Hear the fans - Bring Pearl Jam To Israel

rr165892 said:

So,what do you want.All your land back???We both know that they Israelies will not give everything back.At best a halt to further expansion would be your best outcome.When that does happen(I agree the government presently in power is not making that any easier)Will the Palestinian side look at that as a step toward peace? Will the PLO,Hammas,Hezbollah and all others fighting for independent statehood lay down their arms and cease all terror against civilians if The settlement expansion stops?Or as in the past,in fighting on the Palestinian side with the hard line lead to nothing more then a false hope.Will they want not only a stop to the settlements but for Israelies to get up and leave to the 67 lines and nothing short of that will be expectable?I would think a best case scenario to start would be to stop expansion,Stop violence and work toward a more civil moderate peace agreement that allows for the building of a Palestinian state in a more advance able environment while at the same time a denouncement and cessation of violence be immediately implemented.If all those hotheads over there could do that then maybe a PJ concert could be enjoyed by all sometime before Vedder needs a walker.

No one is asking for all the land back. We have repeatedly called for Israel to respect the 1967 borders recognized by the majority of the world. If you're calling for no further expansion the best Palestinians can hope for, you are not fully understanding the depths of the occupation. Gaza is completely surrounded and under Israeli control. The West Bank is completely fragmented by settlements, outposts, and jewish only roads.
How can any country be self sustaining with a map that looks like this? :


OF COURSE there will be factions on both sides that will never be happy with any resolution. Hardline Israelis would resist evacuation claiming an ordained right to the land. And hardline palestinians would insist that all the land should be theirs. Both sides would be attacked, and would have to find ways to assist the other in prosecuting the extremists and eliminating indiscriminate reprisals. Indiscriminate rocket attacks and suicide bombings from the Palestinian side would have to be prosecuted. And Israeli blockades and military actions on Palestinian land would have to end... land theft and settler Israeli violence against Palestinians would have to be prosecuted.
But saying that a halt to the settlements is the best Palestine can hope for is accepting that Palestine does not have the right to self determination.

BS44325 said:

The logic is that Pearl Jam disagrees with boycotts of artists who choose to speak their mind. They may or may not support the state of Israel but if they agreed with you and Roger Waters they would certainly say so.

You keep shifting the goal posts with this argument. The Dixie Chicks were being unofficially boycotted by radio stations in the South for speaking out AGAINST war. PJ obviously would not have a favourable opinion of that turn of events. But we're not talking about radio stations boycotting artists. We're talking about artists boycotting a nation. You then made this about our reaction to a fictitious PJ show in Israel....and we said we would stop supporting PJ. At which point you try to speculate that PJ would not support it's fans boycotting them (duh)...and I guess the conclusion to this circular round of conjecture somehow becomes 'PJ does not support boycotts'. alrighty then.
If you think everyone who supports BDS is willing to do so publicly, you're really underestimating the power of the Israel lobby in north america. Some people aren't willing to be tarred as anti-semites by speaking out. It's a shame because most people see thru that shit these days.
I'd also like to add that just because a band or artist has performed in Israel in the past, it doen'st mean they were educated on the topic at the time, that they have a moral conscience that has ok'd the decision, or that they haven't changed their minds about playing there again.

BS44325 said:

Canada isn't, Australia isn't, United States isn't. Pearl Jam has played a few of those places recently.

We're not denying the US isn't - they're ones allowing this to continue with their veto on the UNSC.
I don't have time at the moment to look up australia's official policy on the conflict, but I know Canada's....it is bullshit lip service, but you're wrong that Canada's official policy is not opposed to the occupation, settlements, and ethnic cleansing.

From the Canadian government website:
Canada believes that a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue is central to a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as called for in United Nations General Assembly resolution 194 (1948) and United Nations Security Council resolution 242.

Occupied Territories and Settlements
Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

BS44325 said:

No...it's an opinion. Respond all you want. Enter a bunch of hyperlinks. Post some youtube videos. It is well within your right to do so but just know that it ultimately harms your cause. For no negotiation, compromise, or ultimate realization of a two-state solution can ever be achieved with an individual who throws around a word like "Apartheid" so easily.

So he backs up his positions with facts and examples as proof....And you come back with 'providing proof only hurts your cause'? )
I get it....it's the word 'apartheid' that is preventing peace. Anyone who uses it is an extremist and won't negotiate, compromise, or accept a two state solution. Despite the fact that that is what we have continually called for in this thread - withdrawal to the 1967 lines; the two state solution Israel is preventing from occuring. I get the impression that you're not really sure what you're trying to say here.

mattsl1983 said:

Some of you guys/gals here are so silly. Does anyone here remember all that peace that happened when Israel left Gaza in 2005?

