Byrnzie and fuck, you're certainly going to outlast me in terms of volume of posts in this thread. I wish you guys were advocating productive steps though. BDS is not going to be the thing that pushes the Mideast towards peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions In early 2014, Yair Lapid, Israel's finance minister, stated that Israel is approaching the same "tipping point" where South Africa found itself in opposition to the rest of the world in the dying days of apartheid.[8] In early 2014, Arutz Sheva reported that boycotts have cost Israel's agriculture sector approximately 100 million shekels ($30 million USD or €22 million) in the past year
Achievements
2009–2012
In March 2009, large scale student demonstrations were held at several UK Universities to protest Israel's actions in Gaza. At Cardiff University the protests led to the University divesting all investments in BAE Systems, an arms manufacturer that co-operates with Israel.[1] In May 2009, advertisements for tourism in Israel were removed from the London underground network in response to pressure from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.[1] In July 2009, Dexia, a Belgian-French financial group, stopped all financial services to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
A list of 2012 academic and cultural boycott successes has been compiled by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. In 2013, the Palestinian BDS National Committee published an interactive timeline listing some of the movement's key achievements.
In December 2012 the New Zealand Superannuation Fund excluded three Israeli companies from its portfolio because of their involvement in the construction of Israeli settlements and the Israeli West Bank barrier. The fund's manager for responsible investment stated that "Findings by the United Nations that the separation barrier and settlement activities were illegal under international law were central to the fund's decision to exclude the companies." The New Zealand Herald described "the fund's investments in the [Israeli] firms", which amounted to less than $83,000, as "insubstantial".
2013
As of 2013, Luxembourg's state pension fund has blacklisted eight Israeli firms along with US firm Motorola Solutions for assisting in human rights violations and illegal settlements in the State of Palestine.
In December 2013, Dutch water company Vitens severed ties with Israel pointing to alleged violations of international law while engineering company Royal HaskoningDHV cancelled work on a project in East Jerusalem stating "involvement in the project could be in violation of international law." Frans Timmermans, the Netherlands' Foreign minister, who visited Israel in December 2013, later stated economic activities in the occupied territories are opposed by the Government.
2014
In January 2014, the government of Norway announced that its pension fund will no longer invest in two Israeli companies (Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus) "due to [their] contribution to serious violations of individual rights in war or conflict through the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem".[27] Norway's YMCA-YWCA joined the boycott in 2014, announcing that it will support "[a] broad economic boycott of goods and services from Israel and Israeli settlements".
In January 2014, Danske Bank, which is the largest bank in Denmark, blacklisted Israel's largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, for "acting against the rules of international humanitarian law" due to its funding of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Previously, Danske Bank had withdrawn its investments from Africa Israel Investments Ltd. and Danya Cebus for the same reasons.
In April 2014, the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld a 2012 ruling, affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit against the Olympia Food Co-op for their 2011 decision to boycott Israeli products, mandating the plaintiffs pay $160,000 in statutory damages as well as other legal fees. In a press release, the Center for Constitutional Rights quoted one of the defendants and a Co-op staff member: "We are thrilled to hear that ... our right to freedom of speech has been upheld [..] Boycotts are a longstanding form of non-violent political expression; using the Court system to attempt to silence our right of expression clearly qualifies as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation."
In May 2014, co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates sold a large stake of his shares in G4S, a British security firm that operates in 125 countries, and has done business with Israel's prison system, security checkpoints, and military. Advocates of the BDS subsequently claimed that this Gates' decision was the result of "pressure on the Gates Foundation to divest from G4S". The Gates Foundation subsequently declined to comment on its reasons for the sale.
In June 2014, the Methodist Church's General Board of Pension and Health Benefits followed suit, selling its stock in G4S, which amounts to $110,000 in G4S shares.
In June 2014, following the publishing open letters to The Guardian and protests at its AGM meeting, Ashley Almanza, G4S' chief executive stated the company's remaining contracts with Israel's prison system will not be renewed once they have expired. Almanza defended the company's business dealings, stating G4S "[does] not operate prisons" but rather "suppl[ies] prisons with security equipment" designed to increase safety without compromising human rights. According to The Guardian, a 2013 independent human rights report found that G4S "had no causal or contributory role in human rights violations".
In July 2014, UK department store John Lewis removed all SodaStream products from all its shelves, amid growing pressure from the public and declining sales. John Lewis' Oxford Street, London, store has been the site of biweekly BDS protests for its sale of SodaStream products. SodaStream operates its primary manufacturing facility in an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. Additionally, after two years of weekly BDS protests, SodaStream closed its Brighton store in July 2014.
On 21 July 2014, the government of the Maldives announced the annulment of three bilateral trade agreements with Israel, and a government boycott of all Israeli goods. Mohamed Hussain Shareef, the minister at the President's Office, also announced that the government planned to ban the import of Israeli goods into the state.
A campaign that is gathering weight Israel’s politicians sound rattled by the campaign to isolate their country Feb 8th 2014
ONCE derided as the scheming of crackpots, the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, widely known as BDS, is turning mainstream. That, at any rate, is the fear of a growing number of Israelis. Some European pension funds have withdrawn investments; some large corporations have cancelled contracts; and the American secretary of state, John Kerry, rarely misses a chance to warn Israel that efforts to “delegitimise” and boycott it will increase if its government spurns his efforts to conclude a two-state settlement of its conflict with the Palestinians. Israel, says Yair Lapid, Israel’s finance minister, is approaching the same “tipping point” where South Africa found itself in opposition to the rest of the world in the dying days of apartheid. “Let’s not kid ourselves,” he told a conference of security boffins recently in Tel Aviv. “The world listens to us less and less.”
