Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Israel/Palestine Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'm a little lost. What did an ice cream company do with (or to) Israel?

    Comment


    • BobtheInquisitor
      BobtheInquisitor commented
      Editing a comment
      Well, they refuse to name a flavor after Seth Meyers, and a lot of people think he’s Jewish…

    • BranDawri
      BranDawri commented
      Editing a comment
      Ookaay. That seems a little... totally irrelevant to get upset about. Or is that just me?

    • BobtheInquisitor
      BobtheInquisitor commented
      Editing a comment
      That was a joke. The real issue is the company refusing to sell ice cream in occupied Palestinian territory, apparently taking a side in the Israel/Palestine issue.

  • #17
    Originally posted by BranDawri View Post
    I'm a little lost. What did an ice cream company do with (or to) Israel?
    Ben and Jerry's has stopped selling Ice Cream in the Occupied territories. Not in Israel, just in the Occupied Territories.

    Comment


    • Lord0fHats
      Lord0fHats commented
      Editing a comment
      Honestly, I'm surprised they sell in the occupied territories XD When you think of Gaza and the West Bank, some folks sitting around eating some Ben and Jerry's just isn't the image that comes to mind but people are gonna live wherever they happen to be so I guess its a thing. Just a weird mental image.

    • Pacific
      Pacific commented
      Editing a comment
      I'm amazed anyone in the occupied territories can afford B&J in the first place..

    • nfe
      nfe commented
      Editing a comment
      Even very poor people scrape together money for treats - but there are some rich people in the West Bank (this move doesn't concern Gaza) and there are a lot of tourists. It's the people selling to the latter that this will hit most.

  • #18
    The board did want to boycott Israel completely, but the CEO and Unilever (who are on record at pains to reject BDS) blocked it.

    As it goes, they may have effectively done this anyway because Israeli law doesn't allow for placing stipulations like this on distributers so they'll need whoever their new middle men in Israel to voluntarily agree to no sales in the West Bank, which will not exactly be an amazing PR move.

    Comment


    • #19
      Something that's I've always pondered, Considering that the city of Jerusalem was called Urusalim 300 years before David's supposed conquest of the city, wouldn't that imply that the 'First Temple' was actually the 'second temple'?

      Comment


      • #20
        Originally posted by BaronIveagh View Post
        Something that's I've always pondered, Considering that the city of Jerusalem was called Urusalim 300 years before David's supposed conquest of the city, wouldn't that imply that the 'First Temple' was actually the 'second temple'?
        We have no reason to think the Temple attributed to Solomon was not the first large scale Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. It's possible to guess there might have been if it were also located below the Haram al-Sharif, but no evidence for it. It also seems unlikely simply because Yahweh probably wasn't the head deity until well into the Iron Age.

        I've no idea why the name of the city appearing in the Amarna letters would encourage anyone to believe otherwise.

        I'm not sure why it's relevant to the thread either, which is obviously about modern political issues and not ancient ones! All for it being it's own thread, though!

        Comment


        • #21
          The relevance probably has to do with the third temple apocalypse belief that played a prominent role under Pompeo. So it does play a role, just a bizarre one.

          Comment


          • #22
            Originally posted by Disciple of Fate View Post
            The relevance probably has to do with the third temple apocalypse belief that played a prominent role under Pompeo. So it does play a role, just a bizarre one.
            Bingo. Glad to see that others have been paying attention to the weirder aspects of this.

            Originally posted by nfe View Post

            We have no reason to think the Temple attributed to Solomon was not the first large scale Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. It's possible to guess there might have been if it were also located below the Haram al-Sharif, but no evidence for it. It also seems unlikely simply because Yahweh probably wasn't the head deity until well into the Iron Age.
            Evidence for the first temple itself is actually pretty thin on the ground, but hear me out: I don't think that first temple was to Yahweh.


            Originally posted by nfe View Post
            I've no idea why the name of the city appearing in the Amarna letters would encourage anyone to believe otherwise.
            Because of the two names for the city that are mentioned. 'Cornerstone of Shalim' and 'House of Shalim' this implies that this was a major center for Shalim's cult, and, most likely, there was a major temple to him there.

            Schmid and Rupprecht both hold that Solomon built over or otherwise cooped a preexisting temple, in an effort to unify the people of the city with the invading Israelites, so it's not just me shooting the breeze.


            Comment


            • #23
              Originally posted by BaronIveagh View Post

              Bingo. Glad to see that others have been paying attention to the weirder aspects of this.
              The theological concerns are about another Temple after that destroyed by Rome. Its number is irrelevant. It's simply always described as the third by convention.

              EDIT: scratch the rest, I'll create a thread.

              Comment


              • #24
                Hang on to your hats.

                https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58024060

                Comment


                • #25
                  Originally posted by BaronIveagh View Post
                  It was a nice "peace" while it lasted

                  Comment


                  • #26
                    No matter which way the judge rules, there's going to be violence.

                    Comment


                    • #27
                      I can't help but shake my head at the logical conclusion if the court judges against the Palestinians, seeing as a substantial chunk of Israel should then have to be handed back to its legitimate Palestinian owners. Not that hyper-jingoistic states are big on consistency or protecting minority rights, but still.

                      Comment


                      • #28
                        The four families have been offered 'protecting tenants' status preventing their eviction but requiring payment of rent to Jewish landlords as they did until the 80s. This has, quite unsurprisingly, been rejected (publically, though not officially, they have some time to present a list of protected tenants if they choose). It's obviously just an effort to kick the Can down the road a little.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X