babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » To those who demand that Palestinians "recognize Israel" would THIS be enough?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: To those who demand that Palestinians "recognize Israel" would THIS be enough?
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 February 2007 08:50 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If it were phrased in these words, or something like them?

"We recognize that the Jewish people had a right to a place of refuge. We accept that the state of Israel was founded for that purpose, and that it will continue to exist. We do NOT renounce any of our grievances about how we were treated in the course of the founding of that state.
We still expect compensation and apologies for what was done in 1948, since we were not the authors of the historic misery of the Jewish people

And we do NOT renounce our demand that we be allowed to found our own state in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, with its capitol at East Jerusalem, and with the dismantlement of all settlements, the restoration of our proper share of the regional water supply and an apology for all that has been done to our people during the time of the Occupation.

We also insist that all Arab people living within the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel be treated as full equals within Israeli society.

We recognize Israel's existence. But we do not surrender TO Israel."

It seems to me that this would be all that the Israeli government had any right to ask. And even this might be too much.

Discuss.

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 08 February 2007 08:54 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*sigh*

The demands made by Israel and its apologists are akin to someone violently breaking into your home, assaulting your family, running off with your TV, and then insisting that when they hand by the remote control, you ought to forgive and forget. It's fucking bullshit in the hypothetical right there, and its a god damn crime whats going on in the real world.

Israel is terrorist state. Just ask the family members of the 8 Canadians murdered by Israel last summer, or the families of the victims of the Qana Massacre.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 February 2007 08:57 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I support the right of Israel to survive, but not to survive as a state based on continuing injustice.

I am also trying to provide a form of "recognition" that does not require the Palestinians to essentially surrender.

I hope the recognition freaks can settle for this. They have no right to ask for anything more.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 08 February 2007 09:05 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I object to it.

Israel is not my place of refuge. How dare anyone speak for me and tell me that some place was "founded" as a place of refuge for me? Scrap that.

Israel exists, it's a state, it has the same international sovereignty and legitimacy as any other state. To give it any "Jewish" character automatically discriminates against non-Jews and disenfranchises many Jews who want nothing to do with ethnic or religious chauvinism in civil and state matters. That contradicts any verbiage about Arabs being "full equals" under the law.

To say "we do not renounce our right to form our own state in West Bank and Gaza" is a renunciation of the right of Palestinians inside or outside Israel to lobby for a non-ethnic non-religious state of Israel. Why should anyone renounce that right?

Also, questions: Where is Jerusalem in your scheme? West Bank? No? 50-50? Not important? And the Right of Return? and the Law of Return?

I don't think words mean anything any more. Israel and its apologists use "recognition of our right to exist" as a code for capitulation of the others. Arafat and his followers accepted that challenge. What did they achieve by doing so?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 February 2007 09:22 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I understand your point, unionist.

I was addressing this thread to the hard-line "pro-Israeli" types.

I'd like to know what reaction ohara, petsy and those with their mindset would have to this.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 08 February 2007 09:25 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, I understand. How about this:

"Israel (within pre-1967 borders) exists, it's a state, it has the same international sovereignty and legitimacy as any other state."


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 February 2007 09:28 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd like to know what reaction ohara, petsy and those with their mindset would have to this.

Why? Isn't your life too short to be wasting it on what they think?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 08 February 2007 09:29 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course it would not be enough. Those who rally against Palestinians don't do it based on facts, they do it based on a visceral sense of allegiance that is not rooted in logic.

By wasting your time on trying to appease them, you buy into their intent, which is to distract you from other, more useful forms of activism.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 February 2007 09:33 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Israel (within pre-1967 borders) exists, it's a state, it has the same international sovereignty and legitimacy as any other state."

OK, that could be part of it, unionist.

btw, the reason I put the "place of refuge" language in there was to acknowledge what brought about a lot of Israel's original Ashkenazi influx in(The Mizrahi influx was later, having occurred for reasons which, like so many other things involved with this issue, remain in dispute).

