Current Affairs Israel is an apartheid state

[BigMick]

When will the International community hold Israel to account. They are allowed to act with impunity. Systematically trying to dismantle any opposition.

Only just spotted this post

The raid probably had something to do with this organisations longstanding links to the PFLP, listed as a terrorist organisation by the US, Canada, and the EU. I vaguely remember their Chief Executive, an American, was due to give a speech in Belgium a couple of years ago until the Belgian government heard about it and banned him from entering the country. Citibank and Arab Bank ceased providing banking services to them and some crowdfunding sources have removed them from their websites.

I suspect the timing of this raid was a response to the PFLP recently issuing videos and statements bragging about the role of their armed wing in firing missiles at Israel in the recent Gaza conflict. Might be wrong on that.

 

[dublinbluenose]

Only just spotted this post

The raid probably had something to do with this organisations longstanding links to the PFLP, listed as a terrorist organisation by the US, Canada, and the EU. I vaguely remember their Chief Executive, an American, was due to give a speech in Belgium a couple of years ago until the Belgian government heard about it and banned him from entering the country. Citibank and Arab Bank ceased providing banking services to them and some crowdfunding sources have removed them from their websites.

I suspect the timing of this raid was a response to the PFLP recently issuing videos and statements bragging about the role of their armed wing in firing missiles at Israel in the recent Gaza conflict. Might be wrong on that.

Well thats one fairly tenuous possibility.

 

[BigMick]

Well thats one fairly tenuous possibility.

It may seem fairly tenuous to you but it seems I was at least 50% right - the raid was because of that organisation's links the the PFLP, but it didn't necessarily have anything to do with the recent Gaza conflict.

It was part of an investigation into the finance network of the PFLP, which has seen another NGO raided and the offices of two others closed down. Several senior officials from these organisations have been arrested for their role in a 50 man terror cell operating in the West Bank which in 2019 carried out an attack that caused the death of a 17 year old Israeli.

The Palestinian Authority said at the time that the cell was as big a danger to Palestinians as it was to Israelis due to the methods it used, eg. roadside bombs.

Tellingly, in 2020 this organisation also refused to sign a clause in the European Union contract for grants to Palestinian NGOs that prohibits grantees from working with and funding organisations and individuals designated on the EU’s terror lists.

The links to the PFLP are well known, but there are people and organisations - including some that I respect - who turn a blind eye to them for political reasons. Others believe raiding NGO offices is worse than supporting or funding terror groups - I disagree.

Israel can and should be castigated for some of its actions and policies in Jerusalem and the West Bank, especially for reckless IDF actions, but personally I have no time for an organisation that claims to be protecting children but secretly provides aid to a group which is proud of carrying out attacks resulting in the deaths and maiming of innocent men, women, and children.

 

[Tramps_mate]

Prosecution witness in Netanyahu trial tragically dies in an airplane accident....

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[BigMick]

Prosecution witness in Netanyahu trial tragically dies in an airplane accident....

MSN

www.msn.com

So that's one down, 299 to go.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

A shame if that's true Jimmy.

The IHRA definition of antisemitism regarding Israel states the following:

1. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
2. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
3. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
4. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
5. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.
6. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
7. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Sadly, I've seen them all online in various places. I would think number 4 is the trickiest one which people may fall into inadvertently.

Numbers 6 is ridiculous.

 

[Alan Whittle]

A shame if that's true Jimmy.

The IHRA definition of antisemitism regarding Israel states the following:

1. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
2. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
3. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
4. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
5. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.
6. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
7. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Sadly, I've seen them all online in various places. I would think number 4 is the trickiest one which people may fall into inadvertently.

2 is interesting.

 

[BigMick]

2 is interesting.

and a very longstanding accusation levelled at Jews in various countries, frequently used as an excuse for antisemitism, pogroms etc.

 

[Alan Whittle]

and a very longstanding accusation levelled at Jews in various countries, frequently used as an excuse for antisemitism, pogroms etc.

It is. I wasn’t trying to diminish it but I did wonder at the wording. It is clear that you cannot accuse a Jewish citizen of greater loyalty to Israel or to the alleged priorities ofJews worldwide than to the interests of their own nations.

The “alleged priorities of Jews worldwide” I understand but there must be occasions where a Jewish person, citizen of another country might have a greater loyalty to Israel than their own country. Supposing there were sanctions placed on Israel by that persons country that the person was completely against. Why would it be unreasonable for that person to have a greater loyalty to Israel on that matter and why, therefore, would it be against the law to point that out?
Apologies if I am missing the point spectacularly.

 

[tsubaki]

and a very longstanding accusation levelled at Jews in various countries, frequently used as an excuse for antisemitism, pogroms etc.

It is, though TBF it is a thing that is often aimed at what are seen as "other" communities (Germans and Italians during the last war, Muslims post-9/11 etc) rather than something exclusively anti-Jewish.

