How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by Science Fan »

On social media, we get to encounter all sorts of lies against countries like Israel, and calls for boycotts against Israel, despite Israel being the only safe-haven for atheists, gays, Christians, Jews, secular-minded Muslims, Arab Druze, etc., in the Middle East. So, in order to reveal the hypocrisy of the people who dehumanize Israeli Jews, and use lies against Israel to promote anti-Semitism globally, I would like to point out how we could even make a better case against New Zealand than Israel, as far as boycotts go.

In New Zealand, the native Maori make up roughly 15% of the country's population, but also make up more than half of its prison population. Not too long ago, New Zealand scientists promoted racism against the Maori as a "justification" for the imprisonment of the Maori. They actually claimed that the Maori had a "warrior gene," and that's why they were so likely to be violent, and needed to be locked away in prison cells. The fact they have been discriminated against, have had their land taken from them, supposedly has nothing to do with their poverty and anger, it's all due to a "warrior gene," so racist New Zealand scientists told the world.

Now, we know for a fact of genetics that there is no such thing as a "warrior gene." That's an idea long since discredited, involving genetic determinism. Instead, what we know is that almost any trait affected by genes are influenced by hundreds of genes, each having a little impact, and the impact is dependent on environmental factors as well. So, nope, it would be impossible for New Zealander scientists to have identified any "warrior gene." This is simply institutionalized racism to "justify" other institutionalized racism against the Maori.

So, why aren't all the social justice warriors demanding a boycott, especially a boycott against New Zealand academics who falsified science to justify racism? How come there isn't a demand for boycotts against New Zealand until New Zealand starts treating the Maori, the native people of New Zealand, with equal treatment? How come the Maori, who are actually discriminated against, are worth less than the Palestinians who face discrimination by their own governments, and not by any outsiders?

Just because New Zealand is not a Jewish country, that should not give the racists in New Zealand a free-pass, should it? Of course, it does. The thing is any argument one can make against Israel, or even the USA, is most likely an argument that can be made against anyone's nation. There are no perfect nations. The people who spend 24/7 dehumanizing Israel, need to stop being hypocrites. Or, at least, spend some time boycotting New Zealand while they're at it.

Just imagine what the uproar would be if Israeli scientists claimed that there was a "Palestinian Arab terrorist gene," which was why it was justified in attacking Palestinians? The world would have come unglued, and we would never hear the end of it. Yet, racism in New Zealand Is so common against the Maori that New Zealand scientists actually thought nothing of claiming there was a "warrior gene." Imagine the rampant bigotry that has to exist in New Zealand for such a farce to take place? So, the world's hypocrisy is duly noted. You'll excuse the rampant racism in New Zealand, while fabricating stories against Israeli Jews.
wtf
Posts: 974
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by wtf »

I don't think the average American gives New Zealand much thought. And if they do, they think it's Australia.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by Science Fan »

WTF: True. The average American spends maybe two seconds in two decades thinking about New Zealand, but the point I was making was that why the obsession with Israel, when we could make very similar arguments against any country? Why does a country like New Zealand, which has a nasty history of taking land from a native population and subjecting them to discrimination, to this day, get a free-pass, while Israel gets demonized 24/7 on virtually all social media sites?

In fact, when I debate anti-Semites, they seldom tell me which country they are from, because they know damn well the same arguments they make against Israel can easily be applied to their own nation.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2536
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

I'm sorry, are you equating the very existence of this guy with such trivial things as the fact that a recent Israeli prime minister was also the guy who stood back and allowed (allegedly more than that) the massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila? He was also in charge of an Israeli unit tasked with civilian reprisals against Palestinians including one incident where he dynamited a village with all the women and children still in the houses.

There is no other democracy where somebody with Ariel Sharon's brutal history could win an election to become prime minister. There's few where he could have escaped prison.

The fact that a scientist presented a paper in which he elevated a genetic marker to having a "rather small effect" where others would say it it has none or is negligible compares with that?

That compares to disenfranchising a whole population who inherited from their grandparents a guarantee of never having the self determination or civil rights that you take for granted in your life and would never consider trading? You've concocted an embarrassing false equivalence unless I missed something about Maoris being stripped of the legal citizenship and herded into camps because of it. Did I miss that?