The rest I put in in order to respond to the "recognition is surrender" meme that is so prevalent among the pro-Palestinian side of the issue. They have legitimate reason for concern that the Israeli government, once it received it's much-obsessed about "recognition", would then say "see, they admitted we were right about everything. Now we can ignore them and continue screwing them over". This is what Olmert or Netanyahu would almost certainly do, both of them being deeply vindictive, arrogant and inhumane, and the right wing of Labor would back them up on this.

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 08 February 2007 10:13 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Ok, I understand. How about this:

"Israel (within pre-1967 borders) exists, it's a state, it has the same international sovereignty and legitimacy as any other state."


I'll buy that.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 08 February 2007 10:15 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And interstingly, there was a poll of Israeli-Arabs published a while back that said they supported, in the main, Israel as a predominatley Jewish state; but not Israel as a Zionist state. I found that interesting.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 08 February 2007 10:52 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Theres an unscoring theme to your post Ken, I'll highlight it:

quote:

We recognize that the Jewish people had a right to a place of refuge. We accept that the state of Israel was founded for that purpose, and that it will continue to exist. We do NOT renounce any of our grievances about how we were treated in the course of the founding of that state.
Westill expect compensation and apologies for what was done in 1948, since [We were not the authors of the historic misery of the Jewish people

And We do NOT renounce our demand that We be allowed to found our own state in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, with its capitol at East Jerusalem, and with the dismantlement of all settlements, the restoration of our proper share of the regional water supply and an apology for all that has been done to our people during the time of the Occupation.

We also insist that all Arab people living within the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel be treated as full equals within Israeli society.

We recognize Israel's existence. But We do not surrender TO Israel.




All it takes is one Palestinian person to break from the 'We' and the Palestinians will once again be punished as a whole for it... It doesn't matter what the agreement is when it's founded on the assumption the Palestinian people for a 100% 'we'.

Bottom line is we've destroyed their ability to act as one several times over... Through raids, arrests, and withholding funds and aid. Of course we dangle the carrot... To get their aid back, they must agree to something that is founded on them acting as one. Yet we still have threads about what the 'we' should be agreeing too.

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 February 2007 11:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
this wording is better....
quote:
September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.

Oh wait its already been done.

Wiki

What is this need to make the Palestinians do loyalty tests, again and again and again anyway?

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 08 February 2007 11:30 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Why? Isn't your life too short to be wasting it on what they think?

--------------------------------

Ken Burch

The whole wording in the body, and indeed the premise of the question sucks.

Why does anyone think that Jews have a right to a country because they were victims of the holocaust?

That is so wrong, on so many levels.

There were plenty of other victims than Jews. Victims who also have no country like Romas.

Back in 1979, when I spent a year investigating my 1/2 Jewish heritage, and the formation of Israel. I was left not knowing what the answer to this was and still do not.

The land was quit clearly fought for and gained by Jews, then it recognized as a country.

The fact is it now currently exists.

But so do the people who were displaced because of their nationality. Why do they not still have rights to their lands they had once occupied and owned?

Then those same people were further displaced, and lands taken only because those doing it are subsidized with world powers backing them, not because they could have fought for alone.

Then you bring in the question of precidence with peoples deciding they want additional territory, that is owned by others, and taking it force, is it right? Should it be alllowed?

I tentatively agree with unionist on this. Back to 67 territory.

But I would go further give the property back to Palestinians, who owed it and can prove it that is within the boundaries of 67 levels.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 09 February 2007 01:47 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why should the Palestininans have to recognize the "right" of Israel to exist in the first place? Israel is an exclusionary Jewish state, racist by its very definition. The Palestininans shouldn't recognize any theoretical "right" of the Israeli state to exist. Rather the Palestininans should demand their right to a one state solution to the Israeli-Palestininan conflict, in accordance with the Palestinians right of return. And Israel needs to recognize that the only way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to disband Israel and draft a new constitution for a single secular state in the region of Israel-Palestine, in cooperation with the Palestinians.
From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 February 2007 03:40 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
But I would go further give the property back to Palestinians, who owed it and can prove it that is within the boundaries of 67 levels.