BDS has begun to grab the attention of some of the world’s largest financial institutions. PGGM, a big Dutch pension fund, has liquidated its holdings in five Israeli banks (though the Netherlands’ largest has affirmed its investments). Norway’s finance ministry has announced that it is excluding Africa Israel Investments and its subsidiary, Danya Cebus, a big building firm, from a government pension fund.
The campaign is drawing support from beyond northern Europe. Romania has forbidden its citizens from working for companies in the West Bank. More churches are backing BDS. An American academic association is boycotting Israeli lecturers. The debate turned viral after Scarlett Johansson, a Hollywood actor, quit her role as ambassador for Oxfam, a charity based in Britain, in order to keep her advertising contract with SodaStream, an Israeli drinks firm with a plant on the West Bank.
Mr Lapid, who favours a two-state solution, reels out figures to show how sanctions could hit every Israeli pocket. “If negotiations with the Palestinians stall or blow up and we enter the reality of a European boycott, even a very partial one,” he warned, 10,000 Israelis would “immediately” lose their jobs. Trade with the European Union, a third of Israel’s total, would slump—he calculates—by $5.7 billion.
Anxious to hold on to their markets, Israel’s businessmen are increasingly backing the peace camp. The names on a recent advertising campaign in its favour included such luminaries as the head of Google in Israel. Hitherto they had usually preferred to stay out of politics.
Israel’s government is divided over how to react to the BDS campaign. The finance ministry has temporarily shelved a report it said it would publish on the possible consequences of BDS. But Israel’s press and ministerial addresses are increasingly full of worried references to it.
Some Israelis argue that this publicity merely feeds the BDS campaign, others that isolation has benefits. Israel’s position as a hotbed of hi-tech start-ups is due in part to decades of circumventing Arab boycotts. A French arms ban in the 1960s sparked the development of its weapons industry, helping to catapult Israel into fourth place in the world’s league of arms exporters. And if the West turns its back on Israel, there is, they say, the east. Relations with India have warmed of late, and those with China are getting closer. The economy minister, Naftali Bennett, a sceptic of the peace process, recently toured the Far East, saying he was bringing a “light to the gentiles” by way of Israeli business. But Mr Bennett is in a minority on BDS: his colleagues are a lot less sanguine.
This thread has become almost 4 weeks of "reasons why war is justified" instead of it's original, rather eloquent statement by Ed. Take the convo somewhere else, AET, maybe.
ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.
"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"
And particularly BDS while defending or excusing Hamas. That combination is toxic.
Why don't you respond to my post? I answered your questions and called you out for the misinformation you spread. Why don't you go back to what I wrote, read it, and respond? Otherwise feel free to admit that what you said, in order to pardon Israel's responsibility in this conflict, was incorrect. Also, tell me, why is BDS not the solution? do you just feel uncomfortable that a nonviolent movement might actually be successful in delegitimizing Israel's brutal and illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?
As far as I know the following statements are still in the charter.
"The day of Judgement will not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
That's gotta go man. That's just gotta go.
What's interesting about the talking point of the Hamas charter is that I don't think any Palestinians have ever actually read this supposed document. It's an anachronistic work that only gets publicity in Western media, which follows Zionist talking points in general, to distract from real grievances and substantive issues on the ground. It's a piece of paper that was written by ideologues about 25 years ago, and not the actual political operators who run the organization. As I already mentioned with regards to the way they use the "Jews" (which you unsurprisingly ignored) it is due to a particular context of dealing with a "Jewish state".
The way these few ideologues depict religious imagery in the document is de-contextualized and is based on a particular reading of scripture - which would be akin to saying that Pat Robertson's interpretation of the Bible is the basic tenet of the Republican Party. Would we assume that every person in Florida who votes for Republicans wants homosexuals to be stoned? Probably not. You know what's interesting? The entire evangelical Christian right in the US actually believes in supporting Israel, not as an end in itself, but it hastens the return of Jesus, who upon returning to Earth forces all the Jews to convert or be killed and go to hell. This is an actual belief held by tens of millions of Americans, but Israelis are more than happy to take their money and open their doors to their lame tour groups. In other words, ideology ultimately doesn't matter as much as we think it does, unless we want to use it to vilify our enemies.
If you look at the way Hamas and other Palestinian groups have actually conducted themselves, which is what I've been repeatedly trying to get you to do in this thread, it is based on political expediency and the concept of compromise. The fact that they have ceded 78% of their historic homeland and agreed to establishing a state on the remaining 22% (West Bank and Gaza) rarely gets mentioned. They have agreed to long term truces that Israel has routinely broken. Their resistance mission has become limited to ending the occupation of those territories, not to ending Israel as a state. That much has become accepted even among Israelis who know better and certainly the Israeli political establishment when they're in terse negotiations with them and not crying in front of the cameras.
I ASK AGAIN: Who are these members who make up the "majority" of "Hamas's power structure" that you claim call for the "annihilation of Jews" even today? Stop ignoring this question and either own up to the fact that you made it up or that you are wrong. You continue to ignore what the leadership has actually said on the public record without supplying any real evidence, or actually responding to the arguments I'm putting forward.