I'm from Britain for what it's worth. but I'm not anti semitic just because I don't think Israel should do some of the things they have, any more than I am anti white if I criticise apartheid.

Being a dirty Brit, I am well aware that in the past we treated the Irish much the way that Israel today treats Palestinians. That was a poor choice with long term regrettable effects to accompany all the immediate suffering we caused them. In fact we sort of set the Palestinians up to get treated this way, which was another mishandled situation. We pretty much set up the Maoris as well while we are on the subject, which as you have noted has not worked out well. And in the past we have massacred Jews, and kicked them out of the country for a few centuries which was just as bad as all the other stuff we did.

In all honesty, you are conversing with one of that special nation of people which has collected more or less the full set. We have fucked over people in more places than any other bunch of bastards in history. We set a record that America could never hope to match unless that fat wanker you have for a president actually blows up the world. In which case it would be a tie.

In 1905 we even led the world in creating the first great punitive immigration laws mostly to cut off an influx of East European Jews fleeing persecution. That particular ignoble choice probably ultimately assisted all sorts of bad 20th Century stuff. We made it harder for Jews to get out of places that were mean to them, and ultimately more of them were diverted to Germany, Poland, Hungary and Israel because they couldn't come here where nobody would have gone so far as to kill them at least. It's a shame to see the inheritors of that nasty Aliens Act of 1905 still getting so much traction in the 21st century to be honest.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by Science Fan »

Oh, there you go Flash, trying to cover up for the crimes by your nation by making up fictions against Israel? Israel had an Arab head the nation during an interim period. Now, how does that make Israel a nation that slaughters Arabs? How many Arabs are living inside Israel, today, with full citizenship rights? How could Israel be slaughtering Arabs and still have so many Arab citizens? Compare this with the number of Jews in Egypt? Egypt cleansed itself of its Jewish population, as did most of the nations in the Middle East.

Israel actually sends out leaflets to let Arab-Muslims know in advance of a bombing that is going to target a building near them. This is done to give them a chance to leave the area first. Name another nation that has done this? Israel has even been known to cancel bombing runs when they see that the area has not been cleared. Name another nation who does this and still gets accused of slaughtering people?

By the way, why don't you let everyone here know who actually slaughtered those people you are accusing Israel of having harmed?

My point stands. The fact is that there is systematic racism in New Zealand, by a group that later came to the area. Now, isn't this the same claim being made against Israel? Yet, how come New Zealand gets a free pass and people obsess with Israel 24/7? I could just as easily have picked some other nation, like Australia for example, or Russia, or the Ukraine, to discuss in relationship to the claims made against Israel. My point wasn't that there is something wrong with New Zealanders. My point was that they are like everyone else, but, for some strange reason, everyone gets a free pass on their human failings except for the Jews in Israel. That was my point, and I am standing by it. The very obsession and double standards used against Israel is due to anti-Semitism. There is no other explanation for this.

People will literally obsess over Israel, even when it is across the globe from them, claiming that they are concerned about the "downtrodden," while never, ever visiting the poor neighborhoods in their own damn cities. They don't give a crap about people, unless they can blame their suffering on the Jews in Israel that is.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:24 pm I'm sorry, are you equating the very existence of this guy with such trivial things as the fact that a recent Israeli prime minister was also the guy who stood back and allowed (allegedly more than that) the massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila? He was also in charge of an Israeli unit tasked with civilian reprisals against Palestinians including one incident where he dynamited a village with all the women and children still in the houses.

There is no other democracy where somebody with Ariel Sharon's brutal history could win an election to become prime minister. There's few where he could have escaped prison.

The fact that a scientist presented a paper in which he elevated a genetic marker to having a "rather small effect" where others would say it it has none or is negligible compares with that?

That compares to disenfranchising a whole population who inherited from their grandparents a guarantee of never having the self determination or civil rights that you take for granted in your life and would never consider trading? You've concocted an embarrassing false equivalence unless I missed something about Maoris being stripped of the legal citizenship and herded into camps because of it. Did I miss that?

I'm from Britain for what it's worth. but I'm not anti semitic just because I don't think Israel should do some of the things they have, any more than I am anti white if I criticise apartheid.

