Finally watched the video of those kids singing Alive.
(it got me right *here*)
Absolutely beautiful and moving, and the lyrics sung by young women? Threw me at first yet somehow deepened the words, but in an unexpectedly uplifting way.
They remind(ed) me of my neice - on the cusp of 21, spent some time in Israel last year, loved it. Opened her eyes.
I have no intention of defending the occupation. What I will do is respond to comments that misrepresent the situation. I in no way place blame on the Palestinians for the occupation, though I am perfectly willing to blame them when blame is deserved (which you apparantly seem to think is categorically never, which in itself should tell any serious person that you aren't to be taken seriously).
What you do consistently is respond to comments that shed Israel in a bad light, and attempt to excuse and justify Israel's crimes. What you also consistently do is place the blame for the occupation on the heads of those being occupied, pretending that it's Palestinian resistance that's to blame for the occupation. You also try and pretend that the settlements are there for security purposes. And yet you claim that I shouldn't be taken seriously?
In the case of the seperation barrier the facts are pretty clear. The Israeli government was for a long time extremely resistant to building the barrier because it was afraid that the barrier would be understood as establishing borders that didn't line up with what the government hoped to get in an eventual peace deal. They eventually caved and decided to build the barrier because of unrelenting terrorist attacks throughout Israel proper. So I don't think that it's at all unfair to put some blame for the barrier on Palestinian terrorism. As for the ICJ opinion, I've already said my piece. Finkelstein is not a legal scholar, so I think I can confidently say that at least in this regard I know a bit more about the subject than he does.
There we go, once again blaming the Palestinians for the occupation.
As for 'unrelenting terrorist attacks throughout Israel proper', please explain how it was 'that Palestinians did not resort to terrorist attacks until after Israel had used massive, lethal, and indiscriminate firepower to quell largely nonviolent demonstrations; that fully three times as many Palestinians as Israelis were killed during the second Intifada; and that, apart from the casualties on both sides, all the victims of the manifold human rights violations documented by human rights organizations - house demolitions, torture, political liquidations, arbitrary detentions, prolonged curfews, denial of medical care - were Palestinian.'
As for the ICJ opinion, I've already said my piece. Finkelstein is not a legal scholar, so I think I can confidently say that at least in this regard I know a bit more about the subject than he does.
Hilarious. Is that the line you'll be using in your defense from now on in your unconditional support of Israel? We now need to just dismiss anything that you don't agree with on the basis that that you've been studying law, and to simply take it as a given that you know best?
By the way, the International Court of Justice were perfectly able to comprehend the legality or illegality of the separation wall. In fact, I'm pretty confident that the ICJ made a clearer and more honest appraisal of it than you ever could.
'The ICJ conclude[d] that neither the wall nor the attendant violations of Palestinian rights can be justified on grounds of military necessity:
'The Court, from the material available to it, is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain it's security objectives. The wall, along the route chosen, and it's associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order. The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of various of it's obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments. (para 137)...
The Court is not convinced that the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to safeguard the interest of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as justification for that construction.' (para. 140).
The ICJ voted 14-1, (with Judge Buerganthal from the United States as the lone dissenter) that "construction of the wall being built by Israel, the Occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territoy, including in and around East Jerusalem, and it's associated regime, are contrary to International law."
Let me guess; the ICJ are anti-Semites?
Here's a question for you,Yosi: If the Israeli leadership were at pains to protect the settlers from harm, then why did they construct a wall to protect them? Why didn't they remove them to within the borders of Israel instead, and then fortify those borders?
Even U.S Judge Buerganthal stated unequivocally that the settlements are illegal under international law, in opposition to the stance taken by the HCJ. A position that effectively undermined the entire rationale of the HCJ:
'Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention...does not admit for exceptions on the grounds of military or security exigencies. It provided that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of it's own civilian population into the territory it occupies." I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law.' (para. 9).
What you do consistently is respond to comments that shed Israel in a bad light, and attempt to excuse and justify Israel's crimes.
I would say that I attempt to respond to comments that shed Israel in a bad light UNFAIRLY. If I at times am overly defensive on these threads it is, I think, because I have seen so much insanely unfair criticism here already. I have no desire to excuse or justify, though I do think that context is important (a belief you evidently do not share) and that often what you describe as tantamount to nazi genocide is actually much less severe if you actually try to understand the context...note carefully, much less severe, not categorically ok.
What you also consistently do is place the blame for the occupation on the heads of those being occupied, pretending that it's Palestinian resistance that's to blame for the occupation. You also try and pretend that the settlements are there for security purposes. And yet you claim that I shouldn't be taken seriously?
Speaking of attempts to excuse and justify, I am not the one who is apparently categorizing suicide bombings targeting civilians in cafes and restaurants as legitimate "resistance," so perhaps you should step back and take a look in the mirror before accusing others of excusing and justifying crimes.
I don't blame the Palestinians for the occupation as a whole; the occupation was a mistake to begin with, and responsibility for it lies with Israel. That said, not every aspect of the occupation as it exists today was inherant or fundamental to it. The nature of the occupation has shifted over time, and in some of these instances Israel has been reacting to the Palestinians. The barrier is one such example. It didn't exist for the vast majority of the occupation (which should be a glaring problem for your argument, since it would have been easy enough to build it decades ago if it was meant as a land grab). It was built as a response to Palestinian terrorism. Had there been no terrorism there would have been no barrier. So no, the Palestinians are not to blame for the occupation writ large, but yes, they are somewhat to blame for the seperation barrier. I do not pretend that settlements are there for security reasons, I'm telling you that certain settlements are supported by the government based on secular security concerns, and that Israel has a strategic interest in the West Bank with or without the settlements. If you have no interest in understanding Israel's strategic thinking that's fine, but again, I think this should tell people that you're not someone who is very serious about understanding this issue.
