App to boycott Israeli goods

[Everexpanding]

the “No Thanks” app, which first appeared almost two years ago carrying a large list of companies and brands consumers might consider boycotting because of Israeli links.
The app has become a key tool for the BDS movement that targets Israel economically for the actions of its government and its military in Gaza.
Along with a list of companies and brands to boycott, the app allows users to scan barcodes to find out more about the relationship particular products have with Israel.

It was not created by the UN but declared by Ben Gurion of the Haganah paramilitary organization following the Deir Yassin massacre the previous month and was immediately followed by the Nakba leading to the Arab Israeli war of 1948.

It gained UN recognition in 1949 as a state f within the Green Line area as part of the armistice agreement. Since then it has continually seized increasing amounts of Palestinian (and Syrian) land.

You omit to mention that much of the increased land was the result of Israel winning wars launched against it by its neighbours.

Think you have answered that one

You don't think Israel should exist. Quelle surprise.

Yet at 17:08 @Everexpanding posted a long list of human rights and asked if we thought Palestinians were entitled to them. To which @SharonEllis and I of course replied Yes.

Apparently, though, you and @Everexpanding don’t think it should work both ways.

Well exactly. Its a yes or no. How can that be difficult?

Nuance perhaps?

More than 100 scholars have urged the United Nations not to adopt the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism due to its “divisive and polarising” effect.
In a statement published on Thursday, the 128 scholars, who include leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, United Kingdom and United States universities, said the definition has been “hijacked” to protect the Israeli government from international criticism.
They also called on the UN to instead rely on universal human rights instruments and different resources, such as the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.

From HumanRightsWatch

The IHRA definition was originally developed to guide research and law enforcement data validation before being used by the IHRA in its work, which includes education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. Adoption of the definition by governments and institutions is often framed as an essential step in efforts to combat antisemitism. In practice, however, the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe. Such misuse has also been criticized by the former Special Rapporteur on Racism E. Tendayi Achiume.
Ken Stern, the main drafter of the IHRA definition, recently reiterated his concerns about the institutional adoption of the definition in light of its proposed inclusion in an American Bar Association (ABA) draft resolution on antisemitism. Stern’s concern stems from the IHRA definition’s repeated use as “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite.” In the end, ABA members adopted a resolution on antisemitism that did not reference the IHRA definition. Stern’s message to ABA applies equally to the UN.

Maybe do some research too

Don't waste your time engaging Everexpanding. The question in and off itself is a sophism designed to get you caught up in a spiral of going back and forth in a way that you can’t win.

If you say "no" then you're labelled an antisemite who wants to deny Jewish people the right to self determination.

If you say "yes" then are you endorsing the mechanisms by which the illeagal occupation, displacement, apartheid and human rights violations continue?

It's a tool, for example Palestinians are asked if they recognise Israel? Many say no as doing so would legitimise their own occupation.

It is a complex question, unless you go back to the origins of Zionism born from early Christian dispensationalism the likes espoused by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren to Herzls writing in the 1890s to the Scofield Bible to Sykes-Picot to the World War 1 to the Balfour Agreement to the early Zionists congress etc.

'If you say "no" then you're labelled an antisemite who wants to deny Jewish people the right to self determination."

Yes, obviously, because anyone who denies rights to Jews that they afford to others is obviously a racist.

'If you say "yes" then are you endorsing the mechanisms by which the illeagal occupation, displacement, apartheid and human rights violations continue?'.

Of course not. Why does accepting the right to self determination of the Jewish people mean any of those things?

What a very revealing day today has been.

@SharonEllis I would say this applies to you to quote your own words

“you are tying yourself in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable”

20,000 dead children and you think people should not boycott.

That has absolutely nothing to do with accepting the right of Jewish self determination. Im not even sure that is my quote actually.

Neither does this thread start your own

All of them.

Agreed

Just catching up on this thread - at least we know now some MN’s who have basically admitted they don’t accept the right of Jewish self determination. Pointless debating with them, knowing that.

Anyone on the pro Pal side who does believe in Jewish self determination- be wary of who you align with.

We are all individuals posting here what alliances are you talking about it? What do we need to be wary of? What a weird post.

A strange post indeed.

Even stranger how so many pro-Israelis who on the face of it have said they support a two state solution, are up in arms today.

“Up in arms” - usual exaggeration.

If people are against the UK government’s decision it’s not because they never want to see a two state solution in Gaza, more that it seems pointless at the current time when neither Hamas nor Netanyahu want it or will endorse it.

Some people will understand what I mean by my post and it is to those people I am speaking.

It's not exaggeration at all. Some people have shown more emotion and upset over Starmer recognising a Palestinian state, than thousands and thousands of dead Palestinian children. These are the people who usually say 'oh but we support a two state solution'

If anything has been revealing, it has been so many people's reactions today from the 'pro-israeli' side.

100%

Ah you're just talking in riddles now. Would love to know who these "some people" are, all very threatening language in my opinion.