babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Anglican group calls for Israel sanctions

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Anglican group calls for Israel sanctions
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2004 04:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
An influential Anglican group is to ask church leaders to impose a boycott of Israel and firms that do business there in protest at the occupation.

The call, by the Anglican Peace and Justice Network, comes amid growing concern in Israel at rising support among churches, universities and trade unions in the west for a divestment campaign modelled on the popular boycott of apartheid South Africa.



The Story

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 24 September 2004 04:23 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some how Wingy I don't think this will help you accumulate points. I see negative numbers in your future.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 September 2004 07:20 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Religious zealots such as the Anglican Hanan Ashwari of the PLO are likely behind this ploy.

[ 25 September 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 25 September 2004 10:53 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Have been avoiding Israeli products and services for years now. The more people join, the sooner the wall will be down. In my opinion.

Scout, is this about collecting points?

al-Qa'bong, at the moment I feel safer with the boycot ploys of religious zealots in the PLO then the colonial/imperial ploys of religious zealots that have 3000 cluster bombs on order in the USA, not to mention all the other stuff.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 25 September 2004 11:03 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record would this include recent medical breakthroughs that if G-D forbid you needed it, since they were developed in Israel you would reject them?

This would include medication for MS that lessens terrible muscular symptoms; capsule endoscopys;stem cell research that has helped countless diabetics;as well as cutting edge cancer research leading the world today in certain discoveries in this dreaded affliction.

Are all these on your list?

Israeli medical breakthroughs

[ 25 September 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]Breakthrough in heart disease and diabtetes

[ 25 September 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 September 2004 11:09 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you asking because you have no principles and you are surprised others might?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 25 September 2004 11:11 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, I pose a moral question here. Does such a boycott go so far as to deny yourself or your children medical aid or treatment developed or originated in Israel? What principles do you have Wingnut? Are you prepared to deny these treatments to your children just because they may be Israeli in origion?

[ 25 September 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 September 2004 11:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh don't worry Mac. Sharon and his ilk will roll over pretty fast when their pocket allowance is at stake.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 September 2004 11:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is such a silly argument, Macabee. Did you buy South African wine during the days of Apartheid? Would you have refused your children medical treatment developed in Apartheid South Africa?

Is medical treatment a consumer item? A cultural product? Is it so labelled?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 September 2004 11:27 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I suppose if there were a boycott of Israeli products, a plague or worldwide epidemic would eventually break out.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 25 September 2004 11:28 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
It is such a silly argument, Macabee. Did you buy South African wine during the days of Apartheid? Would you have refused your children medical treatment developed in Apartheid South Africa?

Is medical treatment a consumer item? A cultural product? Is it so labelled?


Ahh of course. Well medical treatment is a service. And of course your hypocricy comes through for all to see. As long as your comfortable little life in Canada remains unthreatened how easy it is to refuse just certain Israeli products and services. But you draw the line dont you? Such hypocricy. If Israel is to be boycotted, then boycott everything from Jaffa oranges to medicine and research. If not take your principles and go away.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 25 September 2004 11:29 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Yeah, I suppose if there were a boycott of Israeli products, a plague or worldwide epidemic would eventually break out.

Well at least Wingnut attempts an answer to this moral dilemna. You and Cueball are just cowards trying to deflect. And yes Im sure you will hit back with what a whizz I am at deflecting...boring!!

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 September 2004 11:34 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, Macabee, so moralistic, all of a sudden. I agree, with you though. Sanction all of Israel. No products, no services, no culture, no sport, no financial transfers, no academic exchanges until such time as Israel finally awards its Arab population full and equal rights.

But tell me macabee, did you boycott South African products?

[ 25 September 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 25 September 2004 11:44 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Humanitarian items (both ways) would be acceptable, as they are in all such cases!
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 25 September 2004 11:48 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Ah, Macabee, so moralistic, all of a sudden. I agree, with you though. Sanction all of Israel. No products, no services, no culture, no sport, no financial transfers, no academic exchanges until such time as Israel finally awards its Arab population full and equal rights.

But tell me macabee, did you boycott South African products?

[ 25 September 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


In fact I did. But my ethics would never have allowed me to refuse medical treatment or discoveries that would have saved my child's life.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 25 September 2004 11:49 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Humanitarian items (both ways) would be acceptable, as they are in all such cases!

But why?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 September 2004 11:51 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In fact I did. But my ethics would never have allowed me to refuse medical treatment or discoveries that would have saved my child's life.
Ah, so, now we do know who the hypocrite is, don't we?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 25 September 2004 11:51 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, I do not have a list of Israeli products, generally when I buy a product or service I try to figure out where it came from and act accordingly. I do not have MS or what ever else you try to suggest I could get, will face that if it comes up. Meanwhile there are nodoubt people that would buy a kidney even if it means the death of some street urchin.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 September 2004 11:52 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Humanitarian items (both ways) would be acceptable, as they are in all such cases!

I would indeed also make the exception for medical technologies and devices. It is one thing to refuse to buy, say, a particular wine or beef or whatever. I do that all the time: I don't shop at Shell gas stations, I don't go to McDonald's, and so on.

But it would be cutting off my nose to spite my face if I were to refuse some sort of medical treatment just because an Israeli invented it.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 September 2004 11:53 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Originally posted by No Yards:
-----
Humanitarian items (both ways) would be acceptable, as they are in all such cases!
-----

But why?


YOU'RE SO FIRED.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 25 September 2004 11:57 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Ah, so, now we do know who the hypocrite is, don't we?

True I admit it. I would gladly be called a hypocrite if it meant my son would live.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 25 September 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

I would indeed also make the exception for medical technologies and devices. It is one thing to refuse to buy, say, a particular wine or beef or whatever. I do that all the time: I don't shop at Shell gas stations, I don't go to McDonald's, and so on.

But it would be cutting off my nose to spite my face if I were to refuse some sort of medical treatment just because an Israeli invented it.



So much for the morality of boycotts.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 September 2004 12:06 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
True I admit it. I would gladly be called a hypocrite if it meant my son would live.

Your earlier response indicates you would gladly be a hypocrite at any time.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 September 2004 12:07 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sanction all of Israel. No products, no services, no culture, no sport, no financial transfers, no academic exchanges until such time as Israel finally awards its Arab population full and equal rights.

