When does a boycott become necessary?

ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
edited May 14 in Purgatory
The exciting extravaganza that is Eurovision begins in less than 7 hours. As last year's winner came from Israel it is being held there this year. Unsurprisingly this has resulted in a number of calls for a boycott.

Iceland's entry, a techno anti-capitalist BDSM band (yes, really), have said they will speak of the "face of the occupation". They have spoke of being conflicted but made a decision to go and speak out. Protests occurred during the opening ceremony. More are expected.

All this as an example.

Some lines seem fairly clear. To me at least. But I do compromise. I would probably visit Israel on a religious tour, despite me (if I'm honest) favouring the Palestinians -- though not uncritically.

So I don't point fingers at other countries, there are plenty of issues in Australia where I think other countries imposing sanctions would have me saying "fair enough": treatment of asylum seekers, and the horrific health and quality of life situation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for example. I am not comparing Oz to Israel (though others may...), I think comparison lists of egregious acts can be problematic (let each country rise or fall on its merits), but is there a line?

If so, is it general consensus? Is it clear and obvious? Have you boycotted a country?

What are people's thoughts on North Korean tourism? Harmless fun or supporting a despicable regime?

When do you think a boycott becomes necessary?
«1

Comments

  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Boycotts are usually only effective if there is a large campaign in concert with other, more direct measures (e.g. strikes, massive civil disobedience). An individual tourist refraining from a visit will have little effect beyond a feeling of personal integrity. Entertainers and investors have a lot more weight, so kudos to Lorde for instance for boycotting Israel. But simply saying, "It's a despicable regime" is not enough IMO. I guess I'd say it's a case by case basis. North Korea has been isolated and squeezed for decades but it seems to have only strengthened the regime and there's no uprising in the offing. It might indeed be better for North Koreans to be able to interact more with outsiders.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Climacus wrote: »
    What are people's thoughts on North Korean tourism? Harmless fun or supporting a despicable regime?

    Given North Korea's penchant for arresting Westerners on trumped up charges and essentially holding them for ransom (in the form of money and concessions from whatever Western government claims them as citizens) I'd say North Korean tourism is a bad idea strictly from the point of view of self-preservation.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    When brands are associated with anti-pluralism.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Climacus wrote: »
    What are people's thoughts on North Korean tourism? Harmless fun or supporting a despicable regime?

    Given North Korea's penchant for arresting Westerners on trumped up charges and essentially holding them for ransom (in the form of money and concessions from whatever Western government claims them as citizens) I'd say North Korean tourism is a bad idea strictly from the point of view of self-preservation.

    The Warmbier case is horrific though it seems small groups of Western tourists routinely visit without incident. A reasonable amount of common sense should get you through. Lacking that myself, I wouldn't go there.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Given North Korea's penchant for arresting Westerners on trumped up charges and essentially holding them for ransom (in the form of money and concessions from whatever Western government claims them as citizens) I'd say North Korean tourism is a bad idea strictly from the point of view of self-preservation.

    The Warmbier case is horrific though it seems small groups of Western tourists routinely visit without incident. A reasonable amount of common sense should get you through. Lacking that myself, I wouldn't go there.

    Given the relative paucity of Western tourists the number who find themselves in legal trouble for what are usually ill-defined reasons seems a lot more than can be justified by simply not exercising common sense. Every so often North Korea decides it needs to "send a message" to some Western country and will arrest one of their tourists to send that message. This should be recognized as a real hazard for those considering tourism in North Korea.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 14
    That's 27 detainees from 4 countries over 23 years. 70% American. No Europeans.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Boycott and divestment seemed to have an effect on South Africa.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    It absolutely did Cassia. It took maybe 20 years? But it worked in the end.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Yes, but it worked in connection with a local mass movement. The heaviest lifting was done by South Africans putting their lives on the line in various forms of resistance, some non-violent, some not so non-violent.