Being a dirty Brit, I am well aware that in the past we treated the Irish much the way that Israel today treats Palestinians. That was a poor choice with long term regrettable effects to accompany all the immediate suffering we caused them. In fact we sort of set the Palestinians up to get treated this way, which was another mishandled situation. We pretty much set up the Maoris as well while we are on the subject, which as you have noted has not worked out well. And in the past we have massacred Jews, and kicked them out of the country for a few centuries which was just as bad as all the other stuff we did.

In all honesty, you are conversing with one of that special nation of people which has collected more or less the full set. We have fucked over people in more places than any other bunch of bastards in history. We set a record that America could never hope to match unless that fat wanker you have for a president actually blows up the world. In which case it would be a tie.

In 1905 we even led the world in creating the first great punitive immigration laws mostly to cut off an influx of East European Jews fleeing persecution. That particular ignoble choice probably ultimately assisted all sorts of bad 20th Century stuff. We made it harder for Jews to get out of places that were mean to them, and ultimately more of them were diverted to Germany, Poland, Hungary and Israel because they couldn't come here where nobody would have gone so far as to kill them at least. It's a shame to see the inheritors of that nasty Aliens Act of 1905 still getting so much traction in the 21st century to be honest.

He's just trying to be a shit-stirrer. 'Didn't work out well' in NZ? Many of the most powerful people in the country are Maori. It's the only country where the indigenous people got a treaty, and that was around the same time as the Maori were committing genocide on the Moriori--enslaving them and keeping them in pens to wait for the next feast and guess who was on the menu. No one cared or intervened.
He's been looking up Maori radical sites. It's just politics. There's a lot of money to be made out of treaty claims and gross exaggeration and there are a lot of very wealthy Maori because of it. Unfortunately the ordinary Maori gets nothing. They were NEVER at any point treated like the aborigines or native Americans. Maori were well able to stick up for themselves and still are. No Maori hunts (aborigines were hunted up to the 1970s ffs). No child stealing. No lynchings. Maori were never excluded from voting (although they had their own system and voting would have had little relevance to them at that time).
They were trying to claim air space not that long ago which would mean payment from TV and radio stations. And bees. They want compensation for honey-making because apparently bees are a 'taonga' (treasure). Well yes they are, but to everyone. I mean, how many times can you sell the same piece of land??
It's easy to pick out any negatives and ignore all the positives when all you want to do is troll and shit-stir.
As the two Americans on here have rightly pointed out--few Americans have even heard of the place. Anyone can google search 'colonial oppression of Maori' or some such. Doesn't make them clever or knowledgeable. You can do the same with anything. Google 'Israeli oppression of Palestinians', or 'Palestinian atrocities on Israelis' and you will find screeds on either. Google is useful, but it's nearly impossible to find an objective website when it comes to politics.
His pathetic and typically shallow comments regarding the 'warrior gene' were the 'best' he could come up with? That was ONE scientist who used that phrase, and the only people who were 'upset' were the usual band of PC nitwits who are always looking for SOMETHING to get 'offended' by.

''Dr Lea made headlines last year when he told an international conference in Brisbane there was an over-representation of the monoamine oxidase gene, dubbed the "warrior" gene by US researchers, in Maori men.''
All he's doing is reporting his findings. If he had made it up, just to try to put Maori in a bad light, then it would be worth mentioning. But he wasn't. Actually it sounds as if he was trying to be flattering. Males tend to love the whole 'warrior' bullshit thing. You might have seen the film 'Once were warriors' that was written by a Maori. Excellent film by the way.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by Science Fan »

There is no comparison of how the Brits treated the Irish and how Israel treats Arabs. The Arabs in Israel, get this, are free to leave any time they want. Guess what? They have no desire to. They have greater rights in Israel than they would have in any Islamic nation, or in Europe. They get free medical care, free educations, they sit in the highest legislative body in Israel, they get to publicly talk about destroying Israel without being charged with a crime, and there have even been Arab members of Israel's legislative body who attacked Israel's borders with a mob, and guess what? They were immune from prosecution.

Israel is a multi-cultural and "multi-racial" society, and the thanks Israel gets is it is called an "apartheid state." All Jews have been cleansed from Gaza, and Israel has offered the Palestinians a state all their own, with East Jerusalem as their capital, which they have repeatedly turned down, and the result is that no one even thinks that by turning down these offers for state hood the Palestinians may have some blame for allegedly being "stateless"? By offering people a state of their own, Israel gets called an "occupier." Yet, Turkey occupies Cyprus and where are the boycotts? Russia is occupying its neighbor, and where are the boycotts?