Although I said it rather differently, that's pretty well what I meant also, Wingy. I endorse a complete boycott of everything from Israel, unless Palestinians produce and sell them.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 26 September 2004 12:23 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. Full boycott, diplomatic and economic. Constructive engagement with Israel has not worked, has not made a dent in the firmly entrenched ideology of occupation.

While we're at it, we've got this neighbour to the south that could use the same tough love.

I speak, of course, of Regina.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 September 2004 12:24 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
So much for the morality of boycotts.

FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRED.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 September 2004 12:31 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Your earlier response indicates you would gladly be a hypocrite at any time.

Sticks and stones Wingy...you never learn do you?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 September 2004 12:31 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Although I said it rather differently, that's pretty well what I meant also, Wingy. I endorse a complete boycott of everything from Israel, unless Palestinians produce and sell them.


That would include letting your children die?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 September 2004 12:33 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRED.


Doc I urge you to go back to your books. Moral discussions do not seem to be your bag.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 September 2004 01:07 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hah! From the guy without any.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 September 2004 01:37 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, perhaps you can outline for me why you think me boycotting even an Israeli medical procedure or medical diagnostic process is "moral" if I happen to endorse a boycott on Israeli goods.

Or are you so dense you don't know what the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face" means? Because if you are, then you should have cleaned out your desk last week because YOU ARE SO FIRED.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 26 September 2004 02:07 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
It is such a silly argument, Macabee. Did you buy South African wine during the days of Apartheid? Would you have refused your children medical treatment developed in Apartheid South Africa?

Is medical treatment a consumer item? A cultural product? Is it so labelled?


Actually, South Africa does provide a good parallel. I don't recall any advocates of a boycott on South Africa stating that one should forego a heart transplant because the procedure was developed by a surgeon in that country. Similarly, I don't recall anyone who advocated a boycott of German goods in the 1930s and 1940s arguing that such a boycott should extend to medical procedures, literature, intellectual concepts etc that were developed in Germany. When boycotts are spoken of they are generally meant to be of a commercial, not intellectual, nature.

Similarly, when sanctions are imposed on a country there are generally exceptions made for medical/humanitarian goods.

Macabee, I suspect you supported the sanctions that were in place on Iraq from 1991 until 2003. In that case did you support an exception for medical supplies, food aid etc? If so, by your argument, were you not being a hypocrite since you are now saying that boycotts (which are nothing more than sanctions imposed by individuals and groups rather than countries) must be absolute and cannot make exceptions in areas such as medicine.

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 September 2004 04:03 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
That would include letting your children die?


OK Mish, I realize you're a scumbag and you can't help yourself, but would you mind leaving other babblers' kids out of your spoor trail.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2004 04:43 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doh! Windbag, Al Q, not scumbag, surely?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 26 September 2004 06:52 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mac, was there a logical thread to your argument in there?

- We should boycott Israeli goods!
- Do you include medical treatments in that?
- No, I meant consumer goods, not medical treatments.
- Aha, so you're a hypocrite because you won't refuse all Israeli products!
- Would YOU have refused South African medical treatments?
- I would have accepted them to save the life of my children.
- So you're a hypocrite too, then?
- Yes, and proud of it.

So let me get this straight: It's bad, BAD, BAAAAAD for people to HOLD TO EXACTLY THE SAME VIEW AS YOU?


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 07:58 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apart from that illogic, there is also a regrettable naivete about the nature of scientific -- especially medical -- research and so-called breakthroughs.

Almost all medical science is applied science: that is, it is done in the context of more basic scientific discovery that preceded it, that is international, collaborative, perpetually evolving, sometimes overturned, etc.

Although science is certainly creative, it is silly and childish to think of most science as producing discrete "inventions." Maybe some individuals are crass enough to lay claim to refinements of a particular piece of technology, and capitalist patent laws encourage such crassness, but that ain't science.

Serious thought of any kind: nobody owns it.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2004 08:25 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The name-calling in this thread needs to stop now, or I'm shutting it down. I don't care who started it, and I'm not going to go through the thread and analyze every post. Just cut it out.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 08:28 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What -- no scoring?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 September 2004 08:37 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think John_D should come into active threads like this one and give them a score as they play out.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 September 2004 09:39 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It strikes me as both immoral and hypocritical to pick and choose the extent of a boycott. If you feel as you do and wish to isolate Israel by boycott then it must ethically extend to anything Israel produces. No amount of sophistry or contorting explains this away.

And AL Q I brought my children first into this ethical discussion to point out your hypocricy. Yes in the past I engaged in boycotts only to realize that they were so much window dressing; only to realize that if I was not prepared to be fully committed then I was being a hypocrite.

Frankly I never much liked South African wine anyway.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 09:57 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I will make this point only once more; however:

Mac, from your first post, you have been inventing a category that I cannot accept is a real one. You may well believe it is -- I grant the possible sincerity of your posts. But to me it is some odd hybrid of red herring crossed with straw man.

I looked at that list of medical breakthroughs you linked to above, and none of those happened in research contexts exclusive to a single country or a single institution. There may be some individuals who wish to claim that, but no serious scientist would.

Further, boycotts don't go back in history. That is, when we started the grape boycott, we didn't ask people to throw up every grape they had ever eaten. We asked them to stop eating grapes from California now.

Science, scientia, knowledge -- these things are universal as soon as they are published and usually even before any individual publishes. Nobody is going to stop pretending to know what she knows. Well, in Orwellian states one is supposed to, I suppose.

A boycott is supposed to cause economic hardship to a regime, so you identify the products that will do that and stop buying them. This is politics -- it ain't rocket science, or, as I recently read someone saying, it ain't rocket surgery.

btw: boycott Kraft!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 26 September 2004 09:58 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It strikes me as both immoral and hypocritical to pick and choose the extent of a boycott. If you feel as you do and wish to isolate Israel by boycott then it must ethically extend to anything Israel produces. No amount of sophistry or contorting explains this away.

Man, a whole paragraph of nothing. I can't remember the last time I actually consumed anything of Israeli origin. Maybe a Jaffa orange or that ham sandwich I had at a gas station in Kiryat Shmona (labeled 'NOT KOSHER').