    Some sanctions are just brought in from outside governments, with a rationale that, if things get miserable enough for the people living there, they'll rise up and overthrow their regime. It almost never works like that.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 14
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Given North Korea's penchant for arresting Westerners on trumped up charges and essentially holding them for ransom (in the form of money and concessions from whatever Western government claims them as citizens) I'd say North Korean tourism is a bad idea strictly from the point of view of self-preservation.

    The Warmbier case is horrific though it seems small groups of Western tourists routinely visit without incident. A reasonable amount of common sense should get you through. Lacking that myself, I wouldn't go there.

    Given the relative paucity of Western tourists the number who find themselves in legal trouble for what are usually ill-defined reasons seems a lot more than can be justified by simply not exercising common sense. Every so often North Korea decides it needs to "send a message" to some Western country and will arrest one of their tourists to send that message. This should be recognized as a real hazard for those considering tourism in North Korea.

    At least some of the names on that list are people who, in fact, did quite clearly break the law in North Korea, by entering the country illegally. And there were the Australian and American missionaries who left religious pamphlets lying around for people to find.

    I don't like the way North Korea punishes such incidents, and clearly the regime exploits them for geopolitical gain, but it's pretty easy for a tourist not to sneak in across the border from China, or hand out religious tracts. As for Warmbier, for me everything hinges on whether or not he really was the guy in the video stealing the poster. I guess the possibility that he was framed would be enough to make me think twice about going there, though if he was guilty as charged, it's pretty hard for me to feel sorry for him.

    EDIT: Just to be clear, in the case of the imprisoned missionaries, I also dislike the laws in question, not just the punishment. Foreigners should be free to express whatever opinion they want in a country. (Though for the record, I am not free to do so in the Republic Of Korea, as a result of my visa conditions; likely wouldn't be punished too severely if I violated them, probably just deported.)

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    You think that if he was stealing that poster, he got what was coming to him?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    You think that if he was stealing that poster, he got what was coming to him?

    Well, let's just say, assuming he knew what the punishment was likely to be, and went ahead with the theft anyway, I would not feel sorry for him.

    Sorta like if a guy plays Russian Roulette to impress some chicks, and ends up with his brains splattered all over the wall, I don't really consider it a tragedy.

    Granted, in the case of Warmbier, he might not have foreseen that he would end up dead, though he must have known that conditions in a North Korean prison would not be conducive to good health.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I'll also say that it's a little rich for the North Koreans to whine about how they're isolated from the outside would, when they treat some of the few tourists who do come in to spend hard cash in the manner that they treated Warmbier(even assuming Warmbier was guilty). But that's a separate question from whether or not Warmbier was the master of his own misfortune.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Would you refuse to go to the Vatican, and the churches of many traditions, on the basis of their homophobic teaching?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 14
    Gee D wrote: »
    Would you refuse to go to the Vatican, and the churches of many traditions, on the basis of their homophobic teaching?

    Well, if the idea was to boycott the Vatican in order to get them to change the teachings of the RCC, that probably wouldn't have much impact. First off, the RCC doesn't really need the Vatican to exist as a separate state in order to promulgate certain teachings: the Vatican could be absorbed by Italy tomorrow, and the Church would just write doctrine from Italy. And I'm not sure how much the Vatican would suffer from a tourism boycott anyway. It's not like there are a lot of businesses in operation there, employing huge numbers of people who would starve without tourist revenue.

    But yeah, if such a boycott were organized, and thought to be effective, I wouldn't have any a priori objections to foregoing trips to the Vatican. Caveat: Despite being an expat, I hate recreational travel, so boycotting anywhere in Europe wouldn't be a huge sacrifice for me.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    You think that if he was stealing that poster, he got what was coming to him?

    Well, let's just say, assuming he knew what the punishment was likely to be, and went ahead with the theft anyway, I would not feel sorry for him.

    Sorta like if a guy plays Russian Roulette to impress some chicks, and ends up with his brains splattered all over the wall, I don't really consider it a tragedy.
    That just sounds odd to me. for two reasons, I suppose: because it seems to completely elide the moral agency of the people in the North Korean government who carried out the punishment, and because it seems to place no weight on the injustice of having so severe a punishment for a such a trivial offense. (Like having the death penalty for carelessly stumbling into a greenhouse.)