As for 'unrelenting terrorist attacks throughout Israel proper', please explain how it was 'that Palestinians did not resort to terrorist attacks until after Israel had used massive, lethal, and indiscriminate firepower to quell largely nonviolent demonstrations; that fully three times as many Palestinians as Israelis were killed during the second Intifada; and that, apart from the casualties on both sides, all the victims of the manifold human rights violations documented by human rights organizations - house demolitions, torture, political liquidations, arbitrary detentions, prolonged curfews, denial of medical care - were Palestinian.'
Really?! This is just flat out revisionist history. It is very well established that the violence of the second intifada was preplanned. I'm not saying that Israel has clean hands, but to pretend that the Palestinians were entirely innocent in all of this is absurd! I've said this before but it bears repeating: You seem to have very little respect for the Palestinians at all. You treat them as if they have no agency whatsoever. You don't ever hold them responsible for anything that they do. They just seem to be characters in your morality play, and so you're entirely unwilling to accept that just maybe they aren't the perfect persecuted lambs that you want them to be.
Hilarious. Is that the line you'll be using in your defense from now on in your unconditional support of Israel? We now need to just dismiss anything that you don't agree with on the basis that that you've been studying law, and to simply take it as a given that you know best?
By the way, the International Court of Justice were perfectly able to comprehend the legality or illegality of the separation wall. In fact, I'm pretty confident that the ICJ made a clearer and more honest appraisal of it than you ever could.
I love that you keep saying that I unconditionally support Israel, since virtually everything I write includes a statement conditioning my response on making clear what I do not support. So what's the deal? Are you just reading me carelessly? Are you so enraged that I disagree with you that you're just blinded to the subtleties of what I've written? Is this just another symptom of your general inability to grasp anything that dips into shades of grey?
Anyways, to answer your question, no you don't just need to take my word for anything, you can do as you like. But since you're asking everyone else to take Norman Finkelstein's word for it because apparently Norman Finkelstein knows better, I thought it fair to point out that on this particular issue I happen to have a professional insight that Norman lacks. As for the ICJ, I have a lot of respect for their abilities and knowledge, I just happen to think they got it wrong in this instance, a view that is shared by many in the legal academy as well as by the dissenting member of the ICJ court.
'The ICJ conclude[d] that neither the wall nor the attendant violations of Palestinian rights can be justified on grounds of military necessity:
'The Court, from the material available to it, is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain it's security objectives. The wall, along the route chosen, and it's associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order. The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of various of it's obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments. (para 137)...
So again, the key point is that the ICJ never actually dealt seriously in its opinion with Israel's security concerns and lacked the facts to have done so. As a result it was not in a position to make the judgement that it did, that Israel's actions could not be justified by security concerns. The court was right that the barrier infringes on Palestinian rights, but that is only half the issue. Rights are not absolute, and they can legally be infringed by the state in pursuit of a suitably important state interest. The ICJ never actually considered the state interest side of the equation, it simply made the conclusory decision that no such interest existed. That is just shoddy judge-craft.
Stop it. Don't be a dick, and don't put words in my mouth! No, I don't think the judges are anti-semites. I think they made a poor decision, probably, in my own opinion, influenced by their politics.
Here's a question for you,Yosi: If the Israeli leadership were at pains to protect the settlers from harm, then why did they construct a wall to protect them? Why didn't they remove them to within the borders of Israel instead, and then fortify those borders?
Even U.S Judge Buerganthal stated unequivocally that the settlements are illegal under international law, in opposition to the stance taken by the HCJ. A position that effectively undermined the entire rationale of the HCJ:
'Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention...does not admit for exceptions on the grounds of military or security exigencies. It provided that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of it's own civilian population into the territory it occupies." I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law.' (para. 9).
Ok, first, the government in building the barrier was primarily concerned with protecting Israeli civilians living within Israel. It decided to extend that protection to include many of the settlements located near the green line, which is not an irrational thing for it to have done, given that a government is supposed to protect its citizens. I don't disagree that the settlements are illegal, and I wish that the government would actively seek to move the settlers back into Israel proper. My guess for why this wasn't done is because doing so by force would tear Israeli society apart, and would have been a massive undertaking: It took 14,000 soldiers to remove the last 5,000 settlers from Gaza...there are about 200,000 settlers in the West Bank. Israel wasn't, and I think still isn't willing to undertake this project except in the context of a final peace deal.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
the fans at Israel deserve to see their favo band at their country..no question about that..
isnt their fault if their goverment is good or not
+that boycott conversation is just bullshit
if pj or any other band want or said they boycott the bad goverments-countries of the world ,like Israel is,,or whatever,,
well,then,need to stop accepting taking money from fan club memebership from people of those countries,and stop selling their music and merch and taking money from fans of those countries...
so its really fake for me,selling stuff and making business with those type of countries that you suppose you boycott and then play it rebels,and say dont play shows their cos of the poltical situation.
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
the fans at Israel deserve to see their favo band at their country..no question about that..
isnt their fault if their goverment is good or not
+that boycott conversation is just bullshit
if pj or any other band want or said they boycott the bad goverments-countries of the world ,like Israel is,,or whatever,,
well,then,need to stop accepting taking money from fan club memebership from people of those countries,and stop selling their music and merch and taking money from fans of those countries...
so its really fake for me,selling stuff and making business with those type of countries that you suppose you boycott and then play it rebels,and say dont play shows their cos of the poltical situation.
the fans at Israel deserve to see their favo band at their country..no question about that..
isnt their fault if their goverment is good or not
+that boycott conversation is just bullshit
if pj or any other band want or said they boycott the bad goverments-countries of the world ,like Israel is,,or whatever,,
well,then,need to stop accepting taking money from fan club memebership from people of those countries,and stop selling their music and merch and taking money from fans of those countries...
so its really fake for me,selling stuff and making business with those type of countries that you suppose you boycott and then play it rebels,and say dont play shows their cos of the poltical situation.