I can't wait for the day when Israel ceases to be in the headlines of every newspaper, every day. I sometimes wonder if Israelis have actually thought what it would be like, not to be the centre of world attention.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 September 2004 11:05 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It strikes me as both immoral and hypocritical to pick and choose the extent of a boycott.

And yet he admits while boycotting South African wine, he, himself, would not boycott South African medical procedures demonstrating his own immorality and hypocrisy. Amazing.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 26 September 2004 11:09 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Uh, that's "hypocricy". Getting closer though. It used to be "hypocracy".
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 11:09 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What South African medical procedures?

I hate to be a bore, but, y'see, this is a good example of what I was arguing above.

That Dr Barnard did the first heart transplant does not mean that no one else had ever thought of doing one, nor that he knew anything anyone else didn't know at the time, nor that no one else would have done a transplant elsewhere soon enough, with or without reports of what he did.

I mean, it is just absurd to think of any science, but medical science especially, that way.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 September 2004 11:09 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

And yet he admits while boycotting South African wine, he, himself, would not boycott South African medical procedures demonstrating his own immorality and hypocrisy. Amazing.

I never denied that to save my child's life I would have no problem with this. If it makes me a hypocrite Im fine with that. At least my child will call me a hero.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 11:10 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sp: hypocrisy is correct.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 26 September 2004 11:12 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I know that. I was making a childish dig.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 11:13 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Y'know, if there are any scientists reading this thread, we have just disgraced rabble.ca with all this sentimental twaddle.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 September 2004 11:28 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I mean, it is just absurd to think of any science, but medical science especially, that way.
Agreed, But surely you must agree it is instructive to watch Macabee accuse others of immorality and hypocrisy while arguing he, himself, would engage in such activities he described as hypocritical and immoral behaviour.

I what point does he sink to beinga toon-like pastiche of himself.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree. This thread was supposed to be about sanctions/a boycott, or maybe about the practicalities of any boycott, maybe one we should all consider joining, so why don't we try to get it back on to those rails and just ignore the de-railer?

How do we boycott? In the age of the USian empire, we all know that the first rule of imperial virtue is Shop! So, if we want to defy imperial virtue, we Don't shop!

What is it we're not shopping for this time?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 September 2004 11:39 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Agreed, But surely you must agree it is instructive to watch Macabee accuse others of immorality and hypocrisy while arguing he, himself, would engage in such activities he described as hypocritical and immoral behaviour.

I what point does he sink to beinga toon-like pastiche of himself.


I am absolutely stunned that you would consider the idea of a parent renegging on a boycott to save his child's life as hypocritical. Some here never cease to amaze me.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 11:43 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sanctions, anyone?

The morality of sanctions? The practicalities of sanctions? We're talking politics here?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 September 2004 11:52 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes getting back to sanctions, would this also include sanctions against any and all Israeli academics?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 11:58 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm trying to remember how the world dealt with South African intellectuals and artists during the time those sanctions were in effect.

Sports teams were definitely boycotted, but then athletes are always stuck with representing their countries.

Intellectuals aren't like that -- most will refuse to do that -- and, of course, in the case of South Africa, all the great artists were part of the resistance. So they were regularly the recipients of international honours.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 September 2004 12:59 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, at this point I'm starting to wonder if you just like being a reactionary, contrary sourpuss just for the sake of being one.

For you, clearly, it is both ethical and not ethical at the same time to boycott a country's consumer and capital goods as well as its medico-scientific breakthroughs.

Whether it is ethical or not seems to depend on who actually makes the claim they would restrict their boycott to capital/consumer goods.

So in my case, since I make the exception for medico-scientific achievements, I am clearly immoral or unethical, or some damn thing.

But you, if you do the same thing, you are the Hero Father Who Saved His Child, or some glowing self-appellation related to how You Can Do No Wrong.

Spare me this crap, Macabee.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 September 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Come one come all see the dancing apologist dance around his own words! Is he moral or immoral? is he a hypocrite or is he a straight shooter? No one knows for sure! Whatever rules he applies to you do not apply to him! Come be mystified. Here is but a sample of his double-dealing, forked tongue:

Macabee:

quote:
I am absolutely stunned that you would consider the idea of a parent renegging on a boycott to save his child's life as hypocritical. Some here never cease to amaze me.

Macabee in this very same thread:
quote:
It strikes me as both immoral and hypocritical to pick and choose the extent of a boycott. If you feel as you do and wish to isolate Israel by boycott then it must ethically extend to anything Israel produces. No amount of sophistry or contorting explains this away.

Macabee, still in this very same thread:
quote:
Ahh of course. Well medical treatment is a service. And of course your hypocricy comes through for all to see. As long as your comfortable little life in Canada remains unthreatened how easy it is to refuse just certain Israeli products and services. But you draw the line dont you? Such hypocricy. If Israel is to be boycotted, then boycott everything from Jaffa oranges to medicine and research. If not take your principles and go away.


**Warning all quotes are for entertainment purpsoes only. Attempting to take Macabee seriously could lead to short-tempers and frayed nerves. Experts warn it is unlikely he is even able to take himself seriously.

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 26 September 2004 04:18 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Ahh of course. Well medical treatment is a service. And of course your hypocricy comes through for all to see. As long as your comfortable little life in Canada remains unthreatened how easy it is to refuse just certain Israeli products and services. But you draw the line dont you? Such hypocricy. If Israel is to be boycotted, then boycott everything from Jaffa oranges to medicine and research. If not take your principles and go away.


What Macabee is trying to say is that in order to support the Palestinians, you must take up their suffering with them and deny yourself medical treatments and other comforts and live just like Palestinians. You must commit yourself to a great discipline (call it your inner IDF) to ensure that you suffer equally with those you support. Conversely, to enjoy creature comforts without hypocrisy it is necessary to remain loyal to all others with creature comforts, like Israelis. Hypocrisy should be frowned on and one should stay true to their class. This is called moral principle.

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 26 September 2004 04:27 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
[QB]It strikes me as both immoral and hypocritical to pick and choose the extent of a boycott. If you feel as you do and wish to isolate Israel by boycott then it must ethically extend to anything Israel produces. No amount of sophistry or contorting explains this away.