    Would you also be indifferent if something like this happened to an acquaintance? A friend? A family member? "Don't feel sorry for him, not a tragedy?"
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Well, to be rather clearer than I seem to have been. Several posters have referred to boycotting travel to countries because of the policies that country espouses. Madame and I fall into that category, having in the past not gone to South Africa and these days not to Fiji; in both cases the official racism. Would those posters not go to St Peter's or to the Sistine Chapel, or Seville cathedral because of the homophobic policies the Catholic Church proclaims?
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    It depends if you feel strongly enough about a particular issue to hit a company or a country in the wallet. I still avoid Nestle and won't buy cosmetics / skincare that are tested on animals.

    It's up to other people what they do and, if I receive a Nestle or animal tested product as a gift, I accept it gratefully and don't say anything. They were kind enough to buy me a gift. :mrgreen:
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    You think that if he was stealing that poster, he got what was coming to him?

    Well, let's just say, assuming he knew what the punishment was likely to be, and went ahead with the theft anyway, I would not feel sorry for him.

    Sorta like if a guy plays Russian Roulette to impress some chicks, and ends up with his brains splattered all over the wall, I don't really consider it a tragedy.
    That just sounds odd to me. for two reasons, I suppose: because it seems to completely elide the moral agency of the people in the North Korean government who carried out the punishment, and because it seems to place no weight on the injustice of having so severe a punishment for a such a trivial offense. (Like having the death penalty for carelessly stumbling into a greenhouse.)

    Would you also be indifferent if something like this happened to an acquaintance? A friend? A family member? "Don't feel sorry for him, not a tragedy?"

    Well, the sympathy of the general public doesn't have to be commensurate with the sympathy of a loved one. In fact, it rarely is, even in situations where the victim didn't get himself into the predicament by acting like an absolute idiot.

    (Possibly graphic footage)

    If this were my son, yeah, I would probably rush him to the hospital in a state of panic and hold his hand through the surgery.

    But as just some guy watching YouTube, my thought is "Heh, what a doofus. Think I'll send this to some of my friends for a chuckle."
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    That just sounds odd to me. for two reasons, I suppose: because it seems to completely elide the moral agency of the people in the North Korean government who carried out the punishment, and because it seems to place no weight on the injustice of having so severe a punishment for a such a trivial offense. (Like having the death penalty for carelessly stumbling into a greenhouse.)

    Well, no, like I say, I don't approve of North Korea's laws, and groups like Amnesty International can and should fight against their general existence.

    But the main reason I dislike those laws is because people are forced against their will to live under them. That doesn't apply to someone who could have stayed away from the country, but didn't, and, upon choosing to go there, decided to break the laws, when he surely must have known full well what the consequences would be.



  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I think the question is whether the lives of the oppressed are likely to improve as a direct result of the boycott, or whether you are doing it to avoid the moral taint of association with the oppressor.

    I seem to remember mr cheesy (apologies if I misremember or misquote) saying that one of the problems with the BDS movement is that many Palestinian companies rely on Israeli intermediaries to export to the rest of the world, and so BDS ends up screwing over the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    You think that if he was stealing that poster, he got what was coming to him?

    Well, let's just say, assuming he knew what the punishment was likely to be, and went ahead with the theft anyway, I would not feel sorry for him.

    Sorta like if a guy plays Russian Roulette to impress some chicks, and ends up with his brains splattered all over the wall, I don't really consider it a tragedy.
    That just sounds odd to me. for two reasons, I suppose: because it seems to completely elide the moral agency of the people in the North Korean government who carried out the punishment, and because it seems to place no weight on the injustice of having so severe a punishment for a such a trivial offense. (Like having the death penalty for carelessly stumbling into a greenhouse.)

    Would you also be indifferent if something like this happened to an acquaintance? A friend? A family member? "Don't feel sorry for him, not a tragedy?"

    Well, the sympathy of the general public doesn't have to be commensurate with the sympathy of a loved one. In fact, it rarely is, even in situations where the victim didn't get himself into the predicament by acting like an absolute idiot.