I highly doubt they'd openly boycott playing anywhere. But you have to admit the safety concern would be high.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
the fans at Israel deserve to see their favo band at their country..no question about that..
isnt their fault if their goverment is good or not
+that boycott conversation is just bullshit
if pj or any other band want or said they boycott the bad goverments-countries of the world ,like Israel is,,or whatever,,
well,then,need to stop accepting taking money from fan club memebership from people of those countries,and stop selling their music and merch and taking money from fans of those countries...
so its really fake for me,selling stuff and making business with those type of countries that you suppose you boycott and then play it rebels,and say dont play shows their cos of the poltical situation.
I highly doubt they'd openly boycott playing anywhere. But you have to admit the safety concern would be high.
i agree safety is a matter....but is it really???
you see what happens to Boston Marathon..with the same logic Boston is not a safe place too..
for me the problem with israel,is location...same as Greece..same as turkey ..
is away to south to travel just for one show..and when the big market is at north europe
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
i agree safety is a matter....but is it really???
you see what happens to Boston Marathon..with the same logic Boston is not a safe place too..
for me the problem with israel,is location...same as Greece..same as turkey ..
is away to south to travel just for one show..and when the big market is at north europe
I don't think you can compare the on going violence in Israel to a rare bombing in the US.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
all things considered ... i would love if PJ played a benefit concert in Israel for the people of Gaza ...
sure,why not..my opinion is ,.pj and music bands need to do things for unite people,and keep the flag of peace up
and if the band is against politicaly of what goverment of israel does,then their is another reason to do a show there,they will be on stage,they have a microphone to say their opinion..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
i agree safety is a matter....but is it really???
you see what happens to Boston Marathon..with the same logic Boston is not a safe place too..
for me the problem with israel,is location...same as Greece..same as turkey ..
is away to south to travel just for one show..and when the big market is at north europe
I don't think you can compare the on going violence in Israel to a rare bombing in the US.
im not,just making a point,that everywhere can be dangerous,and my opinion is that safety isnt the reason the band dont play to israel
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
sure,why not..my opinion is ,.pj and music bands need to do things for unite people,and keep the flag of peace up
and if the band is against politicaly of what goverment of israel does,then their is another reason to do a show there,they will be on stage,they have a microphone to say their opinion..
i suppose in the grand scheme of things - you have to ask yourself what would accomplish more ... playing in israel and speaking up and then face a hostile crowd or publicly announcing a boycott ... the truth of the matter is that if you look at the big picture ... the public boycott may actually accomplish more ... hard to say ...
my opinion is that if they chose to boycott israel - they would not publicly admit it ... but simply just not play the country and base it on economics ...
I'm telling you that certain settlements are supported by the government based on secular security concerns, and that Israel has a strategic interest in the West Bank with or without the settlements. If you have no interest in understanding Israel's strategic thinking that's fine, but again, I think this should tell people that you're not someone who is very serious about understanding this issue.
I don't give a flying fuck for Israel's strategic thinking. Regardless of 'Israel's interest in the West Bank', the settlements are illegal under international law and constitute a crime against humanity - http://pulsemedia.org/2010/11/29/prolon ... -humanity/
http://www.btselem.org/settlements/international_law The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of settlements results in the violation of the rights of Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.'
Really?! This is just flat out revisionist history. It is very well established that the violence of the second intifada was preplanned.
Pre-planned by the Israeli's, you mean?
Origins of the 2nd Intifada: 'The underlying reason is the continuous 30-year Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo Accords) signed in 1993 had raised hope. Palestinians anticipated a state and the end of occupation, but it was constantly delayed while the situation on the ground worsened. Israel expanded settlements and by-pass roads and confiscated more Palestinian property. Israelis continued to demolish homes and to uproot or burn olive and fruit trees, leaving people without sources of income. Checkpoints, closures and other signs of a tighter occupation were imposed; Israeli soldiers detained or turned ambulances back from checkpoints and Israel constantly reduced the number of permits to enter Israel to work. Israeli soldiers humiliated Palestinians at the checkpoints. Frustration, rage and despair mounted as Palestinians' human rights were infringed and their dignity ignored. Many Palestinians became disillusioned with the Oslo Accords and felt betrayed by them.
When Mr. Sharon with about 1000 armed soldiers and police visited the Noble Sanctuary (Haram ash-Sharif), a site sacred to Muslims, on September 28, 2000, it was like throwing a match into a pile of dry tinder. The following day, Palestinians protested and seven were killed by the IDF. This was the immediate reason for the intifada. The underlying conditions that caused the uprising still exist and have been made worse by a siege imposed in early March 2001 isolating cities, towns and villages and by the building of the "Security Fence."
As for the ICJ, I have a lot of respect for their abilities and knowledge, I just happen to think they got it wrong in this instance, a view that is shared by many in the legal academy as well as by the dissenting member of the ICJ court.
The level of arrogance in the above statement is truly astounding. 14 members of the 15 panel board on the International Court of Justice ruled the Seperation Wall to be illegal under international law, but you think they 'got it wrong in this instance'?
'The ICJ conclude[d] that neither the wall nor the attendant violations of Palestinian rights can be justified on grounds of military necessity
So again, the key point is that the ICJ never actually dealt seriously in its opinion with Israel's security concerns and lacked the facts to have done so. As a result it was not in a position to make the judgement that it did, that Israel's actions could not be justified by security concerns. The court was right that the barrier infringes on Palestinian rights, but that is only half the issue. Rights are not absolute, and they can legally be infringed by the state in pursuit of a suitably important state interest. The ICJ never actually considered the state interest side of the equation, it simply made the conclusory decision that no such interest existed. That is just shoddy judge-craft.