What Macabee is trying to demonstrate by means of sly irony - and he is no doubt correct - is that sophistry and logical contortion can make the argument that boycotts are either total and absolute or they are morally wrong. However, sophistry and contortion are not the proper tools for making the opposite argument - that selective boycotting is both more human to all concerned - AND - more efficient than blanket rejection of anything associated with Israel. Rather, sound reason and clear logic (i.e. the absence of sophistry and contortion) is the only way to draw such a conclusion.

quote:
And AL Q I brought my children first into this ethical discussion to point out your hypocricy. Yes in the past I engaged in boycotts only to realize that they were so much window dressing; only to realize that if I was not prepared to be fully committed then I was being a hypocrite.

The analogy to be drawn from Macabee's extraordinary position is that you should hate all things Israeli equally if you are to be morally principled.

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 September 2004 04:41 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Macabee, at this point I'm starting to wonder if you just like being a reactionary, contrary sourpuss just for the sake of being one.

For you, clearly, it is both ethical and not ethical at the same time to boycott a country's consumer and capital goods as well as its medico-scientific breakthroughs.

Whether it is ethical or not seems to depend on who actually makes the claim they would restrict their boycott to capital/consumer goods.

So in my case, since I make the exception for medico-scientific achievements, I am clearly immoral or unethical, or some damn thing.

But you, if you do the same thing, you are the Hero Father Who Saved His Child, or some glowing self-appellation related to how You Can Do No Wrong.

Spare me this crap, Macabee.


Difference between you and me 9is that I am honest about boycotts.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 September 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, so in your case you WOULD deny yourself a South African medical development or scientific advance?

That is, as the aphorism goes, cutting off your nose to spite your face.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 September 2004 04:51 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Ok, so in your case you WOULD deny yourself a South African medical development or scientific advance?

That is, as the aphorism goes, cutting off your nose to spite your face.


No I would deny myself or my family nothing if it meant life giving or savving procedures boycott or no boycott.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 04:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look:

THERE. IS. NO. LIFE-. SAVING. MEDICAL. PROCEDURE. THAT. IS. NATION-. SPECIFIC.

FULL. STOP.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 September 2004 05:29 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As spake by Macabee:
No I would deny myself or my family nothing if it meant life giving or savving procedures boycott or no boycott.

So, are you being honest or dishonest about boycotts? I can't figure out where you are because you're flip-flopping faster than the eye can follow.

quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Look:

THERE. IS. NO. LIFE-. SAVING. MEDICAL. PROCEDURE. THAT. IS. NATION-. SPECIFIC.

FULL. STOP.


They can be developed within specific nations, but I grant that they rapidly circulate through the scientific community and thus the national origin really becomes quite irrelevant.

However, I am arguing on Macabee's turf here wherein he assumes that a boycott must cover medical advances that originate in the same country as the consumer/capital-goods boycott.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 05:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, Dr C, you and Mac are both still missing the point.

No medical advance ever "originates" in a single place. Ok: maybe once every two centuries or so, but otherwise, NONE.

They are all always happening in many places all at once. The person who does a particular experiment or operation first is just the person who does it first -- we must always assume that multiple teams worldwide were on the same path.

Medical science is engineering. Most "science" is engineering. Most "breakthroughs" are engineering. In other words, applied science.

Einstein is science. Once he publishes, everyone everywhere knows. That kind of thought cannot be contained, and is not national, not ethnic, not religious, not blood-knowledge, AND NO ONE OWNS IT.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 September 2004 05:37 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
They are all always happening in many places all at once. The person who does a particular experiment or operation first is just the person who does it first -- we must always assume that multiple teams worldwide were on the same path.

Einstein is science. Once he publishes, everyone everywhere knows. That kind of thought cannot be contained, and is not national, not ethnic, not religious, not blood-knowledge, AND NO ONE OWNS IT.


You're preaching to the converted, skdadl. Save your heat for someone else. I even agreed with you when I said national origin becomes irrelevant once the knowledge is disseminated!

Sheesh.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 05:55 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know, Dr C. The entire thread has been diverted, distracted, and derailed to this point by this hopeless discussion.

Gee, how did that happen. *sigh*


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 26 September 2004 06:15 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe this piece will help nudge the discussion in a better direction. As the author behind the blog Informed Comment, Juan Cole is likely no stranger to many here. He's highly critical of Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza.

About two years ago he wrote the piece I first linked to above after there was serious talk about a boycott of Israeli academics and academic institutions. He argues against it, but interestingly enough says this:

quote:
In contrast, I could support the divestment campaign at some American campuses, aimed at university investments in Israeli firms, because the business elite in Israel is both more powerful and more entangled in government policy than the academics.

Food for thought on examining your tactics for their potential consequences and focusing your efforts where they're likely to have the desired effect.

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: pogge ]

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 27 September 2004 02:22 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
From memory - anti-apartheid boycotts did not include cultural/academic boycotts. Where do you think we got most of our info about apartheid? D'oh! From academics and writers in South Africa who travelled here to give talks.

Academic boycotts of Israelis have been proposed in Europe. The reaction has been swift, blunt and uncompromising: universities consider such academic boycotts racist because they are based on nationality. As well, students agree, for example the National Union of Students in the UK also denounced cultural/academic boycotts as racist because they are based on national origins.

Many critics of the Israeli government work in academia or the media as Pogge's link to Juan Cole documents.

To be logical, you would have to propose a boycott of Palestinians because many support suicide bombings which are considered a crime against humanity, of Syrians because of their support for Hamas and their illegal occupation of Lebanon, of Iranians because of their government's dictatorial regime, of Yemeni for a whole bunch of reasons...

No one in the Mideast would be allowed to move or breathe.

Boycotts targetting the actual companies involved in what you object to make more sense. Or divesting from those companies...

Blanket sanctions do not work. The UN has done various studies on sanctions - I should try to find the references. The conclusion is that blanket sanctions have been a failure. They never punish the intended parties.

As for the rest of this thread, can you people stop with the predictable "you're an ass, no you're an ass, no you're a bigger ass" childishness? Thank you Michelle. I second your remarks.

[ 27 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 September 2004 03:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's first of all acknowledge that none of us are immune from being baited or sidetracked before getting all high and mighty, okay?

Next, when we speak of sanctions in terms of South Africa and apartheid, we need to remember that sanctions were led by consumer boycotts of South African products. Cultural sanctions, mostly impacting sports, and divestment came later.