    (Possibly graphic footage)

    If this were my son, yeah, I would probably rush him to the hospital in a state of panic and hold his hand through the surgery.

    But as just some guy watching YouTube, my thought is "Heh, what a doofus. Think I'll send this to some of my friends for a chuckle."
    By "something like this" I meant something like this: being punished by two years in a brutal prison, brain damage, and death for attempting to take a poster.

    I too wouldn't expect a similar degree of sympathy as for a family member, but I'd expect at least something in that general direction. (I note you didn't address the cases of acquaintance or friend.) I find it odd that you don't see a meaningful distinction between getting a bloody nose for jumping down an escalator on the one hand, and what happened to Otto Warmbier on the other. I think my reaction may be more typical than yours; Warmbier's case has gotten a lot of notice in the press, and from what I've seen the general tenor of the coverage doesn't seem to expect a response along the lines of "Heh, what a doofus. Think I'll send this to some of my friends for a chuckle."

    I don't know why you say "he surely must have known full well what the consequences would be." I think it's far more likely that he did it because he didn't really think anything terribly bad would happen to him.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    My Jewish friends say that Palestinian like Hamas bomb Israel daily. This can be proved very easily. They say it is not reported much.
    Both sides are playing the game. Palestinians are not faultless. Neither are the Jewish government. Why is it that it seems one sided reporting? Why boycott one and not the other?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    My Jewish friends say that Palestinian like Hamas bomb Israel daily. This can be proved very easily. They say it is not reported much.
    Both sides are playing the game. Palestinians are not faultless. Neither are the Jewish government. Why is it that it seems one sided reporting? Why boycott one and not the other?

    Because of the massive disparity in power and casualties.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    My Jewish friends say that Palestinian like Hamas bomb Israel daily. This can be proved very easily. They say it is not reported much.
    Both sides are playing the game. Palestinians are not faultless. Neither are the Jewish government. Why is it that it seems one sided reporting? Why boycott one and not the other?

    Then do so. Prove it.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 17
    What about it?

    14/03/2109
    25/03/2019
    04/05/2019
    05/05/2019

    None of which were bomb attacks. All of which were reported on the BBC.

    4 / 137 = 3% of days
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    I think the question is whether the lives of the oppressed are likely to improve as a direct result of the boycott, or whether you are doing it to avoid the moral taint of association with the oppressor.

    I seem to remember mr cheesy (apologies if I misremember or misquote) saying that one of the problems with the BDS movement is that many Palestinian companies rely on Israeli intermediaries to export to the rest of the world, and so BDS ends up screwing over the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

    I think that's a false dichotomy. A boycott can be intended to isolate and embarrass the oppressor, and reduce its ability to normalise the oppression. This was the case with Apartheid and is the case with BDS. My understanding is that the BDS movement has broad support among Palestinians in spite of any potential economic damage.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 17
    That's an inevitable cost of successful boycotting; it will hurt the oppressor more.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 17
    Hugal wrote: »
    My Jewish friends say that Palestinian like Hamas bomb Israel daily. This can be proved very easily. They say it is not reported much.
    Both sides are playing the game. Palestinians are not faultless. Neither are the Jewish government. Why is it that it seems one sided reporting? Why boycott one and not the other?

    Because the continued dispossession of the former inhabitants of what is now Israel and their ongoing denial of self-determination, not to mention the continued building of settlements in what is supposedly their territory to make it even more impossible to create a viable state for them, does not really compare with potshots which generally achieve little more than damaging a ceiling, and which usually provoke responses which disproportionately kill Palestinian civilians.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Three Israelis were killed and over one hundred injured by the Palestinian 'pot shots'. The collateral damage in counter-attack is inevitable in densely urbanized Gaza.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Gaza is a concentration camp. The IDF is responsible for every death they cause there.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    If only reality were that simple.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If only reality were that simple.

    A lot more Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli armed forces than have Israelis by Palestinians. Isn't that the reality?