You seem to have a problem that I'm not critical of Hamas to your standards. I am actually very critical of them, including the way they've governed the Gaza strip over the past few years -- the issue here is that I think that 1) their poor governance is largely due to an illegal blockade and the maintenance of an occupation by Israel; 2) their method of governing the Palestinians is irrelevant to the conflict itself, in which one party is occupying and oppressing another. You continuously ignore the power balance and the fact that the onus is ENTIRELY on Israel to end the conflict. As I said before in this thread, if Hamas continues to target Israelis even after the occupation is ended, equal rights are awarded to Palestinians, and that refugees are allowed to return to their homes, then I will be the first to condemn such violence. Until then however, international law even allows an occupied people the right to resist the occupation; 3) I think that my criticisms of the movement come as a Palestinian for Palestinians. But I think that people such as yourself who are not Palestinian have no right to comment on what an occupied or oppressed people do to resist. Your efforts should be focused on telling the occupying power, whom your government supports to allow the occupation (of which the resistance in simply a response to it) to continue, to stop. I don't think people wasted much breath critiquing the ANC in the height of the anti-apartheid struggle. But then again, history has shown that there are always people doing what they can to falsely attribute moral equivalency between oppressed and oppressor.
ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.
"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"
-- Eddie Vedder
Seems to fit ISIS pretty well, doesn't it?
No not really. ISIS was actually homegrown, not really crossing into territory. Also you conveniently left out the part where he talked about our tax dollars funding bombs being dropped on children. Last I checked: the US wasn't funding ISIS, and ISIS was not conducting surgical strikes from above that resulting in hundreds of children being brutally murdered.
ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.
"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"
-- Eddie Vedder
Seems to fit ISIS pretty well, doesn't it?
No not really. ISIS was actually homegrown, not really crossing into territory. Also you conveniently left out the part where he talked about our tax dollars funding bombs being dropped on children. Last I checked: the US wasn't funding ISIS, and ISIS was not conducting surgical strikes from above that resulting in hundreds of children being brutally murdered.
But let's continue to pretend otherwise.
On Friday fuck you wrote:
"No one is waging a war to make this about one topic. If some people decided to start a completely separate conversation about the Ukrainian situation, why would anyone complain about that? I still maintain that Eddie's initial comment at the show had to do with the number one news story in the world at the moment, namely Israel's assault on Gaza. Of course his words can be applied elsewhere too. That's the point of being a principled person - you maintain consistency on these issues, whenever you see parallels."
When someone does point out a parallel, it results in your response above. Apparently, if someone were to bring another conflict in and start a separate conversation, you personally would complain about it.
As for the parallel, the Yazidis trapped in those mountains may disagree that ISIS has not rolled over their borders. And now they are carrying American weapons confiscated from the Iraqi army. So, you may not want to see any parallels there, but that does not mean they are not there.
Again, waging a war to make this thread about a single conflict helps no one in Gaza or anywhere else. It is just arguing on the internet.
ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.
"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"
-- Eddie Vedder
Seems to fit ISIS pretty well, doesn't it?
No not really. ISIS was actually homegrown, not really crossing into territory. Also you conveniently left out the part where he talked about our tax dollars funding bombs being dropped on children. Last I checked: the US wasn't funding ISIS, and ISIS was not conducting surgical strikes from above that resulting in hundreds of children being brutally murdered.
But let's continue to pretend otherwise.
On Friday fuck you wrote:
"No one is waging a war to make this about one topic. If some people decided to start a completely separate conversation about the Ukrainian situation, why would anyone complain about that? I still maintain that Eddie's initial comment at the show had to do with the number one news story in the world at the moment, namely Israel's assault on Gaza. Of course his words can be applied elsewhere too. That's the point of being a principled person - you maintain consistency on these issues, whenever you see parallels."
When someone does point out a parallel, it results in your response above. Apparently, if someone were to bring another conflict in and start a separate conversation, you personally would complain about it.
As for the parallel, the Yaditzi trapped in those mountains may disagree that ISIS has not rolled over their borders. And now they are carrying American weapons confiscated from the Iraqi army. So, you may not want to see any parallels there, but that does not mean they are not there.
Again, waging a war to make this thread about a single conflict helps no one in Gaza or anywhere else. It is just arguing on the internet.
Very good point. The conflict in Iraq very much belongs in this thread.
ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.
"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"
-- Eddie Vedder
Seems to fit ISIS pretty well, doesn't it?
No not really. ISIS was actually homegrown, not really crossing into territory. Also you conveniently left out the part where he talked about our tax dollars funding bombs being dropped on children. Last I checked: the US wasn't funding ISIS, and ISIS was not conducting surgical strikes from above that resulting in hundreds of children being brutally murdered.
But let's continue to pretend otherwise.
On Friday fuck you wrote:
"No one is waging a war to make this about one topic. If some people decided to start a completely separate conversation about the Ukrainian situation, why would anyone complain about that? I still maintain that Eddie's initial comment at the show had to do with the number one news story in the world at the moment, namely Israel's assault on Gaza. Of course his words can be applied elsewhere too. That's the point of being a principled person - you maintain consistency on these issues, whenever you see parallels."