What was Yitzhak Rabin's intention for the territories ?. Has labour in Israel swung to the middle or right since Rabin was assassinated ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
vancity75
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12781

posted 10 February 2007 11:08 AM      Profile for vancity75        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Asking for people to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist is so passe. Israel exists. The question is, rather, whether one acknowledges the right of Israel to exist in peace. Conversely, Israelis must acknowledge the right of Palestine to exist in peace.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 11 February 2007 01:46 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Zionist Appeasement: A Blight on the Canadian Political Landscape
quote:
But to target only the Conservative Party of Canada would be unfair because the other three major political parties in Canada are also infiltrated by Zionist appeasers. Former New Democratic Party (NDP) leader, Alexa McDonough, attempted to defend herself from an accusation of supporting zionist apartheid. Said she, "The NDP supports Palestinians' right to a safe and secure homeland, and Israel's right to exist." McDonough needs to unequivocally answer at least two questions: 1) What about Palestine's right to exist? 2) Does McDonough insist that European invaders have a right to establish an existential state on the millennia-old homeland of indigenous Palestinians?

The previous Liberal Party leader and prime minister, Paul Martin, went so far as to state, "Israel's values are Canada's values." Undeniably, history reveals that land theft through ethnic cleansing is a value that Canada and Israel share.

Current Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper has upped the ante in the public displays of obsequiousness to Zionism. Painting other political parties as "fair-weather friends" of Israel, Harper declared Israel would always have a "steadfast friend" in a Canadian Conservative government.

Refusing to be outdone, official opposition leader Stéphane Dion, nauseatingly stated his Liberal Party "will continue to proudly support, as a cornerstone of our foreign policy, the right of Israel to exist in peace and security." The major parties in Canadian national politics have engaged in a shameless pursuit of Jewish influence.


[ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 11 February 2007 02:08 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
What was Yitzhak Rabin's intention for the territories ?. Has labour in Israel swung to the middle or right since Rabin was assassinated ?.

Not sure what these questions have to do with what I said, but I do not for 1 minute believe Rabin, had anything real planned for the territories other than keeping them in Israels hands. And moreover, I believe it is about the same as it was under Rabin, only they are being more open now.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 11 February 2007 02:34 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think anything the Palestinian Government can do w.r.t. "recognizing Israel" (something they have already done) will help the Palestinians gain any sovereignty.

I think the best solution is one of two secular states existing side by side. But that is going to take a lot of convincing...


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 12 February 2007 04:27 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ken

For the most part I have no problem with the proposition as written. I would want to leave some potential for honest negotiation between Palestinians and Israelis as per segments of land. This noted I see that many here cannot accept even your very careful wording. *sigh*


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 05:29 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
This noted I see that many here cannot accept even your very careful wording. *sigh*

You mean the "refuge for Jews" part? That's the only part you care about, isn't it - that Israel be a permanent travel resort for foreigners with no roots there, while the indigenous population is excluded and marginalized? And they have to "recognize" this to stop getting slaughtered? I wish Ken would just have a sober look at his "formulation" and drop the racist part.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 12 February 2007 05:34 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I assume that you are speaking of the Law of Return?
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 08:30 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I assume that you are speaking of the Law of Return?

I dunno - what do you think? Maybe the Palestinians will accept Israel's right to exist and unionist's right to land at Lod Airport and immediately become a citizen? Sure, it's worth a try.

After all, my family suffered in the Holocaust, and then there was this Torah-Nevi'im-Ketuvim and the Mishnah and the Gemara, and God chose me (I think) for some purpose, I think to be persecuted through all eternity, and Christ do I feel the need for a refuge from all these people hassling me, I think it needs to be in the Middle East...

What's wrong with these Palestinians that they can't follow some simple logic? They selfishly want to live in Palestine, just because they and/or their parents got chased out of there, and they won't let me walk in and become a citizen overnight and live in their home, on their land?

