Home | About | Donate

Outrage over Gaza Drove Iceland’s Capital to Back Israel Boycott


#1

Outrage over Gaza Drove Iceland’s Capital to Back Israel Boycott

Ali Abunimah

The City of Reykjavík has decided to boycott Israeli goods.

The city council in Iceland’s capital voted by a 9-5 majority on Tuesday to bar Israeli products from official purchases as long as Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory continues.

The decision has been welcomed by Palestinian rights campaigners and drawn anger from Israel.


#4

2,200 dead Palestinians and all the property damage from Jewish war machines is NOT to be overlooked. "The only democracy in the Middle East" is becoming a duplicated Nazi tyranny country.


#5

That's the most disgusting lie about the murder I've ever seen.

Eyewitness account:

"At approximately 16:45 a bulldozer began making a straight run at a house which I now know to belong to a doctor Izmir [sic: Dr. Samir]. At this point the majority of the group were positioned around a wrecked building. We were all within 70 metres of each other. I was to the left of the ruined building and to the right of Dr. [Samir]’s house. Rachel was approximately 15 metres in front of me.

The ground was level and the light was good, I had a good view of everything which happened. Rachel was wearing an orange fluorescent jacket with reflective strips (the type worn by construction workers for high visibility and the avoidance of accidents). Rachel stood to confront the bulldozer and it approached her at about five or six miles an hour. The blade on the bulldozer was dipped into the ground and was scooping up soil.

As the bulldozer came nearer the pile mounted up. Rachel climbed up the pile and at the one stage was looking into the cabin window. There is no way that the driver could not have known she was there. The bulldozer continued driving forwards and Rachel turned round to face in my direction.

She began to slide down the pile, however as soon as her feet touched the ground for some reason she fell forward. Maybe her foot was caught or the weight of the soil pushed her forward. At this point the panic on her face was obvious.

We were all shouting, screaming and gesturing by this stage. The earth was totally pushed over her, engulfing her. She was lost to my sight. I noticed that the driver had not lifted the blade. The machine rolled straight over her and continued for a little way. It then reversed over her and retreated about twenty metres. Rachel was left in its tracks, bleeding from her mouth and twisted.

The tank came over to where she was briefly and then retreated to the border fence with the two bulldozers. At no point did any member of the Israeli forces enquire as to Rachel’s well-being or offer any assistance.

Eventually we were able to call an ambulance and one arrived shortly. Rachel was taken to hospital in Rafah, where I heard she had died."

https://electronicintifada.net/content/four-eyewitnesses-describe-murder-rachel-corrie/4460

If you're actually here to disgust people to the extent that those on the fence finally realize the truth about how Israel deals with dissenters, good job.


#6

It's not "Jewish war machines", it's bulldozers made by the American company Catepillar and used by the Israeli Defense Forces.

There is a whole world of Jews outside of Israel who are not responsible for the actions of the Israeli government and military. It's a mistake to characterize things as Jewish which are Israeli. The Torah is Jewish, The IDF is Israeli. There's a difference.

https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/


#7

This time I suspect it serves Israel right for being mean to Palestinians.


#9

If you're actually here to disgust people to the extent that those on the fence finally realize the truth about how Israel deals with dissenters, good job.

Keep up the great work.


#12

Well done, Reykjavik.


#15

The information contained in the Israel to get a chance to look forward to seeing. Every time you are the best way to get the ball.

BDS is a good idea to make sure you are not the named recipient.


#16

Even if your little supposedly 'legal' justification for the slaughter of innocents was correct it suffers from two glaring inconsistencies:

1) Israelis were safe behind their Iron Dome so the threat from rockets was minimal.

2) Israel had the capability to do targeted strikes and incursions to avoid civilian casualties and instead chose a policy of indiscriminate slaughter.

And a bonus: Israel's IDF is the only group proven, by its own Supreme Court, to have had a policy of using Palestinians as human shields. Israel alleges that Hamas follows the Israeli policy but that remains an unsubstantiated allegation.


#17

It's obvious that if 2,200 Israelis, over 1,400 of them civilians and 500 of them children, were killed in a little over 7 weeks you'd be calling for the extermination of those responsible.

You care about Israelis but have no respect for the lives of Palestinians.

In that way you're a perfect representative of Israel. Netanyahu and his party share your opinion.


#18

His handlers have to get a grip on him. Everytime he posts he puts Israel and its people in a dimmer light.


#19

I'm still not convinced Ishmailav isn't a bot. I've read about bots that scan posts and post responses from similar threads. His/Her/Its early posts were a lot cruder so I think it might be a learning bot, or one undergoing continuous upgrades.