When someone does point out a parallel, it results in your response above. Apparently, if someone were to bring another conflict in and start a separate conversation, you personally would complain about it.
As for the parallel, the Yazidis trapped in those mountains may disagree that ISIS has not rolled over their borders. And now they are carrying American weapons confiscated from the Iraqi army. So, you may not want to see any parallels there, but that does not mean they are not there.
Again, waging a war to make this thread about a single conflict helps no one in Gaza or anywhere else. It is just arguing on the internet.
First of all, you are conflating two different things: I maintain that Ed's initial comments were about gaza and Israel. You claim otherwise. I don't understand why you seem to think that a disagreement on that point means I am trying to silence you.
Secondly, I merely pointed out that you made a false equivalency. ISIS unfortunately is a homegrown threat to the people of the region. They are certainly a threat, but in this case it is not the same as a settler colonial entity. The conflict involving them is not about people crossing into land that does not belong to them and establishing colonies, it is about intolerant people persecuting another. Of course there are parallels, but my point was that you were making a false one in this particular case. We can't act like ISIS and its supporters are from another part of the world terrorizing innocent villagers. There is a context to every situation that deserves a coherent analysis. I also find your point about them using American weapons taken from the Iraqi army an extremely weak one. The American imperial ambitions did contribute to the growth of ISIS, absolutely, but to say that our tax dollars directly are funding bombs being dropped on children in this case is a false analogy. I'm more than happy to talk about the situation in Iraq in this thread, but don't be surprised if I disagree with your analysis of it, as well as your using specific language by Ed that does not apply in this particular context.
When Eddie made his preliminary MK anti war comments 2 days before in Leeds, (listen to the boots....) he definitely wasn't singling anyone side out. He directed them at everyone who thinks war is an acceptable answer, and how strange he feels about the entire concept of war (shooting people and blowing shit up) and the inherent insanity of the men who run those countries, or factions, or whatever, believing that they will solve issues by continuing to wage it. I take his statements not only to be about what was occurring in Gaza, but also in the Ukraine, AND about the 11 years wasted in Iraq and the 13+ years in Afghanistan, but they could conceivably mean any conflict back to the start of time.
making what he said into just the war that's happening is missing the point.
When Eddie made his preliminary MK anti war comments in 2 days before in Leeds, (listen to the boots....) he definitely wasn't singling anyone side out. It directed at everyone who thinks war is an acceptable answer, and the concept of war (shooting people and blowing shit up) as a way to solve issues. I take his statements not only to be about what was occurring in Gaza, but also in the Ukraine, AND about the 11 years wasted in Iraq and the 13+ years in Afghanistan.
Peace, man.
Again, if you want to talk about Ukraine, we can talk about it. But the conflict there does not fit the language Ed was using in his speech. Firstly, the Russians aren't crossing into territory and bombing people--it is a far more complicated situation that involved a referendum voting in favor of annexation and joining with Russia. It is a situation where people inside a country can't agree on a unified vision for the future of said country. Yes there is foreign involvement, but not a country invading another and forcibly taking its land without the support of the people there. Second, how do US tax dollars fund bombs being dropped on children in Ukraine? Even if one wants to make the case that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict, where does this sentiment which Ed expressed fit? I understand the point about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but I find it strange that he would deliver a speech so angrily years after US pulled out from there? I'd say it probably has something to do with what was the number one news story at the time--the massacre taking place in gaza, funded by US tax dollars.
I'm more than happy to take this anti-war message to talk about other conflicts. But I do maintain that Ed's comments were quite obviously about Gaza, and so long as others try to argue otherwise I will respond with my opinion
When Eddie made his preliminary MK anti war comments in 2 days before in Leeds, (listen to the boots....) he definitely wasn't singling anyone side out. It directed at everyone who thinks war is an acceptable answer, and the concept of war (shooting people and blowing shit up) as a way to solve issues. I take his statements not only to be about what was occurring in Gaza, but also in the Ukraine, AND about the 11 years wasted in Iraq and the 13+ years in Afghanistan.
Peace, man.
Again, if you want to talk about Ukraine, we can talk about it. But the conflict there does not fit the language Ed was using in his speech. Firstly, the Russians aren't crossing into territory and bombing people--it is a far more complicated situation that involved a referendum voting in favor of annexation and joining with Russia. It is a situation where people inside a country can't agree on a unified vision for the future of said country. Yes there is foreign involvement, but not a country invading another and forcibly taking its land without the support of the people there. Second, how do US tax dollars fund bombs being dropped on children in Ukraine? Even if one wants to make the case that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict, where does this sentiment which Ed expressed fit? I understand the point about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but I find it strange that he would deliver a speech so angrily years after US pulled out from there? I'd say it probably has something to do with what was the number one news story at the time--the massacre taking place in gaza, funded by US tax dollars.
I'm more than happy to take this anti-war message to talk about other conflicts. But I do maintain that Ed's comments were quite obviously about Gaza, and so long as others try to argue otherwise I will respond with my opinion
I personally think that it was about Gaza, I know that some people will not think it was about Gaza, but a much more important question is: does it matter? I don't recall anyone's voice being suppressed when they brought up other issues here, only in cases of false equivalence. I see no reason to keep discussing what he was referring to because all of these issues (Gaza, ISIS, etc) fall under an umbrella of protecting, preserving, and enhancing lives, and whether Eddie vocalized it as that or not - I think it's pretty clear that that's what he's inherently in favour of.