    Or are genuine, uniformed armed forces allowed to kill while irregulars are not?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    People who push a narrative of "the truth is somewhere in the middle", "both sides are guilty," etc. with regards to Palestine think they look very nuanced and rational, but they really just look like callous wraiths.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 17
    And comparison of Gaza with Treblinka is somewhat more disproportionate than Israeli military doctrine. And is fucking insane.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If only reality were that simple.

    A lot more Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli armed forces than have Israelis by Palestinians. Isn't that the reality?

    Or are genuine, uniformed armed forces allowed to kill while irregulars are not?

    That certainly is the most acute aspect of the reality.

    At least 45,000 Palestinians as many as 60,000 and more and 3000 Israelis have died at each others hands since 1948.

    Have you stopped beating your wife?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Thankfully I did not compare Gaza with Treblinka.

    Oxford definition of concentration camp: A place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    That is disingenuous antisemitism.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    That is disingenuous antisemitism.

    That is outrageous bullshit. Jewishness is not a shield for war crimes.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If only reality were that simple.

    A lot more Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli armed forces than have Israelis by Palestinians. Isn't that the reality?

    Or are genuine, uniformed armed forces allowed to kill while irregulars are not?

    That certainly is the most acute aspect of the reality.

    At least 45,000 Palestinians as many as 60,000 and more and 3000 Israelis have died at each others hands since 1948.

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

    Great. So legitimate armies are permitted to kill and main while freelancers are not? I think that's what you you mean, as ever your statement is murky. I always had the idea that the legitimate forces of law and order were held to higher standards than were terrorists. How wrong I am.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That is disingenuous antisemitism.

    As I recall, the other day you were defending actual anti-Semites and holocaust deniers in Ukraine, so I will place your screeching in the appropriate bin.

  • It is easy to be outraged when you decide that there are only two sides. We've had this discussion before. It's not okay to expand your borders and disposess people of lands. It's not okay to argue for complete destruction of a country. It's never going to be acceptable to Jews not to have a Jewish state. It'd be sweet to have a Palestinian state, along side the Jewish one. Whose lands were occupied by Jordan until 1967. And then we are down the rabbit hole of rage. Where everyone hates. Those who want to fight about these issues will not convince anyone of anything.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That is disingenuous antisemitism.

    As I recall, the other day you were defending actual anti-Semites and holocaust deniers in Ukraine, so I will place your screeching in the appropriate bin.

    Quote me.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    It is easy to be outraged when you decide that there are only two sides. We've had this discussion before. It's not okay to expand your borders and disposess people of lands. It's not okay to argue for complete destruction of a country. It's never going to be acceptable to Jews not to have a Jewish state. It'd be sweet to have a Palestinian state, along side the Jewish one. Whose lands were occupied by Jordan until 1967. And then we are down the rabbit hole of rage. Where everyone hates. Those who want to fight about these issues will not convince anyone of anything.

    Quite.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That is disingenuous antisemitism.

    As I recall, the other day you were defending actual anti-Semites and holocaust deniers in Ukraine, so I will place your screeching in the appropriate bin.

    Quote me.

    Meanwhile the primate of the new Ukrainian church publicly declared his admiration of Stepan Bandera, whose organization the OUN-UPA was a vicious fascist outfit that enthusiastically assisted the Nazis and murdered countless Jews, Poles, and any Ukrainians who wouldn't get with the program.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Putting myself in a Ukrainian's shoes any time in the past 100 years I can see why.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If only reality were that simple.

    A lot more Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli armed forces than have Israelis by Palestinians. Isn't that the reality?

    Or are genuine, uniformed armed forces allowed to kill while irregulars are not?

    That certainly is the most acute aspect of the reality.

    At least 45,000 Palestinians as many as 60,000 and more and 3000 Israelis have died at each others hands since 1948.

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

    Great. So legitimate armies are permitted to kill and main while freelancers are not? I think that's what you you mean, as ever your statement is murky. I always had the idea that the legitimate forces of law and order were held to higher standards than were terrorists. How wrong I am.

    I don't know how you draw that conclusion? I.e. the one ending '?'.