Its a shame we don't have an accurate Turing Test. In its absence I sometimes post sentences generated by my predictive word spelling checker and change a word or two to make it look as if it might be relevant.

I know suggesting a poster is a bot sounds odd, but Ishmailav's posts are such cookie cutter standardized responses that he/she/it is the only one that ever made me wonder that.

Twitter bot
Bots imitating people


#20

Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what indiscriminate slaughter looks like if you think that is what happened in Gaza where 1/2 the casualties were combatants--about the norm for urban warfare--and only a 1/4 were women (1/2 the population). If the Israelis had really slaughtered indiscriminately there would have been tens of thousands of dead and half of them would have been female.


#21

You are clearly using the IDF's propaganda to justify the IDF's indiscriminate slaughter.

The U.N. says 7 in 10 Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians. Israel disagrees.

So, who to believe? The people who did the killing or the U.N.?

That's a hard one.


#22

1st of all the UN accepted Hamas' figures and Hamas has since identified many of the supposed civilians as Hamas fighters. 2nd the gender balance comes from the Hamas.UN figures and is clear evidence that the casualties were not indiscriminate--as is the low total of deaths for a 7 week war with a modern military in action--for a comparison look at Syria where a much less capable military has killed many multiples of that every 7 weeks. Clearly have no idea what indiscriminate slaughter looks like


#23

You clearly like to parrot Israeli propaganda to make the slaughter of over 1,400 civilians look like it was simply an innocent accident.

The U.N. scrupulously fact checked the figures and the U.N. figures are similar to those of two NGO's and the Gaza Health Ministry. Only the IDF's figures and an IDF puppet organization are wildly at variance from the U.N.'s findings.

I find it disgusting that people try to white-wash atrocities by using nonsense numbers cooked up by those who committed the atrocities.

Netanyahu swore revenge on Hamas for the killings of 3 teens who weren't killed on the orders of Hamas, and a week later the assault on Gaza began. The deaths of the Palestinians were revenge killings, pure and simple.

So you're trying to claim that the deaths total was low..

..for a military action that should never have taken place. Not one civilian should have died.

But you apologists for Israel are shameless.

If the same number of Israelis were killed you wouldn't be trying to minimize it by saying the death total was low for a 7 week modern military action. You'd be calling each death a war crime.


#26

I've explained why your 'legal' nonsense isn't applicable.

As for bomb shelters, do you really think Israel, which controls everything that gets in and out of Gaza, would allow them to build shelters to protect them from Israeli bombs?

You obviously have no idea of what occupation is like.


#27

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=732105


#30

The U.N., legal scholars and many nations disagree with Israel's claims it doesn't occupy Gaza.

"Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories

Human Rights Concerns

Amnesty International's concerns are based on international standards and applied equally within the proper legal framework. The legal framework is defined by who retains jurisdiction, or effective control, over an area and the circumstances or situation at the time of the human rights violation. Amnesty's concerns within Israel-proper, the area inside the 1949 (W. Bank/E. Jerusalem) and 1951 (Gaza Strip) armistice lines (also called the '1967 borders') include but are not limited to, ill-treatment and torture of detainees, excessive use of force, the detention of conscientious objectors, and forced evictions and home demolitions within 'unrecognized' Bedouin villages.
The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory (the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip) is in its fifth decade and the undercurrent of violence and inherent abuses of fundamental human rights and disregard for international law inherent in any long-standing military occupation is presented by both sides. Both Israeli and Palestinian civilians continue to bear the brunt of the violence in the region."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories

"One source of the obligations imposed on Israel toward residents of the Gaza Strip is the laws of occupation, which are incorporated in the Hague Convention (1907) and in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). These laws impose general responsibility on the occupying state for the safety and welfare of civilians living in the occupied territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state has "effective control" over the territory in question. The High Court has held contrary to Israel 's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation does not depend on the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Furthermore, a certain area may be deemed occupied even if the army does not have a fixed presence throughout the whole area. Leading experts in humanitarian law maintain that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, reflecting its power over the entire area and preventing an alternative central government from formulating and carrying out its powers. The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip, which exists despite the lack of a physical presence of IDF soldiers in the territory, creates a reasonable basis for the assumption that this control amounts to "effective control," such that the laws of occupation continue to apply."

http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/israels_obligations

You don't 'cite' anything. You pull nonsense out of one orifice and chew it up and spit it out another. You wouldn't know a law if a judge recited it to you.


#32

There are legal scholars on both sides of the issue. The U.N. agrees with the ones who say it's an occupation. The International Criminal Court addressed the issue when considering if it should bring a case against Israel for its attack on the Mavi Marmara"

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.
27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.
28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.
29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel."

http://opiniojuris.org/2014/11/05/otp-concludes-israel-still-occupying-gaza/