RugbyRebels

Israel is carrying out ethnic cleansing and colonization in Palestine, has committed gross violations of human rights against the native population, including state terrorism, mass murder, destruction of vital infrastructure, and mass incarceration, has built a giant wall within Palestinian territory, creating an Apartheid state, and is imposing enforced third world poverty through its control of resources within Palestine and blockading of humanitarian aid. Surely, if South Africa was prevented from attending the first two World Cups because of the Apartheid system, and Fiji was barred from including military personnel in its team for the 2011 tournament, Israel should not be free to compete in international rugby under these circumstances.

Ah yes, noted rugby powerhouse Israel. The more accurate, and meaningful question would be "should Israel be isolated from international sports?"

The Fijian approach, or a variation of it would be more ideal - no current military personnel/government employees or people with immediate family in military or government jobs allowed.

But then again, what about Indonesia?

rowan wrote:Israel is carrying out ethnic cleansing and colonization in Palestine, has committed gross violations of human rights against the native population, including state terrorism, mass murder, destruction of vital infrastructure, and mass incarceration, has built a giant wall within Palestinian territory, creating an Apartheid state, and is imposing enforced third world poverty through its control of resources within Palestine and blockading of humanitarian aid. Surely, if South Africa was prevented from attending the first two World Cups because of the Apartheid system, and Fiji was barred from including military personnel in its team for the 2011 tournament, Israel should not be free to compete in international rugby under these circumstances.

Yes.

cashead wrote:Ah yes, noted rugby powerhouse Israel. The more accurate, and meaningful question would be "should Israel be isolated from international sports?"

Yes.

Interestingly, FIFA was discussing a possible ban on Israel (for shooting Palestinian footballers in the feet) just when the bribery scandal broke out. Now the topic of banning Israel seems to have fallen by the wayside

They shouldn't be banned, just required to play in the geographically appropriate Asian Rugby Championship along with their neighbours, rather than the politically convenient European competition.

But it is commonly accepted that Israel has become an Apartheid state. This in addition to all of its countless war crimes and violations of human rights. This is precisely the reason South Africa was banned. & transferring Israel to the Asian region is a non-starter, for the obvious reasons.

I agree with the general appallingness of the Israeli regime, however it's not precisely the same as South Africa. In SA, rugby and the Springboks in particular were a major symbol and tool of oppression. Playing international rugby was an expression of the legitimacy of the system. Not allowing them to play was a big deal. Israeli rugby (as far as I know) is of absolutely no importance to their regime at all. I also doubt that they prohibit Palestinians from playing against or with Jewish Israelis. I also doubt that if a visiting opponent included a Muslim Arab, they would need to "legitimise" that player by declaring him an "honorary Jew."

If a rugby, or general sporting, boycott of Israel would have any effect then I would be all for it. Unfortunately I doubt that either government or general population give a whole lot of fucks about rugby or sport in general. A software and arms boycott on the other hand...

Good post, Lizard

Should Israel be recognised as a country?

Regrettably, yes. It might only have been seven decades, but if we roll back history on this one we should also roll it back on all the other former colonies which remain dominated by the colonizers (or their descendants). This would include North America, Australia and New Zealand. So that's a whole nother argument, really, and I think the case can definitely be made both ways.

Len wrote:Should Israel be recognised as a country?

Why shouldn't it?

rowan wrote:Regrettably, yes. It might only have been seven decades, but if we roll back history on this one we should also roll it back on all the other former colonies which remain dominated by the colonizers (or their descendants). This would include North America, Australia and New Zealand. So that's a whole nother argument, really, and I think the case can definitely be made both ways.

What does the date of the founding of a country have to do with its recognition or otherwise? Should their comparative newness affect whether or not they ought to be recognised? Where would that put South Sudan, Montenegro, Kosovo and East Timor?

rowan wrote:Regrettably, yes. It might only have been seven decades, but if we roll back history on this one we should also roll it back on all the other former colonies which remain dominated by the colonizers (or their descendants). This would include North America, Australia and New Zealand. So that's a whole nother argument, really, and I think the case can definitely be made both ways.

Israel is a current, ongoing crime against humanity. Its raison d'etre is a genocidal, racist ideology.

To accept 'Israel' is to deny the humanity of Palestinians as human beings with inalienable rights.

cashead wrote:

Len wrote:Should Israel be recognised as a country?