By the way, fuck, I'm not singling you out, you just happened to have the most recent response on this topic on the thread.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I, personally, am anti-war. Whatever reasons are provided to me to be pro-war, I reject.
I hope the mods don't flag me for being "off-topic" or "combative".
Your statements are not off topic at all. This thread is surely at least partly about being anti-war- it's right in the thread title. I don't see any reason you should be flagged for being off topic. There are a few people (not mods) here who might tell you to not post here but the best thing to do is put them on ignore. Don't be censored by aggressive people!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,337
ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.
"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god.....!"
When Eddie made his preliminary MK anti war comments in 2 days before in Leeds, (listen to the boots....) he definitely wasn't singling anyone side out. It directed at everyone who thinks war is an acceptable answer, and the concept of war (shooting people and blowing shit up) as a way to solve issues. I take his statements not only to be about what was occurring in Gaza, but also in the Ukraine, AND about the 11 years wasted in Iraq and the 13+ years in Afghanistan.
Peace, man.
Again, if you want to talk about Ukraine, we can talk about it. But the conflict there does not fit the language Ed was using in his speech. Firstly, the Russians aren't crossing into territory and bombing people--it is a far more complicated situation that involved a referendum voting in favor of annexation and joining with Russia. It is a situation where people inside a country can't agree on a unified vision for the future of said country. Yes there is foreign involvement, but not a country invading another and forcibly taking its land without the support of the people there. Second, how do US tax dollars fund bombs being dropped on children in Ukraine? Even if one wants to make the case that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict, where does this sentiment which Ed expressed fit? I understand the point about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but I find it strange that he would deliver a speech so angrily years after US pulled out from there? I'd say it probably has something to do with what was the number one news story at the time--the massacre taking place in gaza, funded by US tax dollars.
I'm more than happy to take this anti-war message to talk about other conflicts. But I do maintain that Ed's comments were quite obviously about Gaza, and so long as others try to argue otherwise I will respond with my opinion
I personally think that it was about Gaza, I know that some people will not think it was about Gaza, but a much more important question is: does it matter? I don't recall anyone's voice being suppressed when they brought up other issues here, only in cases of false equivalence. I see no reason to keep discussing what he was referring to because all of these issues (Gaza, ISIS, etc) fall under an umbrella of protecting, preserving, and enhancing lives, and whether Eddie vocalized it as that or not - I think it's pretty clear that that's what he's inherently in favour of.
By the way, fuck, I'm not singling you out, you just happened to have the most recent response on this topic on the thread.
Thanks for your post. I think it does matter. Some people (not necessarily the ones I've been responding to on this page) have attempted to use the argument that he wasn't talking about Gaza to then use a very vague and undefined "anti-war" stance to falsely attribute moral equivalency in a conflict where one side is occupying and oppressing another. I think Eddie's speech very clearly shows an emphasis on one side that is taking over land that is not theirs, that is "looking for a reason to kill", that is dropping bombs on children with OUR tax dollars, thus forcing us to shoulder responsibility. I actually think that acknowledging this is what can help lead to activism to stop the massacre and the occupation. I think taking a principled stance on this is essential. I think Eddie did that, but as I've said before he somewhat backtracked with this latest statement which has allowed the apathetic to invade with their calls for nonaction (they even refuse to endorse nonviolent activism such as BDS), and their false statements blaming the victims for their death and oppression.
Generalizing allows these ideas to flourish. Of course one should assume we all begin from a standpoint looking for peace, but contextualization is what allows us to move forward. But many here insist on removing the responsibility the US and western countries have with regards to the Israeli persecution and murder of Palestinians by simply saying "all these conflicts exist and it's just so sad," rather than use Eddie's words as a call to action.
I actually think we're making some progress. Let me address a couple of things. Fuck, because I'm not responding to your posts point by point, it doesn't mean I'm not reading them. I've heard a lot of your points before, and when you start calling the stuff I post 'lies', it makes me less inclined to give what you post attention. But yeah, you've made some reasonable points. Israel needs to be moved to the left, and I'm not totally against BDS in some form. But BDS with supporting and encouraging Hamas is not acceptable. At the very least, someone looking for peace in Israel-Palestine needs to actively support the return of Fatah to power in addition to BDS.
And I don't accept that Israel is "just looking for a reason to kill." Absolutely not. That's people like ISIS. There's a difference.
ISIS cut a kid in half today in Iraq guys. Cut a kid in half.
"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"
-- Eddie Vedder
Seems to fit ISIS pretty well, doesn't it?
No not really. ISIS was actually homegrown, not really crossing into territory. Also you conveniently left out the part where he talked about our tax dollars funding bombs being dropped on children. Last I checked: the US wasn't funding ISIS, and ISIS was not conducting surgical strikes from above that resulting in hundreds of children being brutally murdered.
But let's continue to pretend otherwise.
On Friday fuck you wrote:
"No one is waging a war to make this about one topic. If some people decided to start a completely separate conversation about the Ukrainian situation, why would anyone complain about that? I still maintain that Eddie's initial comment at the show had to do with the number one news story in the world at the moment, namely Israel's assault on Gaza. Of course his words can be applied elsewhere too. That's the point of being a principled person - you maintain consistency on these issues, whenever you see parallels."
When someone does point out a parallel, it results in your response above. Apparently, if someone were to bring another conflict in and start a separate conversation, you personally would complain about it.