Except the ICJ did consider 'the state interest side of the equation' in relation to security concerns. They considered it in minute detail, and concluded that the wall exceeded any concerns for security.
And I asked you a question that you failed to answer: If the Israeli leadership wanted to protect the illegal settlers from harm, why didn't it remove them to within the internationally recognized borders of Israel, instead of spending millions to construct a wall on illegally Occupied Territory?
'...in the example on which it honed in, the High Court itself acknowledged that even if the allegedly erroneous ICJ data on Qalqiliya were corrected, "the remainder is sufficient to indicate a severe impingement of [Palestinian residents'] rights." Moreover, the ICJ didn't reach it's conclusion after the relative quantitative weighing of evidence in a proportionality test, but rather after reaching the absolute qualitative finding that the wall couldn't be justified on grounds of military necessity and violated fundamental provisions of international law. None of the alleged errors in the ICJ data affect it's absolute qualitative findings. Yet, even if the proportionality test were applied, and on a segment-by-segment basis, it is still highly doubtful whether the wall, or parts of it, would pass legal muster.'
I don't disagree that the settlements are illegal, and I wish that the government would actively seek to move the settlers back into Israel proper. My guess for why this wasn't done is because doing so by force would tear Israeli society apart, and would have been a massive undertaking
The construction of the wall was a massive undertaking. Israel has an army at it's disposal, yet it's unable to uproot the settlers? Hardly a convincing excuse.
And meanwhile, the settlements continue being built.
As for any peace deal, that's already been established and accepted by the whole World - excluding the U.S, as you know. The only thing standing in the way of a peace deal is the Israeli leadership, at the behest of the extremist settlers.
isnt their fault if their goverment is good or not
Yes it is. They voted for them.
Norman Finkelstein - Beyond Chutzpah - On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and The Abuse of History
P.175-177
...When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it.
When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'"
Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.
Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity."
isnt their fault if their goverment is good or not
Yes it is. They voted for them.
Norman Finkelstein - Beyond Chutzpah - On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and The Abuse of History
P.175-177
...When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it.
When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'"
Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.
Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity."
buddy,ill make it simple for you..
i know a girl from israel...she is very pretty ..
no matter what goverment they have there,...she is still pretty..
no matter if she vote for that goverment..she is still pretty...
same as the fans...no matter what goverment vote or not they deserve as fans to see the band..
they are fans of the band when they go to see the concert..
no black,or white,no tall or short,no muslim or jewish,no boys or girls..
they are fans...as fans they must have the right to see the band...
with the same logic of yours ,none of us should be a fan of pearl jam,cos pearl jam is an american band,and america is a country that support and is allies with israel..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
buddy,ill make it simple for you..
i know a girl from israel...she is very pretty ..
no matter what goverment they have there,...she is still pretty..
no matter if she vote for that goverment..she is still pretty...
same as the fans...no matter what goverment vote or not they deserve as fans to see the band..
they are fans of the band when they go to see the concert..
no black,or white,no tall or short,no muslim or jewish,no boys or girls..
they are fans...as fans they must have the right to see the band...
with the same logic of yours ,none of us should be a fan of pearl jam,cos pearl jam is an american band,and america is a country that support and is allies with israel..
If you'd known a pretty girl who lived in Apartheid South Africa, would you have therefore been o.k with your favourite band playing there too? Or would you have been pleased to know that your favourite band held principles that caused them to refuse to play in an oppressive racist state?
Those Pearl Jam fans over there in Israel should be pissed off. Them, and fans of many other bands who refuse to play in their country. Maybe if enough fans of music, and the other arts, in that country get pissed off enough that their governments policies are having the effect of isolating them on the World stage, then maybe it will help to change the situation over there, just as it had a huge impact on changing the situation in South Africa.
Maybe one day in the future, people will look back at the situation in Israel/Palestine in the same way we now look back at Apartheid South Africa. The U.S government supported Apartheid South Africa the same as they now support Apartheid Israel, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to.
What will you say many years down the road - asuming Israel ceases it's crimes against the Palestinians - when someone asks you where you stood on the issue? You'll tell them you had no beef with that regime over there, and thought that country should be regarded as no different from any other?
At least I know I'll be able to hold my head high.
buddy,ill make it simple for you..
i know a girl from israel...she is very pretty ..
no matter what goverment they have there,...she is still pretty..
no matter if she vote for that goverment..she is still pretty...
same as the fans...no matter what goverment vote or not they deserve as fans to see the band..
they are fans of the band when they go to see the concert..
no black,or white,no tall or short,no muslim or jewish,no boys or girls..
they are fans...as fans they must have the right to see the band...
with the same logic of yours ,none of us should be a fan of pearl jam,cos pearl jam is an american band,and america is a country that support and is allies with israel..
If you'd known a pretty girl who lived in Apartheid South Africa, would you have therefore been o.k with your favourite band playing there too? Or would you have been pleased to know that your favourite band held principles that caused them to refuse to play in an oppressive racist state?
Those Pearl Jam fans over should be pissed off. Them, and fans of many other bands who refuse to play in their country. Maybe if enough fans of music, and the other arts, in that country get pissed off enough that their governments policies are having the effect of isolating them on the World stage, then maybe it will help to change the situation over there, just as it had a huge impact on changing the situation in South Africa.
Maybe one day in the future, people will look back at the situation in Israel/Palestine in the same way we now look back at Apartheid South Africa. The U.S government supported Apartheid South Africa the same as they now support Apartheid Israel, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to.
What will you say many years down the road - asuming Israel ceases it's crimes against the Palestinians - when someone asks you where you stood on the issue? You'll tell them you had no beef with that regime over there, and thought that country should be regarded as no different from any other?