Why shouldn't it?

What legitimate state exists without declared borders?

UGagain wrote:

rowan wrote:Regrettably, yes. It might only have been seven decades, but if we roll back history on this one we should also roll it back on all the other former colonies which remain dominated by the colonizers (or their descendants). This would include North America, Australia and New Zealand. So that's a whole nother argument, really, and I think the case can definitely be made both ways.

Israel is a current, ongoing crime against humanity. Its raison d'etre is a genocidal, racist ideology.

To accept 'Israel' is to deny the humanity of Palestinians as human beings with inalienable rights.

Absolutely. That's why I personally think it should be boycotted in every manner possible, and if rugby can do its own bit - however minor and seemingly irrelevant or pointless - all the better.

What does the date of the founding of a country have to do with its recognition or otherwise? Should their comparative newness affect whether or not they ought to be recognised? Where would that put South Sudan, Montenegro, Kosovo and East Timor?

Because it was effectively an act of colonization by Europeans, and continues to be so, and to a large degree exists in illegally occupied territories. This bears a close resemblance to the so-called foundation of the US, Canada, Australia and NZ than it does to any of the countries you mention, with the main difference being Israel is a much more recent example. But I actually noted the the irrelevance of this, so I'm not sure what you were reading into it...

rowan wrote:Because it was effectively an act of colonization by Europeans, and continues to be so, and to a large degree exists in illegally occupied territories. This bears a close resemblance to the so-called foundation of the US, Canada, Australia and NZ than it does to any of the countries you mention, with the main difference being Israel is a much more recent example. But I actually noted the the irrelevance of this, so I'm not sure what you were reading into it...

Then why bring up the comparative newness of Israel as a modern state in the first place, then?

And if we're talking about nations occupying other regions through questionable pretexts or means, then why pick on Israel? What about, off the top of my head, Indonesia or Russia?

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:Because it was effectively an act of colonization by Europeans, and continues to be so, and to a large degree exists in illegally occupied territories. This bears a close resemblance to the so-called foundation of the US, Canada, Australia and NZ than it does to any of the countries you mention, with the main difference being Israel is a much more recent example. But I actually noted the the irrelevance of this, so I'm not sure what you were reading into it...

Then why bring up the comparative newness of Israel as a modern state in the first place, then?

And if we're talking about nations occupying other regions through questionable pretexts or means, then why pick of Israel? What about, off the top of my head, Indonesia or Russia?

What territories is Russia 'occupying' questionably or otherwise? Where does Indonesia occupy where they've practiced ethnic cleansing?

Israel is a colonial project with the aim of expelling/killing off the indigenes and replacing the population with outsiders.

If you can't see the uniqueness then you're not looking.

UGagain wrote:

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:Because it was effectively an act of colonization by Europeans, and continues to be so, and to a large degree exists in illegally occupied territories. This bears a close resemblance to the so-called foundation of the US, Canada, Australia and NZ than it does to any of the countries you mention, with the main difference being Israel is a much more recent example. But I actually noted the the irrelevance of this, so I'm not sure what you were reading into it...

Then why bring up the comparative newness of Israel as a modern state in the first place, then?

And if we're talking about nations occupying other regions through questionable pretexts or means, then why pick of Israel? What about, off the top of my head, Indonesia or Russia?

What territories is Russia 'occupying' questionably or otherwise? Where does Indonesia occupy where they've practiced ethnic cleansing?

Israel is a colonial project with the aim of expelling/killing off the indigenes and replacing the population with outsiders.

If you can't see the uniqueness then you're not looking.

You need to steer away from Moscow Central sanctioned history books. All of Asian Russia is conquered territory, similar to "European" expansion in North America.
Not really comparable to modern Israel, I'll grant you.

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

cashead wrote: Then why bring up the comparative newness of Israel as a modern state in the first place, then?

And if we're talking about nations occupying other regions through questionable pretexts or means, then why pick of Israel? What about, off the top of my head, Indonesia or Russia?

What territories is Russia 'occupying' questionably or otherwise? Where does Indonesia occupy where they've practiced ethnic cleansing?

Israel is a colonial project with the aim of expelling/killing off the indigenes and replacing the population with outsiders.

If you can't see the uniqueness then you're not looking.