People only get their panties in a bunch regarding the "down-trodden" when they can attack Jews. Otherwise, the world is silent. How about the Arabs in Iran who have been slaughtered and persecuted for wanting a state of their own? Can you even name that Arab group without a lengthy Google search? Nope. People don't give a damn about stateless groups unless Jews are involved.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by Science Fan »

In genetics, we know that there can be no such thing as a warrior gene. We know this because any trait for violence that was genetically influenced would be the result of literally hundreds of genes exerting a limited affect, and those genes would also have their affects mediated by the environment. It's impossible for anyone to have a "warrior gene." The fact it was such a popular claim among New Zealanders shows racism against the Maori. Rather than admit that New Zealanders discriminate against the Maori, which is why they make up more than half the prison population while being only about 15% of the population, the New Zealander bigots could absolve themselves of guilt by claiming the Maori are genetically defective and deserving of their treatment. It's all bullshit.

This type of bullshit always arises when people look for excuses to justify oppressing others. Racism against blacks in the US originated to justify slavery. In the early colonies, blacks were admired for their hard-work, ethics, and knowledge. They routinely intermarried with whites. Then, after someone discovered that blacks could easily be enslaved because they could be identified due to their skin color, as opposed to the white majority, all of a sudden, blacks were considered biologically dumber and inferior to whites. What is happening in New Zealand is just more of the same racist bullshit.

Warrior gene my ass. No scientist who wasn't a blatant racist would make such a farcical claim.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:26 pm In genetics, we know that there can be no such thing as a warrior gene. We know this because any trait for violence that was genetically influenced would be the result of literally hundreds of genes exerting a limited affect, and those genes would also have their affects mediated by the environment. It's impossible for anyone to have a "warrior gene." The fact it was such a popular claim among New Zealanders shows racism against the Maori. Rather than admit that New Zealanders discriminate against the Maori, which is why they make up more than half the prison population while being only about 15% of the population, the New Zealander bigots could absolve themselves of guilt by claiming the Maori are genetically defective and deserving of their treatment. It's all bullshit.

This type of bullshit always arises when people look for excuses to justify oppressing others. Racism against blacks in the US originated to justify slavery. In the early colonies, blacks were admired for their hard-work, ethics, and knowledge. They routinely intermarried with whites. Then, after someone discovered that blacks could easily be enslaved because they could be identified due to their skin color, as opposed to the white majority, all of a sudden, blacks were considered biologically dumber and inferior to whites. What is happening in New Zealand is just more of the same racist bullshit.

Warrior gene my ass. No scientist who wasn't a blatant racist would make such a farcical claim.
Actually it was AMERICAN scientists who coined the phrase. You were so busy cherry-picking for negatives that you forgot to read what you were googling.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by Science Fan »

Actually, here is the racism that occurred by New Zealanders in discussing the so-called "warrior gene." The phrase did come from racist New Zealand scientists. In 2007, New Zealander bigots who were also scientists wrote the following: "It is well recognized that historically Maori were fearless warriors." This is actually what they wrote in a science paper. Now, think about it? It was really "well recognized"? Then how come the scientists could provide no citation for this claim?

The science study used a very small sample, unscientific as hell. The study consisted of just 46 men, who only needed one Maori parent to be classified as Maori. And from this small sample, all Maori were characterized. But, that's not racism?

By the way, Chinese have a greater incidence of this alleged warrior gene than the Maori. So, should we start calling the Chinese violent people too?

All of these points can be referenced by the geneticist named Adam Rutherford in his recent book titled "A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived." He was actually quite disgusted with the racism among New Zealand scientists and commented on it at length in the book.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Did you come on this site to be a bullying troll? Get bored with your pathetic little life? You are such a drag. One thing is undoubtedly true. Children who grow up without love never mature emotionally.

I don't know if they were 'fearless' or not, but they managed to scare the 'Brits' into giving them a treaty.


Does any of this actually matter to you? Is that the most 'racist' thing you can come up with? Seriously? And you are from the US?? Is this the best way you can think of to spend your day and energy? Inventing pointless 'arguments' just for the purpose of being annoying to people? You do realise that's exactly what trolling is don't you?
As I pointed out, the term 'warrior gene' was coined by American scientists in the 1990s. Mental illness is often genetic too. I'm so fed up with PC ''Progressives'' like you sniffing around for any hint of what they think might be called 'racism'. All it's done is make the word meaningless.