At least I know I'll be able to hold my head high.
good for you,i understand how you see things,
i understand your feelings to israel,or what you think is bad in the world,but i disagree that pj fans from Israel must pay the price of not see the band in their country cos what their goverment does..
there is no bad or good fans..all are the same to my eyes..
its wrong to see israelian fans different than other fans..
as for where everyone stood in the Israelian/Palestaine issue,is different topic,and conversation..
the topic is if a rock band should play there..
my answer is yes..and it is yes for all the countries of this planet..
a similar way you feel for Israel,i feel for Albania and Fyrom,but that has nothing to do with pj fans of those 2 countries,and ill support their request to see pearl jam at their country,even i dislike both countries for personal and "Greek" reasons.
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
."[/quote]
buddy,ill make it simple for you..
i know a girl from israel...she is very pretty ..
no matter what goverment they have there,...she is still pretty..
no matter if she vote for that goverment..she is still pretty...
same as the fans...no matter what goverment vote or not they deserve as fans to see the band..
they are fans of the band when they go to see the concert..
no black,or white,no tall or short,no muslim or jewish,no boys or girls..
they are fans...as fans they must have the right to see the band...
with the same logic of yours ,none of us should be a fan of pearl jam,cos pearl jam is an american band,and america is a country that support and is allies with israel..[/quote]
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
the fans at Israel deserve to see their favo band at their country..no question about that..
isnt their fault if their goverment is good or not
+that boycott conversation is just bullshit
if pj or any other band want or said they boycott the bad goverments-countries of the world ,like Israel is,,or whatever,,
well,then,need to stop accepting taking money from fan club memebership from people of those countries,and stop selling their music and merch and taking money from fans of those countries...
so its really fake for me,selling stuff and making business with those type of countries that you suppose you boycott and then play it rebels,and say dont play shows their cos of the poltical situation.
change NEVER comes from the rop.. it always comes from the people therefore of the people want change then they themselves should take steps to enact it. if the people of Israel want to see 'their fave band' then they need to put pressure upon their govt so they have that opportunity... so that everyone who wishes to see a particular band in.. oh I dunno.. jesusalem.. has the opportunity to do so. I can travel to jerisalem to see pearl jam id I so desire... you dimitri have the opportunity to travel to jerusalam to see pearl jam is you so desire... shouldnt EVERY palestinian as wel as every isreali also have the same opportunity? can you guarantee that they do? I know yosi has pointed out that the west bank and gaza are not Israel.. but isn't that the point of the argument?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the fans at Israel deserve to see their favo band at their country..no question about that..
isnt their fault if their goverment is good or not
+that boycott conversation is just bullshit
if pj or any other band want or said they boycott the bad goverments-countries of the world ,like Israel is,,or whatever,,
well,then,need to stop accepting taking money from fan club memebership from people of those countries,and stop selling their music and merch and taking money from fans of those countries...
so its really fake for me,selling stuff and making business with those type of countries that you suppose you boycott and then play it rebels,and say dont play shows their cos of the poltical situation.
change NEVER comes from the rop.. it always comes from the people therefore of the people want change then they themselves should take steps to enact it. if the people of Israel want to see 'their fave band' then they need to put pressure upon their govt so they have that opportunity... so that everyone who wishes to see a particular band in.. oh I dunno.. jesusalem.. has the opportunity to do so. I can travel to jerisalem to see pearl jam id I so desire... you dimitri have the opportunity to travel to jerusalam to see pearl jam is you so desire... shouldnt EVERY palestinian as wel as every isreali also have the same opportunity? can you guarantee that they do? I know yosi has pointed out that the west bank and gaza are not Israel.. but isn't that the point of the argument?
i get that Cate..
im trying to say dont mix the fans with what their goverment doing..isnt fair they pay the price..
as for me,i cant quarantee anything..
do you have any idea what i pass to get my usa at 2008??
they question me like was a criminal in 3 different appoitments..there is no such thing as freedom in the world..
freedom??who is free nowdays??with cameras at every corner??
when all our infos are in a computer??/
and i never saw this band to say we dont play at Israel,or anywhere else cos of the goverment there..
if Israel was in the map at north europe,i believe they would play 20 times already..
its music,it sould be deliver the message of peace,to unite people..
one more reason to play to Israel...
fans dont deserve to pay the price cos they was born as israelian and alot people hate them..
if its fair to hate them?to hate israel??/thats another story...but when it comes to fans,i support everyone want to see the band in their country..no matter the color of their skin,their political opinion,which country they coming from,to who God they believe,what kind of sex partner they prefer ,etc..
thats my opinion,i
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
what if by NOT playing in Israel - PJ can enact change ... a change that would end the suffering of millions of people? ... is it not worth it then? ... that's the whole idea of a boycott ... to enact change ...
what if by NOT playing in Israel - PJ can enact change ... a change that would end the suffering of millions of people? ... is it not worth it then? ... that's the whole idea of a boycott ... to enact change ...
got it,ofcourse worth it..and i agree..
but they should stop taking money for membership from israelians,selling records and t-shirt there..
and let everyone know we dont play there for that and this reasons..
by not playing there,and let us assume they do it for political reasons,but the same time they doing business with israelians via their record company,or web store,doesnt make it boycott at all for me...
and this goes to every artist that claim he "boycott israel" while he promote and selling records and merch at israel
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
got it,ofcourse worth it..and i agree..
but they should stop taking money for membership from israelians,selling records and t-shirt there..
and let everyone know we dont play there for that and this reasons..
by not playing there,and let us assume they do it for political reasons,but the same time they doing business with israelians via their record company,or web store,doesnt make it boycott at all for me...
and this goes to every artist that claim he "boycott israel" while he promote and selling records and merch at israel
but that's a bit silly ... i don't think pearl jam has ever promised to play there ... heck ... you can live in parts of canada and it would cost more to see Pearl Jam than if you lived in israel and traveled to say greece ...
by not accepting their money - you're actually depriving them of their music ... that seems absurd ... i think israelis understand that the likelihood of PJ playing there is slim for whatever reason - they can choose not to support the band or support them ...