And to what extent were boycotts and sanctions damaging to the Apartheid economy? I don't know. But one of the most important aspects of a consumer led boycott is the education component that usually begins with explaining why a boycott.

Apartheid became a household name in Canada and was uniformly despised and our governments began to take international leadership positions.

The goal of any consumer led boycott ought to be carried out with modest goals of education and awareness to start.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 September 2004 03:28 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So well put, Wingy. Thanks very much.

And a point of information: Nadine Gordimer, white South African (British descent), Nobel Prize for Literature 1991. Sanctions were lifted in 1993. (Gordimer was an anti-apartheid activist, mind.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2004 05:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
From memory - anti-apartheid boycotts did not include cultural/academic boycotts. Where do you think we got most of our info about apartheid? D'oh! From academics and writers in South Africa who travelled here to give talks.

I'be tried to get you to source you memories before, to no avail. Yet again it is unsourced. Perhaps you should work on that.

Your memory is completely faulty. Do you remember the song: "I'm not going to play Sun City?" Famous musicians banded together to announce their intention to not play at SA's most popular tourist resort. All sports organizations were banned from international sporting events, including rugby, soccer and Olympic competitions.

quote:
And to what extent were boycotts and sanctions damaging to the Apartheid economy? I don't know. But one of the most important aspects of a consumer led boycott is the education component that usually begins with explaining why a boycott.

Apartheid became a household name in Canada and was uniformly despised and our governments began to take international leadership positions.


Very clear sighted.

[ 27 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 27 September 2004 06:14 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Sun City was part of the bantustan Bophuthatswana, a component of the apartheid system.

This is the direct reason for the boycott. Sun City was an element of the system.

Bophuthatswana attempted to gain financial resources and credibility by calling for artists to play there. It was in opposition to this request that Steven Van Zandt wrote the title track for the famous Artists United Against Apartheid album that launched the boycott.

Saying novelist Amos Oz or the conductor David Barenboim or professors of universities should be boycotted is a different matter. They are not directly part of the Israeli policy being opposed. In fact they would be considered opponents of the occupation. Why should they be boycotted? Because of their nationality? That's a racist concept. No one boycotted Sun City because thye didn't like South Africans due to their nationality. Sun City was boycotted because it was a direct tool of the authorities under apartheid.

Boycott the companies doing the damage or enforcing the occupation policy. Sun City was one such company in the South African case. I don't see how anyone can compare Amoz Os or anti-Likud orchestra conductors to Sun City.

One again, Cueball gets his facts wrong.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 27 September 2004 06:20 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
It strikes me as both immoral and hypocritical to pick and choose the extent of a boycott. If you feel as you do and wish to isolate Israel by boycott then it must ethically extend to anything Israel produces. No amount of sophistry or contorting explains this away.

It's a rather contorted argument to attack your critics because their boycott isn't comprehensive enough. Frankly, it's not up to the traget of the boycott to dictate to the boycotter what the terms of the boycott should be.

And Macabee, I see you've completely avoided my point about exceptions to sanctions against Iraq on medical and humanitarian grounds. Aren't these exceptions "hypocritical" as well?


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2004 06:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
One again, Cueball gets his facts wrong.

Facts? You have just admitted that your original statement was wrong:

quote:
From memory - anti-apartheid boycotts did not include cultural/academic boycotts. Where do you think we got most of our info about apartheid? D'oh! From academics and writers in South Africa who travelled here to give talks.

Because the boycott of Sun City was because the Bhantustans was part of the Apartheid system:

quote:
"Sun City was part of the bantustan Bophuthatswana, a component of the apartheid system."

Ridiculous! You are trying to prevericate using the logic of Apartheid.

Music and sports are part of culture... or do dispute that?

quote:
That's a racist concept. No one boycotted Sun City because thye didn't like South Africans due to their nationality. Sun City was boycotted because it was a direct tool of the authorities under apartheid.

Who is saying Israel should be boycotted due to the nationality of Israelis? What are you trying to slip in there?

[ 27 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 27 September 2004 06:24 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
I am absolutely stunned that you would consider the idea of a parent renegging on a boycott to save his child's life as hypocritical. Some here never cease to amaze me.

But Macabee, it was you who suggested that someone boycotting Israeli products would be hypocritical if they did not also boycott an Israeli medical procedure that could save their child's life. Please try to be consistent in your sanctimony. I'm absolutely stunned that you would say one thing and then completely contradict yourself a few posts later. Your capacity for cognititve dissonance is truly amazing.

[ 27 September 2004: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 27 September 2004 11:27 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Um... Sun City was a company directly involved in the apartheid policy. That's why it was boycotted.

Daniel Barenboim, orchestra conductor, is anti-occupation. He is not an intitution or company involved in the settlement policies of the Israeli government. Why should he be boycotted?

Babble often promotes talks in Canada by Israeli dissidents. Under a blanket boycott, they would never get here and we would not hear them.

A blanket boycott would be based on nationality, not on what people do, but on their origins. The very definition of racism and discrimination.

Such a boycott would be inconsistent with the basic values of justice: you don't punish people for crimes they did not commit. This is why people object to house demolitions that are imposed on the relatives of suicide bombers: family members who committed no fault should not be punished. Or to economic sanctions that targetted civilians in Iraq while Saddam Hussein and his corrupt cronies continued to grow fat and rich.

Boycotts that are too broad have no target and raise the questions of justice I have described. Focus on institutions and companies that have been documented to contribute to the problem you want to remedy.

That is the only ethical path that all can understand.

Someone out there is certainly intelligent enough to come up with a list of Israeli companies that contribute to the settlement policy.

[ 27 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2004 11:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Um... Sun City was a company directly involved in the apartheid policy. That's why it was boycotted.

Fine. My point is that it was boycotted as part of the boycott against Apartheid. The companies funtion was entertainment. Enterainment is a 'cultural' activity. Earlier you stated that the boycott against apartheid did not include culture.

I don't see why you persist in arguing this point. Your latter arguement and your previous statement are clearly in contradiction. That is really all there is to it.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2004 11:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Many countries imposed cultural boycotts on the apartheid regime, meaning that South Africa was banned from the Olympic Games until 1992, as well as rugby and cricket. When the all-white national rugby team, the Springboks, toured New Zealand in 1981, it provoked public outrage, as did the decision of the British rock group Queen to perform in the Sun City resort in the bantustan of Bophuthatswana. The American singer Paul Simon caused controversy when he recorded his Graceland album with the South African group Ladysmith Black Mambazo, even though all its members were black.

