And here we are. Some excuse, with accusation, to do exactly what I predicted.
> Your GP post says 3 conditions justify reacting against civilians
You also seem to either misunderstand or disregard what I wrote. That is plainly rude. Go back and read it again.
So clearly we should boycott just all muslims, since your claim is that that justifies boycotting civilians from those countries.
The whole of "islam" was not a religion until at least 1930, but an empire, which is another name for an organization that ONLY occupies other countries and populations and mass murders and exploits them. The hadith state that all of islam, country and people are the personal property of the caliph (who is allowed to, for example, kill anyone, muslim, dhimmi or slave, for any reason, making islam even more inhumane than the Romans were. This explains what current muslims pretend not to comprehend: that their grandparents were overwhelmingly very happy to see islam, the empire, end). Muslim empires have always done this exploiting through slavery, until at least 1970. There are regular accusations to middle eastern muslims that they still do so. So this is not exactly a surprise. So that's a further justification to boycott all muslims, no?
In fact Israel is an example of a region and a local population that WAS occupied by the Ottoman empire and fought itself free. In that view the conflict is entirely the reverse of what you claim it is.
But you're a racist, so none of this matters. What I'm misunderstanding is that arguments can only be used against Jews, and how much the same arguments apply to anyone else doesn't matter.
Not once did I mention "Jews", I only mentioned actions of the State of Israel. I don't care how the groups of people call themselves. What I care about is that a group of people is killing another group people. I care about the fact that one group is a well-equipped army and most of the killed are civilians. It is wrong that this happens. You don't care about that, in fact it very much looks like you are the racist here, obsessed about "muslims" and some nonsensical interpretation of history and cheering that they are being mass murdered. This is shameful behavior from your side.
But let's examine your conditions, because it's SO badly chosen that EVEN Palestine satisfies all 3 of your conditions:
> 1) There is an ongoing long-term occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel.
Yep, Gaza is militarily occupied by hamas. They supposedly "won" an election, but then massacred everyone in the state. Even today hamas makes no attempt, other than guns, to justify their position in Gaza. That's occupation.
> 2) Occupation is an act of war. Israel is waging war on Palestine. It is breaking agreements it is a part of.
Well, I don't think any sane person will argue hamas' purpose is anything other than self-enrichment through war.
> 3) Of course the aim of Israel is to absorb more-or-less all Palestinian territory into Israel proper.
Actually, it still isn't. Or at least, they haven't publicly declared this. Hamas has not only declared they intend to conquer all of Israel, they've publicly declared they will hunt down and kill every last Israeli (they of course used a certain religious word), anywhere on the planet.
I would like to remind you that these arguments are supposedly what you use to justify isolating Israeli civilians, even outside of Israel, even non-Israeli Jewish organizations are getting attacked by these demonstrations (e.g. a WW2 memorial in the Netherlands). So let's now see you agree to boycott Palestinians. After all, you're not a racist, and these reasons really are why you're suggesting a boycott, right? Since the very same facts certainly apply to Palestinians boycotting them is justified, right?
In fact they trivially apply to Turkey, Azerbaijan, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and even Morocco (to name one conflict zone: Western Sahara), and let's just be honest: it applies to essentially all muslim countries. All are militarily occupying territory.
So let's just boycott all muslims! After all, reasons 1, 2 AND 3 justify it!
Frankly, if you know any amount of history you must know that the Ottoman empire is not called an empire because of the favorite headdress of the caliph. It was a central group, in a single central city that militarily occupied anything they possibly could, like the Romans did. They even "exported" slaves from all their conquered territories, which was a ridiculous 80%-90% of their economy. That territory is what makes up muslim countries today, so of course everything is still mostly militarily occupied.
This is what I find so baffling about the whole Palestinian conflict. You are complaining "in the name of freedom" that a region in an empire revolted ... and that it won! Because in reality it is of course Israel that freed itself from muslim (the country, "not" the religion, between quotes because every muslim insists there's no difference) occupation, not any kind of conquest. And you are doing this in the name of freedom? Seriously?
This really reminds me of the arguments everyone kept making defending Soviet Union behavior during the cold war. There were supposed rules and moral principles and "rational arguments" and ... proving the Soviet Union was good and an unfair victim ... and then their tanks rolled into Vienna (and 100 other places), DESPITE things like gulags and the holodomor and ... being well known to the people making these arguments.