Hear the fans - Bring Pearl Jam To Israel

How's this for being threatened with being wiped off the face of the Earth?


"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

mattsl1983 said:

Byrnzie, your one way of thinking is why there will never be peace. People like you that will search and search for any means to justify the actions of the Palastinians are why there will never be peace. Everything on the internet is true right? Either open your eyes or live in ignorance. I'm guessing you will pick the latter and stick with it. Keep fighting your good fight. I really hope Pearl Jam plays Israel, and you stick by your guns, denounce them for their injustice of playing in Israel, and go become a groupie for Nickleback. It's a pointless conversation when one side always plays the victim. Good job. Oh, and you might as well burn your Beatles records, Paul played there (even received death threats from Palastinians, which shows so much class Palastinians have), stop listening to TOTD, and Soundgarden. Yup, that's right Cornell has played there a couple of times. As have many artists. Pixies boycotted in 2010, but are playing this year. Wonder why they changed their tune? Hmm. Probably because when people actually look at real history, playing for the Israels, well it's just not a bad thing to do. Now go ahead, type up your long rebutle, google the shit out of things till you find something that is biased, post your links. Continue to make your case and keep changing peoples minds. I'm out of this thread, it was entertaining at first, but then the same old shit is just getting regurgitated.

Don't slam the door on your way out.

And if you can ever manage to explain what 'real history' you're referring to, pop back in and let me know all about it.

Bye bye.

rr165892 said:

STFU and lets rock !!!!

Pearl Jam were never a band that subscribed to the 'Shut The Fuck Up and let's rock' philosophy. Unfortunately for the people who support this thread, Eddie Vedder is not a moron without a political conscience.

PhillyCrownOfThorns said:

I am planning my 14 year old daughter's trip to that "dangerous" place called Israel. There, she will learn, 1ST HAND, about the conflicts surrounding the state of Israel from all borders in all its complexity and beauty. Not from a textbook. Not through Google. She will honor her ancestors at Yad Vashem and Mount Herzel. She will sit atop the Golan. She will see the demilitarized zone along the boarder of Lebanon. She will stand in Sderot, 1/2 a mile away from Gaza City. It is a slanted view from a specific perspective. But hopefully, she will reach her own conclusions in time with her own experiences.

Are you going to teach your daughter how the Golan was stolen from the Palestinians during the 1967 war of aggression waged by Israel, and how the settlements there are illegal under international law? Or will you let her 'reach her own conclusions' about that?

PhillyCrownOfThorns said:

What do we do next… More of the same? Rehash history and point fingers.

...Or protect the land and all people from all borders and beyond.

You could begin by ending the illegal occupation and by evacuating the settlements, in accordance with international law, and in accordance with the will of the whole of the international community.

PhillyCrownOfThorns said:

Egypt sets up blockade in the sea. Diplomacy fails. War.

Don't know if Israel started it, but they certainly ended it.

And round and round we go…

Israel threatens to attack Syria. Egypt sets up blockade in the sea. Diplomacy fails. Why? Here's why:

Norman Finkelstein - 'Knowing Too Much: Why The American Jewish Romance With Israel is Coming To An End'

P.167: Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to Israeli vessels and foreign vessels carrying "strategic" cargo to the Israeli port city of Eilat [....] In reality just five percent of Israel's trade passed through Eilat; the only significant commodity possibly affected by a blockade was oil, which could have been rerouted to the ports of Haifa or Ashdod, and anyhow Israel held in reserve an ample supply of oil carrying it over for many months to come.
[Michael] Oren [Israeli Ambassador to the U.S & Israeli historian] reports in profuse detail on the "frightful" news that Egypt had mined the Straits and otherwise forcibly implemented the blockade, only to note in passing that "the waterway remained mine-free." In fact Israel already knew, right as Nasser declared the blockade, that he would allow ships escorted by the U.S to go through, and after a few days vessels using the Straits passed freely without even being searched: Nasser had quietly lifted the blockade.

Notes: Gluska, 'Israeli Military' p.137, 155. Rabin was privy to "top secret" information that "the Egyptians had already decided that ships under American escort would not be stopped," while Eban speculated that Nasser "has not decided to disrupt shipping," but rather "decided to be in a position where he can brandish this sword" at his whim.
Oren also contends that in 1957 Israel had won "international recognition of it's right to act in self-defence if the Straits were ever blockaded," and that the U.S "pledged" to "regard any Egyptian attempt to revive the Tiran blockade as an act of war to which Israel could respond in self-defence" ('Six Days' PP.81, 12). Although Israel did obtain from the U.S and other maritime states support for it's right of "free and innocent" passage in the Straits, Washington still stipulated that "any recurrence of hostilities or any violation by any party" be referred back to the United Nations. U.S officials and legal scholars as well as U.N secretaries-general Hammarskjold and U Thant all conceded it was a "complicated" jurisdictional dispute.


P.168: Reaching Cairo right after the blockade was announced, U Thant [U.N Secretary General] elicited a "very significant" (his words) assent from Nasser to a new diplomatic initiative: the appointment of a special U.N representative to mediate the crises, and a two-week moratorium on all provocations in the Straits [of Tiran]. Israel rejected both of U Thant's proposals.

Even 'Middle East Record', a semi-official Israeli compilation, observed after the June war that 'a number of facts seem to indicate Abdel Nasser's belief in the possibility of terminating...the conflict through diplomacy." It pointed in particular to the Egyptian President's "suggestion" that the International Court of Justice arbitrate the Strait's dispute, his purposeful "vagueness" on the blockades enforcement, and his "willingness" to revive EIMAC [Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission]. "Up to the outbreak of the war," [Zeev] Maoz [Israeli strategic analyst] concludes, "Nasser was interested in finding a ladder to climb down from the tall tree he found himself on."

Nasser agreed to send his vice-President to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement. Just two days before the Egyptian's scheduled arrival, however, Israel attacked.


P. 205: [At the] U.N General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session after the June war [...] the only country in the World that maintained Israel had acted in self-defense against Egyptian aggression was Israel.

[Regardless], Prior to as well as immediately after the June 1967 war leading authorities in international law rejected the proposition that a state can acquire legal title to territory in a war of self-defence:

Ian Brownlie (1963) - "lawful belligerents should not be permitted to act ultra vires [i.e, beyond their power] by acquiring territory as a result of a lawful war"
R.Y Jennings (1963) - "the suggestion that the state that does not resort to force unlawfully, e.g., resorts to war in self-defence, may still acquire a title by conquest...is to be regarded with some suspicion. It seems to be based upon a curious assumption that provided a war is lawful in origin, it goes on being lawful to whatever lengths it may afterwards be pursued...Force used in self-defence...is undoubtedly lawful. But it must be proportionate to the threat of immediate danger, and when the threat has been averted the plea of self-defence can no longer be available...It would be a curious law of self-defence that permitted the defender in the course of his defence to seize and keep the resources and territory of the attacker".