ETA: It appears the above may not have been recognized by some readers as irony. Let me take this opportunity to express my sincere and abject apologies. Indeed, it is ironic in this sense: I personally do not favour the Law of Return, considering it to be the kind of ethno-racial exclusivist immigration provision which is unacceptable in any civilized society. Jews or others fleeing persecution are entitled to the Right of Asylum - an internationally recognized principle - but not to the Right to Settle in an Already-Inhabited Land by Expelling the Existing Inhabitants. I hope that's clear, and I apologize, yet again, for writing in an indirect rather than in a blunt and straightforward fashion.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 12 February 2007 09:04 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know what to think after the above post.
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 09:11 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I don't know what to think after the above post.

What did you think before the above post?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 12 February 2007 09:19 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That you were speaking of the Law of Return.
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 12 February 2007 11:48 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unionist your need to invoke your knoweledge of Judaism is frankly getting and looking ridiculous. I mean I really dont care if you can quote Gemorah or Talmud.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2007 12:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
unionist, I get your point, but we generally try to draw the line at ironic racism in case it gets out of hand, or so that it doesn't cause misunderstandings.

Petsy, we all establish a bit of identity cred here and there, so cut unionist some slack, huh?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 February 2007 12:11 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why should the Palestininans have to recognize the "right" of Israel to exist in the first place? Israel is an exclusionary Jewish state, racist by its very definition.

Why should the Germans have to recognize the "right" of France to exist in the first place? France is an exclusionary French state, racist by its very definition.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 12 February 2007 12:19 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Why should the Germans have to recognize the "right" of France to exist in the first place? France is an exclusionary French state, racist by its very definition.


Why should the English have to recognize the "right" of Germany to exist in the first place? England is an exclusionary English state, racist by its very definition

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 12:41 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
unionist, I get your point, but we generally try to draw the line at ironic racism in case it gets out of hand, or so that it doesn't cause misunderstandings.

Quite right. I've edited my post to make it clear that it was irony, as well as removing the very last sentence which might have been offensive if taken literally.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 12:47 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
Unionist your need to invoke your knoweledge of Judaism is frankly getting and looking ridiculous. I mean I really dont care if you can quote Gemorah or Talmud.

If you took the time to study some Talmud, you would see the wisdom that is there, instead of mocking my scholarship. Indeed, if the founders of Israel had done so, we might have been spared needless problems.

Baba Metsiya (one of the 36 volumes of the Gemorah, which is part of the Talmud), for example, in one of its most famous passages, shows the solution - albeit metaphorically - to a situation where two peoples lay claim to the same land, which was the case in the period leading up to 1948. You are no doubt familiar with the "shnayim ochzim be'talit" principle in Judaic law. Here is some source material for further research and reflection:

quote:
(a) In a case where two people arrive in Beis-Din holding a Talis (a cloak), each of whom claims that he found it and that it all belongs to him - our Mishnah rules that each one swears that not less than half belongs to him, and takes half (which means that they either divide it in two or they sell it and share the proceeds).

(b) If ...

1. ... only one of them is holding it - then we apply the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah' (what a person has in his possession belongs to him until proven otherwise), and the one who is holding it takes it.
2. ... neither of them is holding it - then we apply the ruling 'Kol de'Alim G'var', meaning that they fight it out among themselves (see Tosfos DH 've'Yachloku').

(c) If one of them claims the whole Talis, and the other one, only half, then the former takes three quarters and the latter, a quarter - following the same pattern as the Reisha, where each one takes half of the disputed article. Here too, each one takes of the disputed half. The Shevu'ah (that each one swears that he is not entitled to less than the amount that he ultimately receives) in both the Reisha and the Seifa will be explained later in the Sugya.


[emphasis added, to show clearly that the Palestinian people's land was theirs until determined otherwise by a legitimate authority]

You see? Answers are there for the asking.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2007 12:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
Why should the English have to recognize the "right" of Germany to exist in the first place? England is an exclusionary English state, racist by its very definition

Bullshit. While it is the case that in the past many nations have instituted racially inspired immigration policies, (the Chinese Head Tax in Canada is an example of one) but the fact is that these type of policies are discredited. It is not as if Quebcois Canadians can immeditaly get French citizenship, to use Stockholms example, simply by benefit of their racial origin.