Comments
Finally watched the video of those kids singing Alive.
(it got me right *here*)
Absolutely beautiful and moving, and the lyrics sung by young women? Threw me at first yet somehow deepened the words, but in an unexpectedly uplifting way.
They remind(ed) me of my neice - on the cusp of 21, spent some time in Israel last year, loved it. Opened her eyes.
So again..."should"?
Maybe could.
They , He or She, I can't recall , knows it will never happen.
I felt sad for them, but they are realistic. PJ has never played anywhere near there and why would they.?
This was the middle eastern person's logic. I wish I could recall their name.
I asked that person why they were a member, and they replied,"because I love the music! I have no other way of getting it."
He doesn't live in china.... :nono:
In the case of China's treatment of Tibetans it could be argued that an Apartheid system is in place. But that term does not apply to migrant workers.
What you do consistently is respond to comments that shed Israel in a bad light, and attempt to excuse and justify Israel's crimes. What you also consistently do is place the blame for the occupation on the heads of those being occupied, pretending that it's Palestinian resistance that's to blame for the occupation. You also try and pretend that the settlements are there for security purposes. And yet you claim that I shouldn't be taken seriously?
There we go, once again blaming the Palestinians for the occupation.
As for 'unrelenting terrorist attacks throughout Israel proper', please explain how it was 'that Palestinians did not resort to terrorist attacks until after Israel had used massive, lethal, and indiscriminate firepower to quell largely nonviolent demonstrations; that fully three times as many Palestinians as Israelis were killed during the second Intifada; and that, apart from the casualties on both sides, all the victims of the manifold human rights violations documented by human rights organizations - house demolitions, torture, political liquidations, arbitrary detentions, prolonged curfews, denial of medical care - were Palestinian.'
By the way, the International Court of Justice were perfectly able to comprehend the legality or illegality of the separation wall. In fact, I'm pretty confident that the ICJ made a clearer and more honest appraisal of it than you ever could.
'The ICJ conclude[d] that neither the wall nor the attendant violations of Palestinian rights can be justified on grounds of military necessity:
'The Court, from the material available to it, is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain it's security objectives. The wall, along the route chosen, and it's associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order. The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of various of it's obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments. (para 137)...
The Court is not convinced that the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to safeguard the interest of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as justification for that construction.' (para. 140).
The ICJ voted 14-1, (with Judge Buerganthal from the United States as the lone dissenter) that "construction of the wall being built by Israel, the Occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territoy, including in and around East Jerusalem, and it's associated regime, are contrary to International law."
Let me guess; the ICJ are anti-Semites?
Here's a question for you,Yosi: If the Israeli leadership were at pains to protect the settlers from harm, then why did they construct a wall to protect them? Why didn't they remove them to within the borders of Israel instead, and then fortify those borders?
Even U.S Judge Buerganthal stated unequivocally that the settlements are illegal under international law, in opposition to the stance taken by the HCJ. A position that effectively undermined the entire rationale of the HCJ:
'Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention...does not admit for exceptions on the grounds of military or security exigencies. It provided that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of it's own civilian population into the territory it occupies." I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law.' (para. 9).
Speaking of attempts to excuse and justify, I am not the one who is apparently categorizing suicide bombings targeting civilians in cafes and restaurants as legitimate "resistance," so perhaps you should step back and take a look in the mirror before accusing others of excusing and justifying crimes.
I don't blame the Palestinians for the occupation as a whole; the occupation was a mistake to begin with, and responsibility for it lies with Israel. That said, not every aspect of the occupation as it exists today was inherant or fundamental to it. The nature of the occupation has shifted over time, and in some of these instances Israel has been reacting to the Palestinians. The barrier is one such example. It didn't exist for the vast majority of the occupation (which should be a glaring problem for your argument, since it would have been easy enough to build it decades ago if it was meant as a land grab). It was built as a response to Palestinian terrorism. Had there been no terrorism there would have been no barrier. So no, the Palestinians are not to blame for the occupation writ large, but yes, they are somewhat to blame for the seperation barrier. I do not pretend that settlements are there for security reasons, I'm telling you that certain settlements are supported by the government based on secular security concerns, and that Israel has a strategic interest in the West Bank with or without the settlements. If you have no interest in understanding Israel's strategic thinking that's fine, but again, I think this should tell people that you're not someone who is very serious about understanding this issue.
Really?! This is just flat out revisionist history. It is very well established that the violence of the second intifada was preplanned. I'm not saying that Israel has clean hands, but to pretend that the Palestinians were entirely innocent in all of this is absurd! I've said this before but it bears repeating: You seem to have very little respect for the Palestinians at all. You treat them as if they have no agency whatsoever. You don't ever hold them responsible for anything that they do. They just seem to be characters in your morality play, and so you're entirely unwilling to accept that just maybe they aren't the perfect persecuted lambs that you want them to be.
I love that you keep saying that I unconditionally support Israel, since virtually everything I write includes a statement conditioning my response on making clear what I do not support. So what's the deal? Are you just reading me carelessly? Are you so enraged that I disagree with you that you're just blinded to the subtleties of what I've written? Is this just another symptom of your general inability to grasp anything that dips into shades of grey?
Anyways, to answer your question, no you don't just need to take my word for anything, you can do as you like. But since you're asking everyone else to take Norman Finkelstein's word for it because apparently Norman Finkelstein knows better, I thought it fair to point out that on this particular issue I happen to have a professional insight that Norman lacks. As for the ICJ, I have a lot of respect for their abilities and knowledge, I just happen to think they got it wrong in this instance, a view that is shared by many in the legal academy as well as by the dissenting member of the ICJ court.