You need to steer away from Moscow Central sanctioned history books. All of Asian Russia is conquered territory, similar to "European" expansion in North America.
Not really comparable to modern Israel, I'll grant you.

More comedy gold from you.

UGagain wrote:

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:Because it was effectively an act of colonization by Europeans, and continues to be so, and to a large degree exists in illegally occupied territories. This bears a close resemblance to the so-called foundation of the US, Canada, Australia and NZ than it does to any of the countries you mention, with the main difference being Israel is a much more recent example. But I actually noted the the irrelevance of this, so I'm not sure what you were reading into it...

Then why bring up the comparative newness of Israel as a modern state in the first place, then?

And if we're talking about nations occupying other regions through questionable pretexts or means, then why pick of Israel? What about, off the top of my head, Indonesia or Russia?

What territories is Russia 'occupying' questionably or otherwise? Where does Indonesia occupy where they've practiced ethnic cleansing?

Israel is a colonial project with the aim of expelling/killing off the indigenes and replacing the population with outsiders.

If you can't see the uniqueness then you're not looking.

1. So you don't think there was anything that was the least bit questionable about Russia's recent adventures in Georgia or their annexation of Crimea?

2. Besides West Papua?

cashead wrote:

UGagain wrote:

cashead wrote: Then why bring up the comparative newness of Israel as a modern state in the first place, then?

And if we're talking about nations occupying other regions through questionable pretexts or means, then why pick of Israel? What about, off the top of my head, Indonesia or Russia?

What territories is Russia 'occupying' questionably or otherwise? Where does Indonesia occupy where they've practiced ethnic cleansing?

Israel is a colonial project with the aim of expelling/killing off the indigenes and replacing the population with outsiders.

If you can't see the uniqueness then you're not looking.

1. So you don't think there was anything that was the least bit questionable about Russia's recent adventures in Georgia or their annexation of Crimea?

2. Besides West Papua?

We're not talking about questionable things. We're talking about zionism. An overtly racist ideology dedicated to the extinction of Palestine and Palestinians.

1. The US/Israeli adventures in South Ossetia you mean? And the bloody US coup and civil war in Ukraine that caused Crimea to return to Russia?

2. Irian Jaya is an ugly situation but it's not a colonial project. It's nothing on the scale of the genocide in Palestine. Indonesia and Israel share the same backing btw.

UGagain wrote:

cashead wrote:

UGagain wrote:
What territories is Russia 'occupying' questionably or otherwise? Where does Indonesia occupy where they've practiced ethnic cleansing?

Israel is a colonial project with the aim of expelling/killing off the indigenes and replacing the population with outsiders.

If you can't see the uniqueness then you're not looking.

1. So you don't think there was anything that was the least bit questionable about Russia's recent adventures in Georgia or their annexation of Crimea?

2. Besides West Papua?

We're not talking about questionable things. We're talking about zionism. An overtly racist ideology dedicated to the extinction of Palestine and Palestinians.

1. The US/Israeli adventures in South Ossetia you mean? And the bloody US coup and civil war in Ukraine that caused Crimea to return to Russia?

2. Irian Jaya is an ugly situation but it's not a colonial project. It's nothing on the scale of the genocide in Palestine. Indonesia and Israel share the same backing btw.

1. Ah, so Russia is literally incapable of doing wrong, ever. Good to know.

2. Nice to see you trying to downplay Indonesia's role in West Papua. And interesting to see you prefer the Indonesian term. Did you refer to Cambodia as Kampuchea back in the day?

cashead wrote:

UGagain wrote:

cashead wrote:
1. So you don't think there was anything that was the least bit questionable about Russia's recent adventures in Georgia or their annexation of Crimea?

2. Besides West Papua?

We're not talking about questionable things. We're talking about zionism. An overtly racist ideology dedicated to the extinction of Palestine and Palestinians.

1. The US/Israeli adventures in South Ossetia you mean? And the bloody US coup and civil war in Ukraine that caused Crimea to return to Russia?

2. Irian Jaya is an ugly situation but it's not a colonial project. It's nothing on the scale of the genocide in Palestine. Indonesia and Israel share the same backing btw.

1. Ah, so Russia is literally incapable of doing wrong, ever. Good to know.

2. Nice to see you trying to downplay Indonesia's role in Western Papua.

1. Pathetic.

2. Pathetic.