I really don't see how this defence of racist immigration policies fits into the defintion of progressive, and within the terms of the boards stated policy against "exculsionary" language.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 12 February 2007 12:58 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is no state called "england" but United kindgom.
FYI, Blair is Scottish not English. And the immigration policies accept mostly people from former Bristish colonies.
Nonsense, IOW.

From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2007 01:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You must in fact be able to show that you have immediate familial relations, who presently hold British citizenship.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 February 2007 01:06 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In fact, if you can prove that you have German ethnicity, you can move to Germany and become a citizen. There are Volga Germans whose ancestors left Germany 300 years ago who can move back to Germany at any time and get German citizenship. Meanwhile people of Turkish descent who are born in Germany have to jump through all kinds of hoops.

There are similar policies in Japan and Switzerland and many other countries.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2007 01:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am sure you will find an appropriat link for that somewhere someday. As usual though, I am highly sceptical of anything you puport to be fact as most of things you say have a very indirect relationship to reality, I find.

As can be expected, the link that I have contradicts your statement immedialty.

quote:
German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (so-called Aussiedler, see Volga Germans) to move to Germany and be granted German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been the object of controversy. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person".[11]

The historic context for Article 116 was the eviction, following World War II, of an estimated 9 million ethnic Germans from other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Another 9 million Germans from former eastern German provinces, over which Stalin and eastern neighbour states extended military hegemony in 1945, were expelled as well. These expellees and refugees (known as Heimatvertriebene) were given refugee status and documents and resettled by Germany; discussion of possible compensation is ongoing. Some German expellees desire to resettle in their territories of birth, youth and early life, but legal procedures often make remigration difficult, even after Poland and the Czech Republic joined the European Union.

In contrast to Aussiedler, persons of German descent living in North America, South America etc. do not have an automatic Right of return and must actually prove their eligibility for German citizenship according to the clauses pertaining to the German nationality law.


As you can see this is no mere arbitrary law, but a law passed in order to deal with Germans persecuted and expelled from Eastern Europe after WW2, and living in Germany.

It seems that German citizenship law is determined also by direct parentage.

In anycase:

quote:
British Citizenship can be acquired in the following ways:

lex soli: By birth in the United Kingdom to a parent who is a British citizen at the time of the birth, or to a parent who is settled in the United Kingdom
lex sanguinis: By descent if one of the parents is a British citizen otherwise than by descent (for example by birth, adoption, registration or naturalisation in the United Kingdom)
By naturalisation
By registration
By adoption
For nationality purposes, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are generally treated as part of the United Kingdom.


Acquisition of British citizenship

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 01:28 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who gives a damn if other states have ethnic or other "priorities" in immigration? What a diversionary discussion.

If Israel hadn't expelled 750,000 inhabitants and confiscated their property and not allowed them to return until this day - and if they weren't illegally occupying yet more foreign territory since 1967 - I might feel less troubled about the fact that I, a Canadian Jew, am allowed to waltz in and claim citizenship any old time. It's the combination of expulsion of the Arabs, occupation of others' land, and welcoming of Jews that makes Israel's behaviour so egregious and repugnant.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2007 01:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree but here Stockholm is defending Israel by peddling falshoods, so they should be corrected in detail. In fact, the German law is a reaction to direct perecution, and the expulsion of people of German origin in Eastern Europe after WW2. Germans driven out and living in Germany.

This is not the same thing at all as Volga Germans being able to up and aquire German citizenship just because they can say "ich liebe dich."


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 12 February 2007 01:37 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
....If Israel hadn't expelled 750,000 inhabitants and confiscated their property....

To be fair, it was a UN Security Council Mandate, the Brits handed their 'control' over to the newly extablished Isreali government.

That's not to excuse the infractions on the 1967 line however.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 01:41 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:

To be fair, it was a UN Security Council Mandate, the Brits handed their 'control' over to the newly extablished Isreali government.