No doubt you are off on your little google search journeys. Enjoy those cherries. Hope you get galloping diarrhoea.

Btw. I made no argument against Israel. Quite the opposite. If you could actually read you would know that, or are you just spoiling for a fight?
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2536
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:18 pm There is no comparison of how the Brits treated the Irish and how Israel treats Arabs. The Arabs in Israel, get this, are free to leave any time they want. Guess what? They have no desire to. They have greater rights in Israel than they would have in any Islamic nation, or in Europe. They get free medical care, free educations, they sit in the highest legislative body in Israel, they get to publicly talk about destroying Israel without being charged with a crime, and there have even been Arab members of Israel's legislative body who attacked Israel's borders with a mob, and guess what? They were immune from prosecution.

Israel is a multi-cultural and "multi-racial" society, and the thanks Israel gets is it is called an "apartheid state." All Jews have been cleansed from Gaza, and Israel has offered the Palestinians a state all their own, with East Jerusalem as their capital, which they have repeatedly turned down, and the result is that no one even thinks that by turning down these offers for state hood the Palestinians may have some blame for allegedly being "stateless"? By offering people a state of their own, Israel gets called an "occupier." Yet, Turkey occupies Cyprus and where are the boycotts? Russia is occupying its neighbor, and where are the boycotts?

People only get their panties in a bunch regarding the "down-trodden" when they can attack Jews. Otherwise, the world is silent. How about the Arabs in Iran who have been slaughtered and persecuted for wanting a state of their own? Can you even name that Arab group without a lengthy Google search? Nope. People don't give a damn about stateless groups unless Jews are involved.
That's a big pile of nonsense.

We never prevented the Irish from leaving either, which is why you ended up with so many of them in America after the potatoes went mouldy. They didn't want to leave because they had this sense that they belonged there for some reason. It's not actually that easy for Palestinians to leave, other arabs find them irritating and disuade them from emigration, preferring to keep them where they are. But I see no reason why they shouldn't wish they could stay, just as the Irish wanted to stay in their homeland.

Of course we worry about other stateless groups such as Kurds, Rohingya, the Tibetans I suppose too. Not to mention the Karen and other Burmese groups... lots of others too. It's pathetic to assume that we only know of one injustice in a world we clearly have noticed contains so many. It is equally absurd to hope that the existence of others that are often even worse excuses the one that is being meted out by a democracy. We expect human rights abuses from dictatorships, one party states, and plutocracies, it's part of how they work. It isn't right for a democracy to ape those low standards.

Israel is a state where one religious community dominates another. Most of the Palestinians are stuck in the West Bank and Gaza with no right of return. Israeli settlements expand into what land they have left, stealing orchards and olive groves and livelihoods with impunity. That's just a fact of the situation on the ground. Arab Israelis are 20% of the population and are not treated as equals even if there are no Jim Crow laws as such. They are subtly excluded educational opportunities, there are many jobs they coincidentally cannot have because they don't do military service and don't get veterans rights.... etc ...

It may not quite match up to Apartheid as practiced in South Africa and Rhodesia, but that wonderland of equality you are trumpeting is total bullshit.

There is absolutely no offer on the table right now for Palestinians to reject. It certainly wouldn't include East Jerusalem as capital, which was never on the table at all, that subject was kicked into the long grass right from the start because Israel cannot tolerate it.

It took a web search of exactly 3 words to discover the existence of Khuzestan. Hardly a lengthy google search.

Incidentally, I note that you are not anxious to address the fact that Israel elected a mass murderer who dynamited Palestinian women and children in their homes as Prime Minister. But you may have noticed that one reason why the Palestinian cause is such a mess is that the old PLO has been at war with an islamist faction called Hamas for decades. Obviously Israel rather dislikes Hamas these days. But did you know they assisted them in the beginning in order to better divide and rule the Palestinians?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847

I would not incidentally remove all blame for the Palestinian situation from the Palestinians. There's plenty of it, they did after do the first round of massacres in that war, and they got themselves a beating they sort of deserved in 1948.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:08 am
Science Fan wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:18 pm There is no comparison of how the Brits treated the Irish and how Israel treats Arabs. The Arabs in Israel, get this, are free to leave any time they want. Guess what? They have no desire to. They have greater rights in Israel than they would have in any Islamic nation, or in Europe. They get free medical care, free educations, they sit in the highest legislative body in Israel, they get to publicly talk about destroying Israel without being charged with a crime, and there have even been Arab members of Israel's legislative body who attacked Israel's borders with a mob, and guess what? They were immune from prosecution.

