islanism.

    Many Jews would stay in Palestine, but many would probably have to leave. Western countries would give them compensation and welcome them with open arms. They are, after all, very intelligent and liberal people. They would understand the situation and the injustice of the present system and are unlikely to start suicide bombings. Most importantly, justice would be done.

    All would

  125. " houses "

    Its nit picking, but…a huge percentage of houses in Israel were not there in 1948. Perhaps a big majority.

    The land, now that was always there.

Comments are closed.