    The IDF is not a police force. This is a war between states. One poor state cannot control factions within its border that wage war on its rich neighbour, due to historical injustices, that counter-strikes causing collateral deaths, just as the attacking irregulars calculate. It is a standard guerrilla warfare tactic to provoke your enemy to do worse, to unify your constituency, with the added bonus of gaining the sympathy and support of other states for ones constituency and the opposite for ones enemy.

    Answers on a postcard please.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If only reality were that simple.

    A lot more Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli armed forces than have Israelis by Palestinians. Isn't that the reality?

    Or are genuine, uniformed armed forces allowed to kill while irregulars are not?

    That certainly is the most acute aspect of the reality.

    At least 45,000 Palestinians as many as 60,000 and more and 3000 Israelis have died at each others hands since 1948.

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

    Great. So legitimate armies are permitted to kill and main while freelancers are not? I think that's what you you mean, as ever your statement is murky. I always had the idea that the legitimate forces of law and order were held to higher standards than were terrorists. How wrong I am.

    I don't know how you draw that conclusion? I.e. the one ending '?'.

    The IDF is not a police force. This is a war between states. One poor state cannot control factions within its border that wage war on its rich neighbour, due to historical injustices, that counter-strikes causing collateral deaths, just as the attacking irregulars calculate. It is a standard guerrilla warfare tactic to provoke your enemy to do worse, to unify your constituency, with the added bonus of gaining the sympathy and support of other states for ones constituency and the opposite for ones enemy.

    Answers on a postcard please.

    You suggest that Israel shoulld be permitted to kill and maim as many Palestinians as it does because that's the nature of asymmetric warfare. Israel, by dint of technology and experience has the most skilled armed forces in the world. What excuse have they for "Collateral damage"? I'll tell you, they don't give a fuck about any Palestinians, not merely those firing rockets into Israel.

    Israel does not recognise Palestine as a state, it blockades it, it limits the supply of the essentials such as electricity, water and medicine. A substantial part of the major party in power would cheerfully drive the inhabitants of the Gaza strip, Muslim and Christian alike, into the sea.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That is disingenuous antisemitism.

    As I recall, the other day you were defending actual anti-Semites and holocaust deniers in Ukraine, so I will place your screeching in the appropriate bin.

    Quote me.

    Meanwhile the primate of the new Ukrainian church publicly declared his admiration of Stepan Bandera, whose organization the OUN-UPA was a vicious fascist outfit that enthusiastically assisted the Nazis and murdered countless Jews, Poles, and any Ukrainians who wouldn't get with the program.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Putting myself in a Ukrainian's shoes any time in the past 100 years I can see why.

    Thank you. Again, putting myself in Ukrainian shoes from the Red Terror, through Stalin's collectivization and history either side, Ukraine has suffered under foreign domination for seven centuries, I can see why. As I can see why the Israelis do what they do and the Palestinians do what they do. I can see why the victims of history cannot transcend it and revert to nationalism under threat.

    I won't engage in demonization of Israel or rogue Palestinian factions.

    Or of you. Despite yours.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That is disingenuous antisemitism.

    As I recall, the other day you were defending actual anti-Semites and holocaust deniers in Ukraine, so I will place your screeching in the appropriate bin.

    Quote me.

    Meanwhile the primate of the new Ukrainian church publicly declared his admiration of Stepan Bandera, whose organization the OUN-UPA was a vicious fascist outfit that enthusiastically assisted the Nazis and murdered countless Jews, Poles, and any Ukrainians who wouldn't get with the program.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Putting myself in a Ukrainian's shoes any time in the past 100 years I can see why.

    Thank you. Again, putting myself in Ukrainian shoes from the Red Terror, through Stalin's collectivization and history either side, Ukraine has suffered under foreign domination for seven centuries, I can see why. As I can see why the Israelis do what they do and the Palestinians do what they do. I can see why the victims of history cannot transcend it and revert to nationalism under threat.

    This is typical soft-pedaled anti-Semitism... "I don't support the Nazis, but when you think about it, the Jews kind of brought it on themselves."

Sign In or Register to comment.