Israel is a multi-cultural and "multi-racial" society, and the thanks Israel gets is it is called an "apartheid state." All Jews have been cleansed from Gaza, and Israel has offered the Palestinians a state all their own, with East Jerusalem as their capital, which they have repeatedly turned down, and the result is that no one even thinks that by turning down these offers for state hood the Palestinians may have some blame for allegedly being "stateless"? By offering people a state of their own, Israel gets called an "occupier." Yet, Turkey occupies Cyprus and where are the boycotts? Russia is occupying its neighbor, and where are the boycotts?

People only get their panties in a bunch regarding the "down-trodden" when they can attack Jews. Otherwise, the world is silent. How about the Arabs in Iran who have been slaughtered and persecuted for wanting a state of their own? Can you even name that Arab group without a lengthy Google search? Nope. People don't give a damn about stateless groups unless Jews are involved.
That's a big pile of nonsense.

We never prevented the Irish from leaving either, which is why you ended up with so many of them in America after the potatoes went mouldy. They didn't want to leave because they had this sense that they belonged there for some reason. It's not actually that easy for Palestinians to leave, other arabs find them irritating and disuade them from emigration, preferring to keep them where they are. But I see no reason why they shouldn't wish they could stay, just as the Irish wanted to stay in their homeland.

Of course we worry about other stateless groups such as Kurds, Rohingya, the Tibetans I suppose too. Not to mention the Karen and other Burmese groups... lots of others too. It's pathetic to assume that we only know of one injustice in a world we clearly have noticed contains so many. It is equally absurd to hope that the existence of others that are often even worse excuses the one that is being meted out by a democracy. We expect human rights abuses from dictatorships, one party states, and plutocracies, it's part of how they work. It isn't right for a democracy to ape those low standards.

Israel is a state where one religious community dominates another. Most of the Palestinians are stuck in the West Bank and Gaza with no right of return. Israeli settlements expand into what land they have left, stealing orchards and olive groves and livelihoods with impunity. That's just a fact of the situation on the ground. Arab Israelis are 20% of the population and are not treated as equals even if there are no Jim Crow laws as such. They are subtly excluded educational opportunities, there are many jobs they coincidentally cannot have because they don't do military service and don't get veterans rights.... etc ...

It may not quite match up to Apartheid as practiced in South Africa and Rhodesia, but that wonderland of equality you are trumpeting is total bullshit.

There is absolutely no offer on the table right now for Palestinians to reject. It certainly wouldn't include East Jerusalem as capital, which was never on the table at all, that subject was kicked into the long grass right from the start because Israel cannot tolerate it.

It took a web search of exactly 3 words to discover the existence of Khuzestan. Hardly a lengthy google search.

Incidentally, I note that you are not anxious to address the fact that Israel elected a mass murderer who dynamited Palestinian women and children in their homes as Prime Minister. But you may have noticed that one reason why the Palestinian cause is such a mess is that the old PLO has been at war with an islamist faction called Hamas for decades. Obviously Israel rather dislikes Hamas these days. But did you know they assisted them in the beginning in order to better divide and rule the Palestinians?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847

I would not incidentally remove all blame for the Palestinian situation from the Palestinians. There's plenty of it, they did after do the first round of massacres in that war, and they got themselves a beating they sort of deserved in 1948.

He's busy googling. You are wasting your time. Unless you are a rabidly fanatical foaming-at-the-mouth one-eyed American zionist you must be an anti-semetic Hitler-worshipper and Holocaust-denier. Same old. There are actually quite a few people who fall somewhere in between and many who don't even think about either.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: How Come no Boycotts Against New Zealand?

Post by Dalek Prime »

Because New Zealand is a reasonable democracy, in comparison. It's hardly Saudi Arabia or Iran, or some other autocratic shithole.
Post Reply