International cultural boycott


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 September 2004 11:46 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A blanket boycott would be based on nationality, not on what people do, but on their origins. The very definition of racism and discrimination.

The anti-Apartheid, mixed-race South African band, Juluka, was refused permission to perform in the UK because of the boycott, so pffft to your claim that such boycotts are racist and discriminatory.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 27 September 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Some people seem immune to the glaring irony in boycotting victims of racism to prove racism is wrong.

Anti-apartheid activists at my university played Juluka and Lady Blacksmith Mambazo at all their party events. They also invited authors, academics and Church leaders you would have boycotted. I don't think that's a good way of spreading the word.

Yes boycotting somebody because of national origin, and not for any negative action or behaviour of that person, is discriminatory. I consider it to be part of the very definition of a racist attitude.

So you would boycott the anti-occupation activist Barenboim. I'll gladly have your concert tickets and enjoy the symphony in your place.

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 September 2004 12:08 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course it's a glaring irony, and since you seem to have missed the point of my mentioning it it's doubly ironic.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 28 September 2004 12:13 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Maybe we should boycott Christianity, did that not come from there too?

Buy a bit of Budism instead.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 September 2004 12:19 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Om" to that, brother.

[ed.] Unless of course, you're a sister.

Mustn't discriminate now.

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 September 2004 01:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes boycotting somebody because of national origin, and not for any negative action or behaviour of that person, is discriminatory. I consider it to be part of the very definition of a racist attitude.

So you would boycott the anti-occupation activist Barenboim. I'll gladly have your concert tickets and enjoy the symphony in your place.


Ok Very slowly and simply. A boycott is not discriminatory. Y? Because it is necessary to ensure its effectiveness. There will be, in any society varying opinions. Sometimes, it is hard to decide whose opinion is pro or anti Apartheid (as an exmaple.) Some people talked about modifying Apartheid, and represented that as being anti-Apartheid -- for instance the Bhantustans were discussed as being non-racist by the Inkatha party. These issues are complex. Because of this, some people might think that one person or political person is ok, while others might not. In order to avoid confusion and discrimnation the boycott blankets all persons, including, in the case of Apartheid, black performers.

This was the decision of the ANC who supported the boycott even though it affected black persons as well. In the end it is best to let the persons you are supporting decide the nature of the boycott, not various and diverse solidarity groups deciding things willy-nilly based on their study group findings. I can imagine exactly the silly debate that is going on here repeated over and over and over again from here to Taiwan.

Another thing.... her you are defending the rights of Israeli citizens to travel, but completely ignoring the wholesale travel ban applicable to numerous Palestinians. Weird. Under your formula, an Israeli can come here and oppose the occupation, but Yasser Arafat could not. Your idea is a carbon copy of the racist process you oppose.

In the end the nature of the boycott should be defined by those whom you are supporting, since they will bare the brunt of the suffering. In th case of the Palestinians the decision about what to boycott would naturally come down to the Palestine Authority, not you.

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 28 September 2004 09:08 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Under your formula, an Israeli can come here and oppose the occupation, but Yasser Arafat could not. Your idea is a carbon copy of the racist process you oppose.
But surely the difference is that Arafat supports terrorism.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 28 September 2004 09:33 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Kill ratio: 20 to one for the home invaders.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 September 2004 09:34 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel is a terrorist state as its recent actions in Syria demonstrate. At least according to the most widley accepted current definition of terrorism. And that would make Sharon a terrorist in the same manner as is Arafat. And Sharon was directly responsible for terrorism and butchery, wasn't he?

Back to you ... for your predictable apologies of Israeli racism and Israeli terrorism and brutality.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 28 September 2004 09:40 AM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
One has to wonder how Mandela and the ANC genuinely feel about the equivalence between them and the likes of Arafat & Fatah
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 September 2004 09:42 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians.

The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1957644.stm

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 September 2004 09:44 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps it is strange for you to observe the situation in Palestine or more specifically, the structure of political and cultural relationships between Palestinians and Israelis, as an apartheid system. This is because you incorrectly think that the problem of Palestine began in 1967. This was demonstrated in your recent column "Bush's First Memo" in the New York Times on March 27, 2001.

You seem to be surprised to hear that there are still problems of 1948 to be solved, the most important component of which is the right to return of Palestinian refugees.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established "normally" and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.



Nelson Mandella

http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/mandella.html

Thank you dfor the opportunity to quote these two great men.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 28 September 2004 10:08 AM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
I don't doubt that they personally feel distressed over the suffering of the Palestinians generally, and that it brings back memories of apartheid. It's just that I'd be surprised if either of the men embraced Arafat as a kindred spirit, or declared Fatah or Hamas as an equivalent to the ANC the way some folks are starting to.
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 28 September 2004 11:46 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
But surely the difference is that Arafat supports terrorism.

As a student of Zionist history I am sure you are aware of what Begin and Shamir were up to in the 1940s.

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 September 2004 12:15 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's just that I'd be surprised if either of the men embraced Arafat as a kindred spirit, or declared Fatah or Hamas as an equivalent to the ANC the way some folks are starting to.

Oh, yes, now I see. Tell me, which folks? And can you provide me with a specific quote of someone holding Arafat and Mandella and/or the PLO and and the ANC (also declareed a terrorist organization, BTW) with the same esteem within this thread, or any other?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 28 September 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
Oops, spoke too soon . . .

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9910/20/mandela.arafat/


From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 28 September 2004 02:44 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uh-oh! Better start callin' Mandela a terrorist again, like back in the good old days.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 28 September 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
No need for that kind of language, but it is rather depressing.
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 28 September 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From We Are at War!, a pamphlet of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the ANC:

quote:
Why we fight:

To you, the sons and daughters of the soil, our case is clear.

The white oppressors have stolen our land. They have destroyed our families. They have taken for themselves the best that there is in our rich country and have left us the worst. They have the fruits and the riches. We have the backbreaking toil and the poverty.