So again, the key point is that the ICJ never actually dealt seriously in its opinion with Israel's security concerns and lacked the facts to have done so. As a result it was not in a position to make the judgement that it did, that Israel's actions could not be justified by security concerns. The court was right that the barrier infringes on Palestinian rights, but that is only half the issue. Rights are not absolute, and they can legally be infringed by the state in pursuit of a suitably important state interest. The ICJ never actually considered the state interest side of the equation, it simply made the conclusory decision that no such interest existed. That is just shoddy judge-craft.
Stop it. Don't be a dick, and don't put words in my mouth! No, I don't think the judges are anti-semites. I think they made a poor decision, probably, in my own opinion, influenced by their politics.
Ok, first, the government in building the barrier was primarily concerned with protecting Israeli civilians living within Israel. It decided to extend that protection to include many of the settlements located near the green line, which is not an irrational thing for it to have done, given that a government is supposed to protect its citizens. I don't disagree that the settlements are illegal, and I wish that the government would actively seek to move the settlers back into Israel proper. My guess for why this wasn't done is because doing so by force would tear Israeli society apart, and would have been a massive undertaking: It took 14,000 soldiers to remove the last 5,000 settlers from Gaza...there are about 200,000 settlers in the West Bank. Israel wasn't, and I think still isn't willing to undertake this project except in the context of a final peace deal.
the fans at Israel deserve to see their favo band at their country..no question about that..
isnt their fault if their goverment is good or not
+that boycott conversation is just bullshit
if pj or any other band want or said they boycott the bad goverments-countries of the world ,like Israel is,,or whatever,,
well,then,need to stop accepting taking money from fan club memebership from people of those countries,and stop selling their music and merch and taking money from fans of those countries...
so its really fake for me,selling stuff and making business with those type of countries that you suppose you boycott and then play it rebels,and say dont play shows their cos of the poltical situation.
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I highly doubt they'd openly boycott playing anywhere. But you have to admit the safety concern would be high.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
you see what happens to Boston Marathon..with the same logic Boston is not a safe place too..
for me the problem with israel,is location...same as Greece..same as turkey ..
is away to south to travel just for one show..and when the big market is at north europe
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I don't think you can compare the on going violence in Israel to a rare bombing in the US.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
and if the band is against politicaly of what goverment of israel does,then their is another reason to do a show there,they will be on stage,they have a microphone to say their opinion..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
i suppose in the grand scheme of things - you have to ask yourself what would accomplish more ... playing in israel and speaking up and then face a hostile crowd or publicly announcing a boycott ... the truth of the matter is that if you look at the big picture ... the public boycott may actually accomplish more ... hard to say ...
my opinion is that if they chose to boycott israel - they would not publicly admit it ... but simply just not play the country and base it on economics ...
I don't give a flying fuck for Israel's strategic thinking. Regardless of 'Israel's interest in the West Bank', the settlements are illegal under international law and constitute a crime against humanity - http://pulsemedia.org/2010/11/29/prolon ... -humanity/
http://www.btselem.org/settlements/international_law
The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of settlements results in the violation of the rights of Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.'
Pre-planned by the Israeli's, you mean?
Origins of the 2nd Intifada:
'The underlying reason is the continuous 30-year Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo Accords) signed in 1993 had raised hope. Palestinians anticipated a state and the end of occupation, but it was constantly delayed while the situation on the ground worsened. Israel expanded settlements and by-pass roads and confiscated more Palestinian property. Israelis continued to demolish homes and to uproot or burn olive and fruit trees, leaving people without sources of income. Checkpoints, closures and other signs of a tighter occupation were imposed; Israeli soldiers detained or turned ambulances back from checkpoints and Israel constantly reduced the number of permits to enter Israel to work. Israeli soldiers humiliated Palestinians at the checkpoints. Frustration, rage and despair mounted as Palestinians' human rights were infringed and their dignity ignored. Many Palestinians became disillusioned with the Oslo Accords and felt betrayed by them.
When Mr. Sharon with about 1000 armed soldiers and police visited the Noble Sanctuary (Haram ash-Sharif), a site sacred to Muslims, on September 28, 2000, it was like throwing a match into a pile of dry tinder. The following day, Palestinians protested and seven were killed by the IDF. This was the immediate reason for the intifada. The underlying conditions that caused the uprising still exist and have been made worse by a siege imposed in early March 2001 isolating cities, towns and villages and by the building of the "Security Fence."
Like you have the fainstest idea of what Norman Finkelstein 'lacks'.
The level of arrogance in the above statement is truly astounding. 14 members of the 15 panel board on the International Court of Justice ruled the Seperation Wall to be illegal under international law, but you think they 'got it wrong in this instance'?
'The ICJ conclude[d] that neither the wall nor the attendant violations of Palestinian rights can be justified on grounds of military necessity
Except the ICJ did consider 'the state interest side of the equation' in relation to security concerns. They considered it in minute detail, and concluded that the wall exceeded any concerns for security.
And I asked you a question that you failed to answer: If the Israeli leadership wanted to protect the illegal settlers from harm, why didn't it remove them to within the internationally recognized borders of Israel, instead of spending millions to construct a wall on illegally Occupied Territory?
'...in the example on which it honed in, the High Court itself acknowledged that even if the allegedly erroneous ICJ data on Qalqiliya were corrected, "the remainder is sufficient to indicate a severe impingement of [Palestinian residents'] rights." Moreover, the ICJ didn't reach it's conclusion after the relative quantitative weighing of evidence in a proportionality test, but rather after reaching the absolute qualitative finding that the wall couldn't be justified on grounds of military necessity and violated fundamental provisions of international law. None of the alleged errors in the ICJ data affect it's absolute qualitative findings. Yet, even if the proportionality test were applied, and on a segment-by-segment basis, it is still highly doubtful whether the wall, or parts of it, would pass legal muster.'
The construction of the wall was a massive undertaking. Israel has an army at it's disposal, yet it's unable to uproot the settlers? Hardly a convincing excuse.