That is historically inaccurate on so many levels that it would require a separate thread. I'll post some references when I have a minute, just don't want to derail this thread.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2007 01:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wait there a second, huge amounts of territory were aquired in the 1956 war, and in fact Israel has never abided by the original territory assigned to them, right from the get go, so there is no legal basis for a lot of it. For instance the Port of Eilat was annexed by Israel when it was explicitly supposed to be a joint Arab/Israeli zone under the terms of the 1956 cease fire agreement.

A little known fact is that the express reason for Egypt's closure of the Straights of Tiran in 1967, was this annexation.

Essentially the 1967 "Green Line" is still a Palestinian concession.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 12 February 2007 01:50 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In 1947, following increasing levels of Arab-Jewish violence and general war-weariness, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate.[12] Jewish nationalism and messianism led to Zionism, a movement to re-create a Jewish nation in the Land of Israel. Jewish immigration grew steadily after the late nineteenth century and took on added meaning, and gained added external support, in the wake of the Holocaust. The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area consisting of roughly 45%. Jerusalem was to be designated as an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.

There was definitely a lot more going on at the time, but that is accurate on a very basic level to begin with. AFTER that, I'm not defending the various land grabs, but they were set up initially like this, and then renegotiated with the 1967 borders.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2007 01:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The new historians argue that annihilation was impossible because of Jewish superiority in two crucial areas, diplomacy and military preparedness.4 The Jewish community had carried the day in diplomatic maneuvering in the United Nations and by accurately analyzing the balance of military power on the ground. An unwritten agreement between the Jewish Agency and the Arab Legion, the strongest Arab force in the area, practically guaranteed that the battle-ready Jewish forces would prevail.

There are sociological explanations for the Jewish victories on the diplomatic and battle fronts. The Jewish community in Palestine is depicted as more highly organized than the Palestinians and much more aware of the need to prepare itself for the end of the Mandate. The Jewish community benefited from a neutral British policy. London was worried only about securing a safe British withdrawal from Palestine once it had decided it could no longer hold the territory.

Contrary to both the Palestinian and Zionist historical narratives, the new historians do not accuse Britain of favoring either side or of collusion with the enemy. They also reject the claim of Jewish extremists that their terrorist campaign forced Britain to withdraw. An economic crisis in Britain and the overall decline of the British Empire forced Britain to be content with holding only those areas of its empire that were of high strategic value in the Cold War era. Palestine was not one of them. Early on, leaders of the Jewish community recognized the imminent end of British rule in Palestine, while the political leadership of the Palestinians seemed convinced that the British Mandate would remain longer, especially after the failure of the Palestinian revolt against it from 1936-39.

From the moment London decided to refer the Palestine Mandate to the United Nations—from February 1947 onwards—the Jewish leadership in Palestine effectively mobilized its community and prepared it for the takeover of the Mandatory government and its functions. The Palestinian leadership, with its prominent members exiled abroad by the British, did very little in this direction, and failed to organize its community financially or militarily.

The result was that the Jewish community was superior both militarily and financially when a civil war broke out between the two communities in November 1947. Jewish superiority also was evident in the number of fighting men. In the local war, which lasted between November 1947 and May 1948, Jewish forces took control of all of the mixed Jewish-Arab towns in Palestine and seized crucial transport routes as well. The end of Palestinian presence in Palestine began not because few Jews fought against many Arabs, as the official Zionist version would have it, nor was it a miracle, as the mainstream Israeli historians tend to describe it. It was simply the outcome of a military advantage.


Illan Pappe, of the UNiversity of Haifa


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 01:57 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:

To be fair, it was a UN Security Council Mandate, the Brits handed their 'control' over to the newly extablished Isreali government.


It was a League of Nations Mandate established after World War I, not the UN or its Security Council.

The British handed over nothing. They unilaterally withdrew in May 1948, and the Jewish provisional government unilaterally declared the "State of Israel". This was not done with British consent or cooperation.