As for the parallel, the Yazidis trapped in those mountains may disagree that ISIS has not rolled over their borders. And now they are carrying American weapons confiscated from the Iraqi army. So, you may not want to see any parallels there, but that does not mean they are not there.
Again, waging a war to make this thread about a single conflict helps no one in Gaza or anywhere else. It is just arguing on the internet.
First of all, you are conflating two different things: I maintain that Ed's initial comments were about gaza and Israel. You claim otherwise. I don't understand why you seem to think that a disagreement on that point means I am trying to silence you.
Secondly, I merely pointed out that you made a false equivalency. ISIS unfortunately is a homegrown threat to the people of the region. They are certainly a threat, but in this case it is not the same as a settler colonial entity. The conflict involving them is not about people crossing into land that does not belong to them and establishing colonies, it is about intolerant people persecuting another. Of course there are parallels, but my point was that you were making a false one in this particular case. We can't act like ISIS and its supporters are from another part of the world terrorizing innocent villagers. There is a context to every situation that deserves a coherent analysis. I also find your point about them using American weapons taken from the Iraqi army an extremely weak one. The American imperial ambitions did contribute to the growth of ISIS, absolutely, but to say that our tax dollars directly are funding bombs being dropped on children in this case is a false analogy. I'm more than happy to talk about the situation in Iraq in this thread, but don't be surprised if I disagree with your analysis of it, as well as your using specific language by Ed that does not apply in this particular context.
A few things.
First, on Friday you claimed in so many words that no one would get upset if someone started a separate conversation about another conflict. On Sunday, you did exactly what you claimed no one would do. I wasn't "pretending" about anything at all. Dancinacrossthewater commented about a very real, very serious situation in Iraq. I quoted a section of Eddie's text that had relevance. As you later admitted, of course there were parallels. At no time and at no point did I claim that Eddie was speaking specifically, exclusively, or even directly about the situation in Iraq. But my point remains: those people in the mountains may seriously disagree with you that no one from the outside has crossed their borders to terrorize them. Again, no one was "pretending" anything.
Second, this statement, "I maintain that Ed's initial comments were about gaza and Israel. You claim otherwise" is incorrect. I don't claim otherwise that Eddie's initial speech at Milton Keynes was about Israel and Gaza. I claim that his words there were not exclusively about Israel and Gaza, and that when he mentioned crossing borders, he was not speaking exclusively about the Israelis. Of course some of that was inspired by Gaza. I have NEVER claimed otherwise.
Third, I don't disagree that the comparison between the confiscation of American arms and the direct supply of American arms was not a very good one. I concede that. However, that is not to say there are not innocents being killed in Iraq at this moment with American arms. If we are in agreement that the situation there is an unfolding tragedy and that it is worthy of discussion in this thread, that is good enough for me. I view that as progress.
Fourth, and maybe most importantly, I would ask you to do the following. Put aside everything you know to be happening in Gaza, as well as all the other arguments in this thread. Then look closely at the specific passage that I quoted:
"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"
I assure you, I was not pretending anything, nor was I conveniently leaving anything out. We shall still see how the ISIS situation unfolds but, to me, this particular passage spoke very well to what is happening in Iraq. Maybe we disagree, but I do stand by that.
Comments
In early 2014, Yair Lapid, Israel's finance minister, stated that Israel is approaching the same "tipping point" where South Africa found itself in opposition to the rest of the world in the dying days of apartheid.[8] In early 2014, Arutz Sheva reported that boycotts have cost Israel's agriculture sector approximately 100 million shekels ($30 million USD or €22 million) in the past year
Achievements
2009–2012
In March 2009, large scale student demonstrations were held at several UK Universities to protest Israel's actions in Gaza. At Cardiff University the protests led to the University divesting all investments in BAE Systems, an arms manufacturer that co-operates with Israel.[1] In May 2009, advertisements for tourism in Israel were removed from the London underground network in response to pressure from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.[1] In July 2009, Dexia, a Belgian-French financial group, stopped all financial services to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
A list of 2012 academic and cultural boycott successes has been compiled by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. In 2013, the Palestinian BDS National Committee published an interactive timeline listing some of the movement's key achievements.
In December 2012 the New Zealand Superannuation Fund excluded three Israeli companies from its portfolio because of their involvement in the construction of Israeli settlements and the Israeli West Bank barrier. The fund's manager for responsible investment stated that "Findings by the United Nations that the separation barrier and settlement activities were illegal under international law were central to the fund's decision to exclude the companies." The New Zealand Herald described "the fund's investments in the [Israeli] firms", which amounted to less than $83,000, as "insubstantial".
2013
As of 2013, Luxembourg's state pension fund has blacklisted eight Israeli firms along with US firm Motorola Solutions for assisting in human rights violations and illegal settlements in the State of Palestine.
In December 2013, Dutch water company Vitens severed ties with Israel pointing to alleged violations of international law while engineering company Royal HaskoningDHV cancelled work on a project in East Jerusalem stating "involvement in the project could be in violation of international law." Frans Timmermans, the Netherlands' Foreign minister, who visited Israel in December 2013, later stated economic activities in the occupied territories are opposed by the Government.
