General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[mortimer]

that was my assumption, and it cannot be proved.......for now.

but we can all assume that these severe sanctions will at least include heavy fines and/or suspension of licenses and permits.

...or do you think it will simply be a judge calling someone a "naughty...naughty boy"?

It may not even involve a judge. Free speech has a price; those you speak out against can sanction you.

...and btw, LOOK who just shifted the goalposts:

Originally Posted by mortimer [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
So Israel would be able to place sanctions on those companies/organizations that boycott Israel. It says nothing about making *anything* illegal.

Um, what? It seems you understand the meaning of "shifting the goalposts" about as well as you understand "strawman". Feel free to explain how I shifted the goalposts.

 

[Thunder]

It may not even involve a judge. Free speech has a price; those you speak out against can sanction you.

criminalizing speech that is not violent or helps the enemy, is not something a western-style democracy would do.

Um, what? It seems you understand the meaning of "shifting the goalposts" about as well as you understand "strawman". Feel free to explain how I shifted the goalposts.

do you still want me to prove to you that threatening heavy sanctions against against a certain behavior, makes such behavior illegal?

no? thought not.

 

[mortimer]

criminalizing speech that is not violent or helps the enemy, is not something a western-style democracy would do.

You have not yet shown that any speech would be criminalized under this proposed law.

do you still want me to prove to you that threatening heavy sanctions against against a certain behavior, makes such behavior illegal?

no? thought not.

Yes. Please take your best shot.

 

[Thunder]

You have not yet shown that any speech would be criminalized under this proposed law.

making it illegal for someone to refuse to work with a business in the West Bank? that's certainly cracking down on the freedom to choose who you do business with. yes, a slight moving of the goalposts..but its making my claim more precise.

Yes. Please take your best shot.

shall I then prove that the sky is blue...and oxygen has no odor?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

why do you hate arabs so much?

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 12.

Facts don't hate, they simply exist. The historical ties between the Third Reich and what became modern radical islam are well known.

 

[bikerdruid]

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 12.

Facts don't hate, they simply exist. The historical ties between the Third Reich and what became modern radical islam are well known.

i'll ask again.....
why do you hate arabs so much?
we are not dicsussing facts....just hatred.
you are not a fact...only humans can hate.

 

[mortimer]

making it illegal for someone to refuse to work with a business in the West Bank? that's certainly cracking down on the freedom to choose who you do business with. yes, a slight moving of the goalposts..but its making my claim more precise.



shall I then prove that the sky is blue...and oxygen has no odor?

You still haven't shown the bill would make anything illegal. Sanctions <> illegal.

 

[Thunder]

You still haven't shown the bill would make anything illegal. Sanctions <> illegal.

please give me an example of an act that a government can impose heavy sanctions upon, that is NOT illegal.

don't worry, take all week.

legal= follows the law.

illegal= breaks a law or is against the law.

..just wanted to point that out for ya.

 

[Thunder]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...lion-more-in-security-aid-barak-says-1.347866

Israel may ask the USA for $20 billion more in aid.

Defense Minister tells Wall Street Journal that Israel must be on guard considering the unrest sweeping the Arab world, adding increased aid could help make Israel a 'stabilizer in such a turbulent region'.

My professional response to such a request? **** you.

 

[Cobalt]

My professional response to such a request? **** you.

Uh. Why?

 

[mortimer]

please give me an example of an act that a government can impose heavy sanctions upon, that is NOT illegal.

don't worry, take all week.

The US and Japan imposed sanctions against India for their nuclear weapons test in 1998.

That was too easy.

legal= follows the law.

illegal= breaks a law or is against the law.

..just wanted to point that out for ya.

And again, you are conflating sanctions with illegality. They are not the same.

 

[Thunder]

The US and Japan imposed sanctions against India for their nuclear weapons test in 1998.

That was too easy.