Most important, nothing in the 1947 U.N. partition resolution foresaw, or permitted, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from the territory where the Jewish state was to be established. All residents were to remain in place.

I'm tired of this. You should pay attention to the principle: "Look it up, don't make it up."

ETA: Thanks, Cueball, for posting some of the information which I was summarizing in my simultaneous post. Another place to begin reading about these subjects, quelar, is always Wikipedia.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2007 02:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In fact there were very clear guidlines about how citizenship was to be established based on residency.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 February 2007 02:03 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In fact, the German law is a reaction to direct perecution, and the expulsion of people of German origin in Eastern Europe after WW2.

In fact, the Israeli law is a reaction to direct perecution, and the expulsion of people of Jewish origin in Eastern (and western)Europe during and after WW2.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2007 02:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No. It is not simply that. It is much more than that.

It is a blanket law which allows for any Jew, even those as well healed as Henry Kissinger, who by no means an impoverished refugee expelled from his home living on the streets without any status at all to go to become a citizen of Israel simply because he wants to.

Again, the difference is that the German law takes into account the specific situations of individuals directly impacted by catastrophic disenfranchisement and persecution.

Notice too, that the German law only provides for people of German origin who are so persecuted as refugees and forced into Germany directly, by forces beyond the control of the government of Germany,while North American Germans are shit out of luck. You of course can simply wank off to Tel Aviv anytime you want.

It is not an open invitation to immigrate.

It almost goes without saying that you are simply wrong on point. Volga-Germans can not simply up and decide to return to the homeland, they have to be forced there.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 12 February 2007 02:12 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[emphasis added, to show clearly that the Palestinian people's land was theirs until determined otherwise by a legitimate authority]

You see? Answers are there for the asking.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


If this is what you need to prove your Jewish creds ok by me. I love the Talmud personally I just dont se a need to trot it out every mitvoch and donneshtik (Yiddish transliteration that Im confident unionist can translate for us all)

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2007 02:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, unlike some, I don't simply consider this forum a forum solely for the purposes of political flyering. It can actually be a place of learning and the expansion of ones intellectual horizons beyond the regurgitation of rote poliical talking points in defence of the cause, so I personally find Unionists digressions refreshing, and interesting.

It is not just about establishing creds, IMHO, but an attempt to discuss the nature of traditional Jewish culture as it conflicts with the Zionist sect, within the greater whole of Judaism proper.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 07:05 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
If this is what you need to prove your Jewish creds ok by me. I love the Talmud personally I just dont se a need to trot it out every mitvoch and donneshtik (Yiddish transliteration that Im confident unionist can translate for us all)

Does it bother you that you are a Zionist, while I am a Jew?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2007 07:41 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, let's not digress. Petsy, I can't believe I have to tell you this, but chastising another babbler because they're making cultural references to their religion is out of line. If anyone ever made fun of you or one of your allies on babble for making references to your Jewish experience, you'd be screaming bloody murder, and rightfully so.

unionist, I realize you were provoked, but let's not go there, okay? Don't give them an excuse.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2007 07:58 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
unionist, I realize you were provoked, but let's not go there, okay? Don't give them an excuse.

Ok fine, I won't digress, but I will continue to bore everyone by defending the Jewish people and Jewish traditions and our contributions to humanity. That's why I am revolted when in the opening post a suggestion is made that Israel was founded as a "refuge" for Jews. We are not stray animals, nor are we a people who historically dispossesses and oppresses others, as others have historically done to us. If anyone thinks I will stop defending Jews against such slanders and attacks, they will be disappointed.

Israel has evolved into the worst nightmare of the Jewish people. It disgraces us, it demeans us, and it fosters anti-Semitism. It shelters no Jews, but exposes them to peril. It has a right to exist as a state (because that is de facto what it is) within secure borders and in peace - but asking anyone to recognize that is a bit of a farce, when Israel has crossed others' borders more often and shed more neighbours' blood in that region than anyone else.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 12 February 2007 10:32 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I never meant my original post to be an attack on the Jewish people, unionist. I'm sorry if it read that way. Check your PM's for a further comment on this.