2014
In January 2014, the government of Norway announced that its pension fund will no longer invest in two Israeli companies (Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus) "due to [their] contribution to serious violations of individual rights in war or conflict through the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem".[27] Norway's YMCA-YWCA joined the boycott in 2014, announcing that it will support "[a] broad economic boycott of goods and services from Israel and Israeli settlements".
In January 2014, Danske Bank, which is the largest bank in Denmark, blacklisted Israel's largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, for "acting against the rules of international humanitarian law" due to its funding of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Previously, Danske Bank had withdrawn its investments from Africa Israel Investments Ltd. and Danya Cebus for the same reasons.
In April 2014, the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld a 2012 ruling, affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit against the Olympia Food Co-op for their 2011 decision to boycott Israeli products, mandating the plaintiffs pay $160,000 in statutory damages as well as other legal fees. In a press release, the Center for Constitutional Rights quoted one of the defendants and a Co-op staff member: "We are thrilled to hear that ... our right to freedom of speech has been upheld [..] Boycotts are a longstanding form of non-violent political expression; using the Court system to attempt to silence our right of expression clearly qualifies as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation."
In May 2014, co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates sold a large stake of his shares in G4S, a British security firm that operates in 125 countries, and has done business with Israel's prison system, security checkpoints, and military. Advocates of the BDS subsequently claimed that this Gates' decision was the result of "pressure on the Gates Foundation to divest from G4S". The Gates Foundation subsequently declined to comment on its reasons for the sale.
In June 2014, the Methodist Church's General Board of Pension and Health Benefits followed suit, selling its stock in G4S, which amounts to $110,000 in G4S shares.
In June 2014, following the publishing open letters to The Guardian and protests at its AGM meeting, Ashley Almanza, G4S' chief executive stated the company's remaining contracts with Israel's prison system will not be renewed once they have expired. Almanza defended the company's business dealings, stating G4S "[does] not operate prisons" but rather "suppl[ies] prisons with security equipment" designed to increase safety without compromising human rights. According to The Guardian, a 2013 independent human rights report found that G4S "had no causal or contributory role in human rights violations".
In July 2014, UK department store John Lewis removed all SodaStream products from all its shelves, amid growing pressure from the public and declining sales. John Lewis' Oxford Street, London, store has been the site of biweekly BDS protests for its sale of SodaStream products. SodaStream operates its primary manufacturing facility in an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. Additionally, after two years of weekly BDS protests, SodaStream closed its Brighton store in July 2014.
On 21 July 2014, the government of the Maldives announced the annulment of three bilateral trade agreements with Israel, and a government boycott of all Israeli goods. Mohamed Hussain Shareef, the minister at the President's Office, also announced that the government planned to ban the import of Israeli goods into the state.
A campaign that is gathering weight
Israel’s politicians sound rattled by the campaign to isolate their country
Feb 8th 2014
ONCE derided as the scheming of crackpots, the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, widely known as BDS, is turning mainstream. That, at any rate, is the fear of a growing number of Israelis. Some European pension funds have withdrawn investments; some large corporations have cancelled contracts; and the American secretary of state, John Kerry, rarely misses a chance to warn Israel that efforts to “delegitimise” and boycott it will increase if its government spurns his efforts to conclude a two-state settlement of its conflict with the Palestinians. Israel, says Yair Lapid, Israel’s finance minister, is approaching the same “tipping point” where South Africa found itself in opposition to the rest of the world in the dying days of apartheid. “Let’s not kid ourselves,” he told a conference of security boffins recently in Tel Aviv. “The world listens to us less and less.”
BDS has begun to grab the attention of some of the world’s largest financial institutions. PGGM, a big Dutch pension fund, has liquidated its holdings in five Israeli banks (though the Netherlands’ largest has affirmed its investments). Norway’s finance ministry has announced that it is excluding Africa Israel Investments and its subsidiary, Danya Cebus, a big building firm, from a government pension fund.
The campaign is drawing support from beyond northern Europe. Romania has forbidden its citizens from working for companies in the West Bank. More churches are backing BDS. An American academic association is boycotting Israeli lecturers. The debate turned viral after Scarlett Johansson, a Hollywood actor, quit her role as ambassador for Oxfam, a charity based in Britain, in order to keep her advertising contract with SodaStream, an Israeli drinks firm with a plant on the West Bank.
Mr Lapid, who favours a two-state solution, reels out figures to show how sanctions could hit every Israeli pocket. “If negotiations with the Palestinians stall or blow up and we enter the reality of a European boycott, even a very partial one,” he warned, 10,000 Israelis would “immediately” lose their jobs. Trade with the European Union, a third of Israel’s total, would slump—he calculates—by $5.7 billion.
Anxious to hold on to their markets, Israel’s businessmen are increasingly backing the peace camp. The names on a recent advertising campaign in its favour included such luminaries as the head of Google in Israel. Hitherto they had usually preferred to stay out of politics.
Israel’s government is divided over how to react to the BDS campaign. The finance ministry has temporarily shelved a report it said it would publish on the possible consequences of BDS. But Israel’s press and ministerial addresses are increasingly full of worried references to it.
Some Israelis argue that this publicity merely feeds the BDS campaign, others that isolation has benefits. Israel’s position as a hotbed of hi-tech start-ups is due in part to decades of circumventing Arab boycotts. A French arms ban in the 1960s sparked the development of its weapons industry, helping to catapult Israel into fourth place in the world’s league of arms exporters. And if the West turns its back on Israel, there is, they say, the east. Relations with India have warmed of late, and those with China are getting closer. The economy minister, Naftali Bennett, a sceptic of the peace process, recently toured the Far East, saying he was bringing a “light to the gentiles” by way of Israeli business. But Mr Bennett is in a minority on BDS: his colleagues are a lot less sanguine.