And again, you are conflating sanctions with illegality. They are not the same.

err......very pathetic comparison.

we are talking about laws passed by a national government upon its people. if a citizen violates such law, penalties shall be imposed. or in other words...."if you break the law, you shall face a penalty".

got it? I thought not.




..honestly, I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...or in other words "trolling".

 

[IDB87]

err......very pathetic comparison.

we are talking about laws passed by a national government upon its people. if a citizen violates such law, penalties shall be imposed. or in other words...."if you break the law, you shall face a penalty".

got it? I thought not.

This law does not impact the individual at all.

Read the article,

Proposed legislation would place sanctions on bodies that advocate boycotting Israel; rights groups say bill limits freedom of expression.

But last week, the bill’s sponsors agreed to a revised version that defines boycott as “an intentional avoidance of economic, cultural or academic relations with a person or another agent, solely because of their ties to the State of Israel, its institutions or areas under its control.”

Left-wing MKs argue that the definition of boycott is too vague and thus could limit citizens’ freedom of expression, while the bill’s sponsors emphasized that such legislation already exists in the United States, punishing companies that support boycotts of Israel.

So, Human Rights groups were worried the definition of boycott in the proposed bill would impact the individual who would oppose buying oranges from settlers. This definition was defined to the above, which appeased the opposition.

What's the deal now?

An example:

A private company in Israel that produces oranges proposes a boycott on oranges grown in the West Bank by Israeli settlers, because they are Israeli settlers = Illegal under this legislation.

 

[Thunder]

A private company in Israel that produces oranges proposes a boycott on oranges grown in the West Bank by Israeli settlers, because they are Israeli settlers = Illegal under this legislation.

thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[IDB87]

thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But it does not have any relevance to anything you were saying.

In fact, it says the complete opposite.

 

[Thunder]

But it does not have any relevance to anything you were saying.

In fact, it says the complete opposite.

thank you for agreeing with me that this will be a law, and to violate it would be illegal...as in breaking the law.

and btw, if a supermarket decides to boycott produce from the West Bank, who do you think will get the fine? the owner of the supermarket..no doubt.

 

[mortimer]

err......very pathetic comparison.

we are talking about laws passed by a national government upon its people. if a citizen violates such law, penalties shall be imposed. or in other words...."if you break the law, you shall face a penalty".

got it? I thought not.




..honestly, I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...or in other words "trolling".

*This* is called moving the goalposts. I wasn't making a comparison in any way, but providing an example that you requested.

 

[IDB87]

thank you for agreeing with me that this will be a law, and to violate it would be illegal...as in breaking the law.

It's quite clearly discrimination to boycott goods produced by Israelis simply because they are Israeli.

If you have a problem with this, then I can't help you.

Perhaps your time would be better spent contacting the opposition to this bill who agreed to the revised definition that did not impact the individual?

and btw, if a supermarket decides to boycott produce from the West Bank, who do you think will get the fine? the owner of the supermarket..no doubt.

Depends on how that company is owned. It may fall to a board, investors, etc. Not necessarily the individual manager of the store.

 

[IDB87]

*This* is called moving the goalposts. I wasn't making a comparison in any way, but providing an example that you requested.

Apparently having a state impose sanctions on bodies that would boycott Israeli goods simply because they are Israeli isn't OK.

Discrimination is good for business, after all.

 

[Thunder]

It's quite clearly discrimination to boycott goods produced by Israelis simply because they are Israeli.

you must be reading a different article then I am.

the article that I posted, says that a new law may be passed that makes it illegal to boycott goods, companies, agencies, schools, etc...due to them existing within a certain part of Israel.

it says nothing about "boycotting Israeli goods simply because they are made by Israelis".

try again. or don't.

its your choice.



....btw, the West Bank is NOT part of Israel. It has not been annexed and is still under Israeli military administration. Israeli civilian law does not govern the Israeli settlements, and Israeli settlers go to military and NOT civilian courts, then they commit crimes.

so even if this stupid law is passed, an Israeli could still boycott products or institutions in the WB, and have a damn good defense in court to justify it.