I suppose this is a vague attempt to cast blame on Gazans for any violence that occurred during that point in time, without actually citing any examples or any insight as to wtf you're talking about?
Ah, the benevolence of those generous Israeli's, withdrawing illegal settlers....and exerting a crippling blockade. A concession, yes. But a full naval, air, and land blockade is hardly giving up control of a region, don't you agree? Israel's current leader resigned from his post in protest of the 'disengagement' of Gaza, btw. Sounds like he is really supportive of peace, right?

PhillyCrownOfThorns said:

PhillyCrownOfThorns said:

And lastly, I do find it funny when the most vocal anti-Israel people on this board have never set foot in either Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza. Byrnzie and DrownedOut are 2…

Real Life experiences will always bring perspective. I suggest you go take a look with your own eyes! You are entitled to your opinions, but you are no less a propagandist than the other side!

I left this board for a couple of days to enjoy some real-life experiences only to find this thread blew up as expected. I will quote myself from page 3 (is that legal?)…

Did I just read that Israel is a dangerous place? Really? Why?

I always love the long quotes and Wiki speeches from Byrzie… That "dude" is a machine!

Took some time off to regroup and come back with another lame personal shot, eh?

I always love PCoT's short retorts and drive-by justifications for crimes against humanity....'dude' is a machine.
wow, this is fun!
L-)

mattsl1983 said:

And again Drowned out, you take no blame. Israel left Gaza in 2005. What happened? Palastine allowed Hamas to come in, organize, run to the boarder and start launching rockets. Those peaceful guys right? "Give us back the land!" "Now we shoot rockets at you!"

I provided a detailed analysis of rocket attacks from Gaza since the supposed disengagement, did you bother to read it? I highly doubt it. Israel left Gaza, but maintained full military control of the region via the blockade. Would this be acceptable to you if you were under control of a foreign military? "We'll get out of your house, but we'll stand at the end of the road and tell you when you can come and go, and what can enter or leave your neighbourhood"....? The blockade has caused starvation, a water crisis, the highest poverty rate in the middle east, and dismal prospects for education and healthcare. And you wonder why Gazans won't just accept this fate?
I denounced terrorism earlier in the thread....and in the very post you are replying to, I stated that "Indiscriminate rocket attacks and suicide bombings from the Palestinian side would have to be prosecuted". (instead of the current method of retaliation - collective punishment of a million + people via blockade and military violence).....How is that not 'taking blame'?

mattsl1983 said:

The issue isn't land, the issue is Arabs despise that the Jewish have a country, let alone in the Middle East. Keep blaming the Jews, but I'd take a real hard look at the racehorse you are backing. It's funny, The Palastinians always have a reason for violence, and never did/do anything wrong.

Back and forth we go. Matt will you take a stab at the choices for conflict resolution I keep talking about? Do you support continuation of the occupation, the one state solution, or a two state solution? Try to support your position with details on how it will be achieved - something more than 'Palestinians are terrorists'.

I never once labeled Palastinians terrorist. No, I did not read any little hyperlink you may have posted. I'm sure it is completely non biased and written as an outsiders opinion. Palastinians supporters will use any reason to justify their violent actions. Before a two state solution can be reached, the violence will have to stop, from both the Israelis and the Palastinians. When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, that showed that they are willing to work for peace. The resulting actions by the Palastinians was not one of peace. Palastinians need to realize in order for Israel to fully pullout in the future it is going to have to be baby steps and built off trust. Israel is not going to pull completely out all at once. Can you imagine how different things would be right now if the Palastinians had worked for further peaceful resolutions from 2005 towards today, instead of yet again coming up with another reason to launch rockets into Israel? I just have a hard time taking their side. You can take whatever side you want, I can respect that, but just don't sit there reading propaganda that makes you think Palastinians are just so peaceful and innocent and bringing up your points in a post that is for Pearl jam to play Israel. It's just in bad taste, and makes your cause seem a bit annoying. I hope they do play Israel one day.

Drowned Out said:

I don't have time at the moment to look up australia's official policy on the conflict, but I know Canada's....it is bullshit lip service, but you're wrong that Canada's official policy is not opposed to the occupation, settlements, and ethnic cleansing.

Here's Canada's current policy on Israel from Prime Minister Harper's 2014 speech to the Israeli Knesset. If you can stomach it you should really watch the whole thing. It is a little more then "bullshit lip service". His portion on the term apartheid is at the 15 minute mark. The Palestinian members of the Knesset weren't to thrilled and interrupted the speech. I'm pretty sure neither of them were put in prison after either.

http://youtu.be/-ZmbQG0I5lo

You guys realize that arguing on a forum page is like running a race in the Special Olympics, right? You may win the argument, but you're still "intellectually challenged"