Absolutely nothing.
-- Eddie Vedder
Seems to fit ISIS pretty well, doesn't it?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I hope the mods don't flag me for being "off-topic" or "combative".
But let's continue to pretend otherwise.
"No one is waging a war to make this about one topic. If some people decided to start a completely separate conversation about the Ukrainian situation, why would anyone complain about that? I still maintain that Eddie's initial comment at the show had to do with the number one news story in the world at the moment, namely Israel's assault on Gaza. Of course his words can be applied elsewhere too. That's the point of being a principled person - you maintain consistency on these issues, whenever you see parallels."
When someone does point out a parallel, it results in your response above. Apparently, if someone were to bring another conflict in and start a separate conversation, you personally would complain about it.
As for the parallel, the Yazidis trapped in those mountains may disagree that ISIS has not rolled over their borders. And now they are carrying American weapons confiscated from the Iraqi army. So, you may not want to see any parallels there, but that does not mean they are not there.
Again, waging a war to make this thread about a single conflict helps no one in Gaza or anywhere else. It is just arguing on the internet.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Very good point. The conflict in Iraq very much belongs in this thread.
Secondly, I merely pointed out that you made a false equivalency. ISIS unfortunately is a homegrown threat to the people of the region. They are certainly a threat, but in this case it is not the same as a settler colonial entity. The conflict involving them is not about people crossing into land that does not belong to them and establishing colonies, it is about intolerant people persecuting another. Of course there are parallels, but my point was that you were making a false one in this particular case. We can't act like ISIS and its supporters are from another part of the world terrorizing innocent villagers. There is a context to every situation that deserves a coherent analysis.
I also find your point about them using American weapons taken from the Iraqi army an extremely weak one. The American imperial ambitions did contribute to the growth of ISIS, absolutely, but to say that our tax dollars directly are funding bombs being dropped on children in this case is a false analogy. I'm more than happy to talk about the situation in Iraq in this thread, but don't be surprised if I disagree with your analysis of it, as well as your using specific language by Ed that does not apply in this particular context.
I take his statements not only to be about what was occurring in Gaza, but also in the Ukraine, AND about the 11 years wasted in Iraq and the 13+ years in Afghanistan, but they could conceivably mean any conflict back to the start of time.
making what he said into just the war that's happening is missing the point.
Peace, man.
I'm more than happy to take this anti-war message to talk about other conflicts. But I do maintain that Ed's comments were quite obviously about Gaza, and so long as others try to argue otherwise I will respond with my opinion
By the way, fuck, I'm not singling you out, you just happened to have the most recent response on this topic on the thread.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Generalizing allows these ideas to flourish. Of course one should assume we all begin from a standpoint looking for peace, but contextualization is what allows us to move forward. But many here insist on removing the responsibility the US and western countries have with regards to the Israeli persecution and murder of Palestinians by simply saying "all these conflicts exist and it's just so sad," rather than use Eddie's words as a call to action.
And I don't accept that Israel is "just looking for a reason to kill." Absolutely not. That's people like ISIS. There's a difference.
First, on Friday you claimed in so many words that no one would get upset if someone started a separate conversation about another conflict. On Sunday, you did exactly what you claimed no one would do. I wasn't "pretending" about anything at all. Dancinacrossthewater commented about a very real, very serious situation in Iraq. I quoted a section of Eddie's text that had relevance. As you later admitted, of course there were parallels. At no time and at no point did I claim that Eddie was speaking specifically, exclusively, or even directly about the situation in Iraq. But my point remains: those people in the mountains may seriously disagree with you that no one from the outside has crossed their borders to terrorize them. Again, no one was "pretending" anything.
Second, this statement, "I maintain that Ed's initial comments were about gaza and Israel. You claim otherwise" is incorrect. I don't claim otherwise that Eddie's initial speech at Milton Keynes was about Israel and Gaza. I claim that his words there were not exclusively about Israel and Gaza, and that when he mentioned crossing borders, he was not speaking exclusively about the Israelis. Of course some of that was inspired by Gaza. I have NEVER claimed otherwise.
Third, I don't disagree that the comparison between the confiscation of American arms and the direct supply of American arms was not a very good one. I concede that. However, that is not to say there are not innocents being killed in Iraq at this moment with American arms. If we are in agreement that the situation there is an unfolding tragedy and that it is worthy of discussion in this thread, that is good enough for me. I view that as progress.
Fourth, and maybe most importantly, I would ask you to do the following. Put aside everything you know to be happening in Gaza, as well as all the other arguments in this thread. Then look closely at the specific passage that I quoted:
"And I get if war is the last resort. If they’re coming on your soil, I get it. I get it. You don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking god, there are some people out there who are looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to come across borders and take over land that doesn’t belong to them, and they should get the fuck out and mind their own fucking business!"
I assure you, I was not pretending anything, nor was I conveniently leaving anything out. We shall still see how the ISIS situation unfolds but, to me, this particular passage spoke very well to what is happening in Iraq. Maybe we disagree, but I do stand by that.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."