We burrow into the belly of the earth to dig out gold, diamonds, coal, uranium. The white oppressors and foreign investors grab all this wealth. It is used for their enrichment and to buy arms to suppress and kill us.

In the factories, on the farms, on the railways, wherever you go, the hard, dirty, dangerous, badly paid jobs are ours. The best jobs are for whites only.

In our own land we have to carry passes; we are restricted and banished while the white oppressors move about freely.

Our homes are hovels; those of the whites are luxury mansions, flats and farmsteads.

There are not enough schools for our children; the standard of education is low, and we have to pay for it. But the government uses our taxes and the wealth we create to provide free education for white children.

We have suffered long enough.


We Are at War!

You decide if the case is similar....


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 28 September 2004 03:36 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
A least Cueball is clear - he defends boycotting people, not based on actions for which they can be held responsible, but based on national origins.

The very definition of discrimination.

"You've done nothing wrong, but you're the wrong gender, so we'll boycott you. You've done nothing wrong, but you're the wrong skin colour so we'll boycott you. You've done nothing wrong, but you're the wrong sexual orientation, so we'll boycott you. You've done nothing wrong, but you're the wrong nationality, so we'll boycott you."

Our jurisprudence contains hundreds of decisions condemning this type of attitude and behaviour.

I boycott Israeli products that are produced by companies involved in illegal settlements, based on their actions not allowed under law or under general principles of international standards. The same principle applies to any other things I may boycott in other situations.

And we cannot allow anyone to twist defending the fundamental international principle of the freedom for civilians to travel into something negative, as Cueball has tried so ridiculously to argue.

One does not combat an injustice (the settlement policy) by enforcing another injustice (racist blanket boycotts as espoused by Cueball).

I am not surprised at your inability to understand basic principles of equity, justice and human rights. But this is not surprising. After all, you have been among the main attackers on Babble of international efforts to bring to trial Balkan war criminals. And you suggested that a good example of an anti-racist position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a PLO document from 1964 that advocated the expulsion of all Jews who arrived in Palestine after 1917.

I doubt anyone here has anything to learn about equality and human rights from the likes of you.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so hard to solve because it is has for so long been dominated and exploited by voices on all sides as well as by voices of the friends of those numerous factions advocating exclusionary and discriminatory policies.

Cueball, whenever you're ready to send me your Barenboim symphony tickets, just remember I like to sit about halfway between the stage and the first balcony, on the righthand side of the hall.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 September 2004 03:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't doubt that they personally feel distressed over the suffering of the Palestinians generally, and that it brings back memories of apartheid. It's just that I'd be surprised if either of the men embraced Arafat as a kindred spirit, or declared Fatah or Hamas as an equivalent to the ANC the way some folks are starting to.

I am not going to declare that Mandela is a saint. It is very probable that were he not imprisoned for almost the entirety of his political life that he would have been associated with various violent acts of his allies, and even his wife. Frankly the PLO and the ANC are very clearly kindred organization, springing from the same kind of amalgamation of communist, socialist and national liberation elements, and coming from a very similar historical period and struggling with a very similar problem, which is the dirty laundry of colonialism.

Wingnut is right charges of 'terrorism' were also leveled at the ANC.

Furthermore, there is this peristant idea that Hamas and Fatah are synonmous. They are not. The sucicide attacks are historically the domain of Hamas, not Fatah, though as of late some elements of Fatah have taken up this method out of pure desperation. The ritual vilification against Arafat sticks through repetition, yet everyone ignores Arafat's personal interevention both in releasing Canadian hostages in Iraq and now on behalf of Mr. Ken Bigley, and the fact that he is a Nobel Peace prize winner.

Frankly, I find this blanket labeling of any militant activity by Palestinians as being terrorism vaguely racist.

It is nice to see that Macabee admits that there is a racist travel ban against Palestinians, including Arafat, and other spokepersons of the Palestinian cause. It is a de facto admission that that anti-Palestinian racism is so entrenched in the liberal left that the argument in this thread is not about which Palestinians should be allowed to speak for the Palestinian cause, but which Israelis should be allowed to speak for the Palestinian cause.

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 September 2004 03:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A least Cueball is clear - he defends boycotting people, not based on actions for which they can be held responsible, but based on national origins.

In your model Araft stays in Ramallah, Netanyahoo joins the jet set. How nice.

Your model reinforces the inequity.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 28 September 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I have no "model" except international standards of morality and human rights.

Netanyahu and Arafat have nothing to do with ordinary artists, or authors, or musicians, or academics. Both Netanyahu and Arafat are civilian/military officials and can be held accountable for their actions or crimes as state leaders.

That has little to do with banning a writer or a professor or conductor based solely on their nationality, which is discrimination pure and simple.

Cueball is prepared to openly justify discrimination. We can all read your words and judge what they represent.

It is pathetic.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 28 September 2004 04:34 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
Remember back in the 80's, when Paul Simon hired South African musicians to play on "Graceland"? (Paid them North American-scale union wages, I recall). He was flaunting many boycotts and even some U.N. sanctions. Would anyone now suggest he was supporting and collaborating with the aparthied regime?
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 September 2004 05:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cueball is prepared to openly justify discrimination. We can all read your words and judge what they represent.

Absurd. The 'human rights' veneer that covers your racist attitude is paper thin.

For some reason I am reminded of the movie Divine Intervention by Elia Suleiman, two years ago it won the Cannes Grand Jury prize. At one point it was considered for entry into the best Foreign Films category by the Academy of Motion Picture arts and sciences, unfortunately it was denied entry on the basis that Palestine was not a country.

You seem very vocal about supporting the rights of Israeli individuals, but have yet to make one statement in support of Palestinian artists, who are often denied exit by their Israeli occupiers.

You support a system where Palestinians are denied their rights but Israeli artist have full reign to travel. And you are accusing me of discrimination because I suggest that Israeli artists should have the same limitations placed on them as Israel places on Palestinians.

Amazing! Palestinian students are routinely blockaded from going from their home to the university which they attend, but you sanctimoniously defend the right of Israeli intellectuals to travel the globe freely.

[Edited to Add] And don't just sit there and think: "what arguement am I going to use to respond to that," actually think about the implication of what I just said.