Politicians also approach that line often when seeking to get the votes of those communities too of course - not only Tory and NL types being visibly pro-Israel, but Tories going out of their way to be pro-Modi in 2019, various Labour types being pro- certain Bangladeshi parties etc.

4 is a good litmus test though - I mean, if someone can't criticise things like shooting an unarmed nurse dead or firing 155mm artillery shells into a council estate without mentioning "the Jews", zionism or a conspiracy as well then they probably have a bit of a problem with anti-semitism.

 

[BigMick]

It is. I wasn’t trying to diminish it but I did wonder at the wording. It is clear that you cannot accuse a Jewish citizen of greater loyalty to Israel or to the alleged priorities ofJews worldwide than to the interests of their own nations.

The “alleged priorities of Jews worldwide” I understand but there must be occasions where a Jewish person, citizen of another country might have a greater loyalty to Israel than their own country. Supposing there were sanctions placed on Israel by that persons country that the person was completely against. Why would it be unreasonable for that person to have a greater loyalty to Israel on that matter and why, therefore, would it be against the law to point that out?
Apologies if I am missing the point spectacularly.

In a case like that I would imagine it's possible to be critical of their country's policy towards Israel but still be supportive of, and happy to be a citizen of, that country in general. People can protest against any policy, doesn't mean they aren't loyal to their country. I was anti-Brexit, doesn't mean I'm not happy to be British.

 

[Alan Whittle]

In a case like that I would imagine it's possible to be critical of their country's policy towards Israel but still be supportive of, and happy to be a citizen of, that country in general. People can protest against any policy, doesn't mean they aren't loyal to their country. I was anti-Brexit, doesn't mean I'm not happy to be British.

I accept your point but isn’t the specific wording to do with “greater” loyalty. On this point, and considering your example, because of the objection to policy, isn’t one showing greater loyalty to Israel and if so, why couldn’t this be criticised by someone who disagreed.
To my original point, it is the wording which, to me at least, seems too generic.
It opens up to the “You can’t say nuffink these days” brigade and that can’t be right.

 

[BigMick]

It is, though TBF it is a thing that is often aimed at what are seen as "other" communities (Germans and Italians during the last war, Muslims post-9/11 etc) rather than something exclusively anti-Jewish.

Politicians also approach that line often when seeking to get the votes of those communities too of course - not only Tory and NL types being visibly pro-Israel, but Tories going out of their way to be pro-Modi in 2019, various Labour types being pro- certain Bangladeshi parties etc.

4 is a good litmus test though - I mean, if someone can't criticise things like shooting an unarmed nurse dead or firing 155mm artillery shells into a council estate without mentioning "the Jews", zionism or a conspiracy as well then they probably have a bit of a problem with anti-semitism.

Yes, your point is well made - it's an accusation that can and often is levelled against other minorities as well.

 

[BigMick]

I accept your point but isn’t the specific wording to do with “greater” loyalty. On this point, and considering your example, because of the objection to policy, isn’t one showing greater loyalty to Israel and if so, why couldn’t this be criticised by someone who disagreed.
To my original point, it is the wording which, to me at least, seems too generic.
It opens up to the “You can’t say nuffink these days” brigade and that can’t be right.

I think it says 'more loyal to Israel' than to 'the interests of their own nation'. I agree with you, though, that the wording can leave it open to misuse.

As @tsubaki says, it's an accusation that has been levelled at other minorities as well, especially in traumatic times such as wars, economic crises etc.

 

[BigMick]

For those who took an interest in the Sheikh Jarrah evictions the Israeli High Court issued a new decision yesterday, and gave the two sides until 2nd November to accept it or come to an agreed settlement of their own, otherwise they will issue a binding ruling.

The judges issued a slightly altered compromise offer:

The families would be protected tenants, and pay NIS 2,400 (about £550) every two years to Nahalat Shimon, the Jewish organisation seeking to evict them. That's a peppercorn rent for properties in one of the most sought after areas of Jerusalem.

Three of the four families would be recognised as 1st generation protected tenants, a status they would hold for two more generations. I understand they will be able to nominate the youngest adult in the family as 1st generation protected tenant, though the lawyers may argue over that. The 4th family would be regarded as 2nd generation tenants.

The residents will accept Nahalat Shimon as the landowners - pending a land registration process that could return them the homes.

The residents will also get additional protections beyond what's normal under Israeli law. Protected tenancy can usually be stripped should tenants make changes to their homes - the compromise allows the families to make renovations, repairs, and changes at will.

What does Nahalat Shimon get? After several decades, they'll get the homes once the second generation of protected tenants passes away - unless the Israeli government at some point reopens the land registration process and gives them to the families.

In short term, Nahalat Shimon will also get NIS 30,000 (about £6,800) payback in legal fees from the Palestinians.

It looks a fair compromise to me but the pressure will be on from right-wingers on both sides to reject it. I also fear that there are some establishing a reputation and making money out of the dispute who will have their own motives for refusing any compromise.

I hope I'm wrong and commonsense prevails.