And meanwhile, the settlements continue being built.
As for any peace deal, that's already been established and accepted by the whole World - excluding the U.S, as you know. The only thing standing in the way of a peace deal is the Israeli leadership, at the behest of the extremist settlers.
Yes it is. They voted for them.
Norman Finkelstein - Beyond Chutzpah - On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and The Abuse of History
P.175-177
...When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it.
When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'"
Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.
Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity."
i know a girl from israel...she is very pretty ..
no matter what goverment they have there,...she is still pretty..
no matter if she vote for that goverment..she is still pretty...
same as the fans...no matter what goverment vote or not they deserve as fans to see the band..
they are fans of the band when they go to see the concert..
no black,or white,no tall or short,no muslim or jewish,no boys or girls..
they are fans...as fans they must have the right to see the band...
with the same logic of yours ,none of us should be a fan of pearl jam,cos pearl jam is an american band,and america is a country that support and is allies with israel..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
If you'd known a pretty girl who lived in Apartheid South Africa, would you have therefore been o.k with your favourite band playing there too? Or would you have been pleased to know that your favourite band held principles that caused them to refuse to play in an oppressive racist state?
Those Pearl Jam fans over there in Israel should be pissed off. Them, and fans of many other bands who refuse to play in their country. Maybe if enough fans of music, and the other arts, in that country get pissed off enough that their governments policies are having the effect of isolating them on the World stage, then maybe it will help to change the situation over there, just as it had a huge impact on changing the situation in South Africa.
Maybe one day in the future, people will look back at the situation in Israel/Palestine in the same way we now look back at Apartheid South Africa. The U.S government supported Apartheid South Africa the same as they now support Apartheid Israel, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to.
What will you say many years down the road - asuming Israel ceases it's crimes against the Palestinians - when someone asks you where you stood on the issue? You'll tell them you had no beef with that regime over there, and thought that country should be regarded as no different from any other?
At least I know I'll be able to hold my head high.
i understand your feelings to israel,or what you think is bad in the world,but i disagree that pj fans from Israel must pay the price of not see the band in their country cos what their goverment does..
there is no bad or good fans..all are the same to my eyes..
its wrong to see israelian fans different than other fans..
as for where everyone stood in the Israelian/Palestaine issue,is different topic,and conversation..
the topic is if a rock band should play there..
my answer is yes..and it is yes for all the countries of this planet..
a similar way you feel for Israel,i feel for Albania and Fyrom,but that has nothing to do with pj fans of those 2 countries,and ill support their request to see pearl jam at their country,even i dislike both countries for personal and "Greek" reasons.
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
buddy,ill make it simple for you..
i know a girl from israel...she is very pretty ..
no matter what goverment they have there,...she is still pretty..
no matter if she vote for that goverment..she is still pretty...
same as the fans...no matter what goverment vote or not they deserve as fans to see the band..
they are fans of the band when they go to see the concert..
no black,or white,no tall or short,no muslim or jewish,no boys or girls..
they are fans...as fans they must have the right to see the band...
with the same logic of yours ,none of us should be a fan of pearl jam,cos pearl jam is an american band,and america is a country that support and is allies with israel..[/quote]
Does this logic work if she was ugly?
2013- Brooklyn2, Philly1, Philly2, NOLA
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
change NEVER comes from the rop.. it always comes from the people therefore of the people want change then they themselves should take steps to enact it. if the people of Israel want to see 'their fave band' then they need to put pressure upon their govt so they have that opportunity... so that everyone who wishes to see a particular band in.. oh I dunno.. jesusalem.. has the opportunity to do so. I can travel to jerisalem to see pearl jam id I so desire... you dimitri have the opportunity to travel to jerusalam to see pearl jam is you so desire... shouldnt EVERY palestinian as wel as every isreali also have the same opportunity? can you guarantee that they do? I know yosi has pointed out that the west bank and gaza are not Israel.. but isn't that the point of the argument?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im trying to say dont mix the fans with what their goverment doing..isnt fair they pay the price..
as for me,i cant quarantee anything..
do you have any idea what i pass to get my usa at 2008??
they question me like was a criminal in 3 different appoitments..there is no such thing as freedom in the world..
freedom??who is free nowdays??with cameras at every corner??
when all our infos are in a computer??/
and i never saw this band to say we dont play at Israel,or anywhere else cos of the goverment there..
if Israel was in the map at north europe,i believe they would play 20 times already..
its music,it sould be deliver the message of peace,to unite people..
one more reason to play to Israel...
fans dont deserve to pay the price cos they was born as israelian and alot people hate them..
if its fair to hate them?to hate israel??/thats another story...but when it comes to fans,i support everyone want to see the band in their country..no matter the color of their skin,their political opinion,which country they coming from,to who God they believe,what kind of sex partner they prefer ,etc..
thats my opinion,i
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
let's put it another way ...
what if by NOT playing in Israel - PJ can enact change ... a change that would end the suffering of millions of people? ... is it not worth it then? ... that's the whole idea of a boycott ... to enact change ...
but they should stop taking money for membership from israelians,selling records and t-shirt there..
and let everyone know we dont play there for that and this reasons..
by not playing there,and let us assume they do it for political reasons,but the same time they doing business with israelians via their record company,or web store,doesnt make it boycott at all for me...
and this goes to every artist that claim he "boycott israel" while he promote and selling records and merch at israel
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
2013- Brooklyn2, Philly1, Philly2, NOLA
but that's a bit silly ... i don't think pearl jam has ever promised to play there ... heck ... you can live in parts of canada and it would cost more to see Pearl Jam than if you lived in israel and traveled to say greece ...
by not accepting their money - you're actually depriving them of their music ... that seems absurd ... i think israelis understand that the likelihood of PJ playing there is slim for whatever reason - they can choose not to support the band or support them ...