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 28 September 2004 06:36 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Frankly the PLO and the ANC are very clearly kindred organization, springing from the same kind of amalgamation of communist, socialist and national liberation elements, and coming from a very similar historical period and struggling with a very similar problem, which is the dirty laundry of colonialism.

[/b]

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]



I would take some issue with this. Frankly, the PLO often talked a line of radical social liberation, but the stark reality is that theirs is and was a very conservative national project - which does not negate their role nor their prominence within the Palestinian resistance.

It takes gall to suggest that the relationship between what is happening to Palestine and what happened to black South Africans are only tangentally related; but it also takes a certain naivety, in my view to compare the ANC and the PLO as their their aims, tactics, and philosophies were identical.

This takes some hard moral work to untangle. Human Rights are not a reward for "good behaviour"; particularly not good behaviour as defined by those who are negating those rights. The actions of the PLO, be they angelic and above reproach or truly evil (as they have been both, over time) are irrelevant and immaterial to the fact that the Palestinian people are occupied and oppressed by Israel.

Arafat is a thug. If not for the continuing brutality of a 37 year occupation, he would have been relegated to obscurity long ago. I cannot believe that the same can be said of Mandela.

In his autobiography, Mandela deals very coldly with the issue of armed resistance and what form it can take in the struggle for national liberation. He explicitly rejects terrorism as a viable option, understanding innately that targetting civilians undercuts the moral core of a broader argument for liberation that must be accepted beyond the borders of the conflict and within the hearts of the oppressing community. No such analysis has taken hold within the circles dominated by Arafat and his cronies, who before the second intifada used their security forces for the most effective crushing of civil dissent - including genuinely progressive voices - within the Palestinian resistance.

There is a reason why some of the West's most staunch defenders of Palestine - Said, Chomsky, Finklestein, and Fisk, to name a few - heap scorn and contempt upon Arafat; there is an even stronger reason why Palestinians actually involved in resistance, as opposed to posturing - people like Mustafah Barghouti and just about any Palestinian organizer of the ISM and other civil society organizations - do the same.

In the end though, that is irrelevant. One country occupies another. We have dealt with a very similar case in easy memory wherein which the institution of legalized racial discrimination was eliminated in part due to international efforts - it behooves us to look at the strategies used in that resistance and repeat them as necessary.

Therefore: Boycott.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 September 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It takes gall to suggest that the relationship between what is happening to Palestine and what happened to black South Africans are only tangentally related; but it also takes a certain naivety, in my view to compare the ANC and the PLO as their their aims, tactics, and philosophies were identical.


No two situations are exactly alike, of course.

There are numerous cases where black South Africans used means that today would be called terrorist. I remember graphic film footage of 3 white people being shot summarily at an ANC check point, for instance. Car bombings agfainst civilian whites were common. Necklacing colaborators was also common.

While I agree that the behaviour of Yasser Arafat is not beyond reproach it should be noted that the criticism leveled against him by Chomsky, Said et al, is very much launched from the comfort of their comfortable office chairs, not from the front lines of a national liberation struggle.

I am sure that Mandela espoused a strict code of conduct for ANC guerillas. Anyone can espouse that. Arafat and the PLO publicly eschewed the kind of militant acts that is presently practiced by Hamas in numerous pubic statements. However, I am sure that Mandela would not outright condemn the kinds of militant acivities labeled as terrorist without noting the conditions under which those activities take place. This is very much the same line that Arafat takes, when he condemns terrorist activities by Palestinian militants.

Israeli propgandists maintain that condemnation with any explantory caveat is de facto support.

All we need to do is look at the case of Winnie Manedla and it becomes apparent how close Mandela was to all kinds of less than scrupulous elements within the resistance. In the kind of struggle taking place it is almost impossible to chose whose ones allies are, even if we may deplore their methods. That is the way these things are.

In the case of Arafat, people are trying to pin any number of activities by Palesinians and giving him overall repsonibility for any act by any group. His relationships to Hamas is far more tenuous than Mandela's martial realtionship to Winnie, yet we persist in promoting this fiction about Arafat "the thug."

By the same token Oliver Tambo, a key Mandela ally, could also be termed a thug. All guerilla organizations have thugish elements. Thuggery is one of he few ways that guerilla organizations can enforce dicipline given that they have no rear area wherein to have courts and jails.

In fact Winnie Mandela's crimes were directly to do with enforcing this kind of discipline within her organization.

By applying a universal standard of the kind applicable to states to guerilla organizations we are applying morality without context. In like manner, in the case where a court judges rich and poor men equally under the law for stealing a loaf of bread we might say that this is a sign of equality of morality, only if we ignore the fact that a rich man has not reason to steal.

In a world with few spotless heros it is nice to hold up Mandela's record as a shining example of probity, yet we can never real tell what he might have been like had he avoided capture and acted in the field as Arafat has done throughout his career. Perhaps we should dump the hero thing entirely.

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 September 2004 10:40 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Have been avoiding Israeli products and services for years now.

I can think of a whole list of countries that we should all boycott all products from because they are undemocratic, have political prisoners etc...:

Syria
Jordan
Iran
Libya
Egypt
Saudi Arabia (better not fill up your car, the oil could by Saudi!)
Kuwait
Iraq
Algeria
Cuba
Russia
China
Vietnam
Myanmar
and just about every country in Africa etc...

Maybe its faster to make a list of country thyat it IS acceptable to buy products from. Let's see: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, the netherlnads, Belgium, Switzerland, maybe a few fledgling democracies in eastern Europe and that's about it!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 September 2004 11:49 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Human Rights are not a reward for "good behaviour"; particularly not good behaviour as defined by those who are negating those rights. The actions of the PLO, be they angelic and above reproach or truly evil (as they have been both, over time) are irrelevant and immaterial to the fact that the Palestinian people are occupied and oppressed by Israel.

Very wise and to the point.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 29 September 2004 12:01 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stock, you miss the point. Israel is actively persuing apartheid-like policies. That is why some are calling for a boycott. Those other countries you listed, while certainly not politically stable or democratic (I'm not going to go through the whole silly list you posted) are not actively mimicking Apartheid South Africa. With the possible exception of Indonesia and the Sudan, I suppose.

I don't want to dissuade you from starting a movement to boycott goods from other countries that you don't like. I'm sure there are groups that have already started on some countries on your list.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 September 2004 12:02 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca