Two perspectives on Israel

[Safe-Keeper]

Always expect the amazing attack of the strawman

I didn't see strawmen in his post, I saw a description of lots an lots of "Palestine supporters" I've had the displeasure of speaking to over the years. While it might not have applied to anyone in this thread, I don't think it was intended to, either.

2) Sweden's anti-Israel stance is because of the Israeli apartheid regime.

Just a little tip before I ask you for a source for that statement: when discussing Israel or in fact any country with someone, throwing out accusations like "apartheid" without any logical foundation (or apparent understanding about what the word even means) is a very, very good way to paint yourself as a zealot, ensuring you will not be taken seriously.
I'm not saying this to attack you, I'm genuenly trying to help you out here.

An Apartheid state is one that has a systematic, government-sanctioned divide between two groups based on their ethnic belonging. In an apartheid country, you have different schools, hospitals, buses, toilets, neighbourhoods and even drinking fountains and benches for the different groups. Group A doesn't get to share any kind of facility with Group B, and if they do, they have to be kept separate (coloured people confined to the back of buses in the US, for example). From top to bottom, Apartheid states are segregated regimes.

Israel, whose ambassador in Norway is Arabic, and which lets foreigners (including Arabs in the Palestinian areas) visit and receive the same education and medical care as the citizens, at the same facilities, at the same cost, and where miss Israel is an Arab, is not, by any kind of definition, an Apartheid country unless you really cherry-pick incidents and policies and twist the definition of the word to the unrecognisable.

As another poster said, though, while you can do this with words like "terror state", "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing", doing this would mean most other countries, both in and outside of the Western world, would also suddenly become apartheid regimes, terror states, ethnic cleansers, etc.

Oh, and: got a source for that statement?

I didn't see strawmen in his post

Really?
It makes a huge assumption against the individual concerned and attacks that assumption.
Secondly it flies in the face of the very public policies of the country in question so is also attacking another non existant arguement.

I saw a description of lots an lots of "Palestine supporters" I've had the displeasure of speaking to over the years

Yes, and you can put them on the same level as lots of Israel "supporters".
But on an individual level and a national level the arguement is false so it is a strawman he is after building.

[Jimbuna]

Welcome

[Skybird]

A French court today has sentenced Air France over claims of discrimination for having separated out a Palestinian activist from a flight to Israel, because the French learned that the woman was on a black list in Israel and was banned from entering the country, and international regulations demand carriers to not transport persons of whom it is known to the carrier that the authorities at the destination will not allow them into their nation. The French acted late, but in congruence with international rules and demands. The court obviously implied that since it was a Palestinian Arab heading for protesting the Gaza blockade, Air France should have violated international rules and should have transported the woman nevertheless.

A French court today has sentenced Air France over claims of discrimination for having separated out a Palestinian activist from a flight to Israel, because the French learned that the woman was on a black list in Israel and was banned from entering the country, and international regulations demand carriers to not transport persons of whom it is known to the carrier that the authorities at the destination will not allow them into their nation. The French acted late, but in congruence with international rules and demands. The court obviously implied that since it was a Palestinian Arab heading for protesting the Gaza blockade, Air France should have violated international rules and should have transported the woman nevertheless.

The same story but from the Israeli media......

When she was already on the plane, an airline employee asked whether or not the nursing student had an Israeli passport. When she replied that she didn't, AFP reported, she was asked whether or not she was Jewish. When she answered no again, she was taken off the plane in Nice, southeastern France.

...so she won the case because air france removed her because she was not Jewish, she wouldn't have had a case if they had asked the right question...but they didn't.

[Safe-Keeper]

Really?
It makes a huge assumption against the individual concerned and attacks that assumption.

Still not much of a strawman, more like Skybird's (perhaps flawed) observation.

If you call Israel an "apartheid state" because of its security measures does strongly indicate that you don't appreciate/know about/care about Israel's security situation.

The argument often given is that Hezbollah runs a recruiting program deceiving itself as social wellfare, and that even when its school teach blatant hate and murder and demonization of Jews and diffamation of Christians, they nevertheless are schools.

Lucky you. The argument I most often hear here in Norway is "but they're just defending their country!", "but Israel does this and that, quick, look at Israel", or "you would've done the same thing had you been in their shoes".

Apparently you live in a more sophisticated country than I do.

The court obviously implied that since it was a Palestinian Arab heading for protesting the Gaza blockade, Air France should have violated international rules and should have transported the woman nevertheless.

Which blockade?

[Skybird]

The naval blockade of Gaza which legally is a case in itself, not linked to any blockade on land. International law regulates the formalities of a blockade at sea. the Israelis have been confirmed to be in full compliance with these rules, the blockade has been found to be formally legal both in reason and implementation. Just one single ship or boat managing to break through would nullify the legal formal validity of that blockade - the blockade would have been been broken up then.

That is why Israel makes no exceptions, for nobody. - They cannot, due to the rules. A single small boat landing at Gaza from sea formally would lift the blockade. To maintain it beyond that would then make the Israeli cause a formally illegal one.

It's a bit of an idiocy in my eyes, but that is what the rules are like.

Not sure what you mean on Palestinian brainwashing of their children. I only can say it is daily children's TV programs, and it is the most malicious kind of diffamation and demonization one can imagine, comparing to the most evil stuff produced by European antisemitism in past eras, or the Nazi propaganda machinery.

[Safe-Keeper]

Maybe I misread your post. I was talking about arguments defending/excusing Hizbollah.

Yes, and you can put them on the same level as lots of Israel "supporters".

Really? I've never heard many false accusations of apartheid or terrorism in Palestinian areas from Israel supporters. Perhaps you are referring to the statements about the actual terrorism from Arabs, or the systematic oppression and eviction of Jews and Christians from Arab countries?

Because, um, it's a different thing entirely to accuse people of these things when they are actually guilty of them. Just so you know.

Which blockade?

To use your source, which is of course unbiased

Despite attacks by Hamas, Israel maintains an ongoing humanitarian corridor for the transfer of food and humanitarian supplies to Gaza, used by internationally recognized organizations including the United Nations and the Red Cross.

Both of those internationally recognised organisation formally complained that vital resources were blocked and that the approved crossings were unable to handle even the minimum required volume of humanitarian aid which Israel is obliged to let in.
Though since the worldwide objections to the action and another senseless round of violence Israel has relaxed the conditions and now allows passage of such "illegal terrorist goods" like errrrr...pasta, blankets and paper for example.


Onto more of the usual rubbish

International law regulates the formalities of a blockade at sea. the Israelis have been confirmed to be in full compliance with these rules, the blockade has been found to be formally legal both in reason and implementation.

No they havn't, and they have publicly apologised for errors in both compliance and in implimentation.

Just one single ship or boat managing to break through would nullify the legal formal validity of that blockade - the blockade would have been been broken up then.

A breach of the blockade in no way alters the legality of a blockade, that is like saying an illegal alien entering a country nullifies all immigration laws



So it does raise a question, why are you two such ardent supporters of Hamas?
After all they are the only ones really benefitting from the blockade you seem to be in favour of

[Safe-Keeper]

To use your source, which is of course unbiased

What a strange strawman. I never claimed it to be unbiased. Should I?

Both of those internationally recognised organisation formally complained that vital resources were blocked and that the approved crossings were unable to handle even the minimum required volume of humanitarian aid which Israel is obliged to let in.

A pity, but possibly an unavoidable consequence of tight border control, which is in turn pretty much an unavoidable consequence in a conflict zone.

Though since the worldwide objections to the action and another senseless round of violence Israel has relaxed the conditions and now allows passage of such "illegal terrorist goods" like errrrr...pasta, blankets and paper for example.

Somebody has claimed that pasta is a terrorist good? All I know is that it was banned for import into Gaza because pasta is not recognized as humanitarian aid. I haven't looked deeper into it than that (not that you have, either, and I'm not surprised), but then again, pasta was not exactly neccessary for survival, last time I checked.

No they havn't, and they have publicly apologised for errors in both compliance and in implimentation.

And here I was thinking Israel was the only nation in the world able to run blockades perfectly.

So it does raise a question, why are you two such ardent supporters of Hamas?

No, by all means, don't try to take this seriously.

What a strange strawman. I never claimed it to be unbiased. Should I?

Just pointing it out, its always best to use a neutral source, or even better make it a source from the opposite end of the spetcrum.

A pity, but possibly an unavoidable consequence of tight border control, which is in turn pretty much an unavoidable consequence in a conflict zone.

What border?

Somebody has claimed that pasta is a terrorist good? All I know is that it was banned for import into Gaza because pasta is not recognized as humanitarian aid. I haven't looked deeper into it than that (not that you have, either, and I'm not surprised), but then again, pasta was not exactly neccessary for survival, last time I checked.

Pasta is food and food cannot be blocked from humanitarian aid.

And here I was thinking Israel was the only nation in the world able to run blockades perfectly

Since that was not you being quoted your point is?

No, by all means, don't try to take this seriously.

That was serious.
Its a sad fact that the most strident supporters of either side are that sides own worst enemy.

[MH]

Just pointing it out, its always best to use a neutral source, or even better make it a source from the opposite end of the spetcrum.

Very good Tribesman.
all you need is improve your precessing skills.

[Safe-Keeper]

Its a sad fact that the most strident supporters of either side are that sides own worst enemy.

Sorry, but no. I don't see how HAMAS benefits from a blockade/border control that prevents them from freely importing the goods and weapons they require to keep killing innocent people.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Sorry, but no. I don't see how HAMAS benefits from a blockade/border control that prevents them from freely importing the goods and weapons they require to keep killing innocent people.

He will tell you that blockade makes hamas and alike more popular and so on.

Sorry, but no. I don't see how HAMAS benefits from a blockade/border control that prevents them from freely importing the goods and weapons they require to keep killing innocent people.

In that case I suggest you look and think.
The tunnels are a good place to look at for starters

He will tell you that blockade makes hamas and alike more popular and so on.

Sorry disapoint you on your simplistic view but no, I was going to suggest he starts with something basic in the blockade like cement which HAMAS has plenty of but the Red Cross and UN have trouble importing.
Then perhaps move onto the wider range of goods they smuggle, then consider how much money they are raking in from it and what terrorist organisations like to spend their money on.