The intent of my OP was actually to be a challenge to the "pro-Israeli" posters, with their endless obsessing about "recognition, recognition, recognition" and to be a way to phrase the recognition issue in a manner that would not be seen as surrender by Palestinians.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 13 February 2007 08:42 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I'm tired of this. You should pay attention to the principle: "Look it up, don't make it up."

ETA: Thanks, Cueball, for posting some of the information which I was summarizing in my simultaneous post. Another place to begin reading about these subjects, quelar, is always Wikipedia.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


Thanks for the condescention unionist, but none of my statements are proven wrong by what you said, I did take a VERY simplistic take on things, and if you look, I did reference a wikipedia article backing up what I said. You throwing a British mandate of Palestine article does not change the fact that you've yet to actually prove my statement wrong.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 February 2007 02:40 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I never meant my original post to be an attack on the Jewish people, unionist. I'm sorry if it read that way. Check your PM's for a further comment on this.


I did read your PM and I appreciated your comments. I tried to reply, but your inbox was full.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 13 February 2007 02:52 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unionist I disagree with this position and think that the generalization should be amended because as I read it you are speaking for me as well.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Israel has evolved into the worst nightmare of the Jewish people. It disgraces us, it demeans us, and it fosters anti-Semitism. It shelters no Jews, but exposes them to peril.

From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 February 2007 07:56 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Unionist I disagree with this position and think that the generalization should be amended because as I read it you are speaking for me as well.

You're correct, let me modify that. It is clearly an editorial comment on my part and expresses feelings that I have strongly held for many years (growing since the 1967 war), but just as clearly I am not purporting to speak on behalf of the Jewish people when I express that judgment.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 February 2007 04:03 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:

You throwing a British mandate of Palestine article does not change the fact that you've yet to actually prove my statement wrong.

You challenged my statement that Israel "expelled 750,000 inhabitants and confiscated their property". You said the British had a UN Security Council mandate and handed control to the new Jewish state. All I did was correct your inaccuracies. What is it you want me to "prove" and how? Bring witnesses?

ETA: Here was my original post. If it was wrong, just let me know how.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 15 February 2007 04:49 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Are we debating whether they were "expelled" or "fled"?
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 February 2007 04:51 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Are we debating whether they were "expelled" or "fled"?

"Fled" + "not allowed back for next 60 years" = expelled.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 15 February 2007 05:14 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting definition of "expelled" but I certainly won't contest the fact that they fled and have not been allowed back in to date.
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2007 05:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Jewish military advantage was translated into an act of mass expulsion of more then half of the Palestinian population. The Israeli forces, apart from rare exceptions, expelled the Palestinians from every village and town they occupied. In some cases, this expulsion was accompanied by massacres as was the case in Lydda, Ramleh, Dawimiyya, Sa’sa, Ein Zietun and other places. Expulsion also was accompanied by rape, looting and confiscation. Expulsion was not always direct. Sometimes the Jewish fighters terrorized and terrified villagers into fleeing their homes. In a few cases total surrender saved some of the population from expulsion, but not always.


Illan Pappe, Historian University of Haifa


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 February 2007 05:25 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Interesting definition of "expelled" but I certainly won't contest the fact that they fled and have not been allowed back in to date.

Not allowing refugees to return after hostilities end is a war crime. Ignore the massacres of Deir Yassin and others, and forget the word "expelled" if you consider semantic debates more important than reality. It doesn't change 60 years of this crime against humanity.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 15 February 2007 06:59 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It really doesn't matter to those who defend Israel policies against Palestinians whether they fled, were expelled, or simply vanished. They are sectarians who have been taught, or who believe, some lives are more valuable than others and those less valuable lives just don't matter. Their suffering is inconsequential, their humanity irrelevant if they are afforded any humanity at all. When a similar culture colonized North America they declared the "only good indian is a dead indian". The same philosophy, or hate, if you will, I believe is now dominant in Israel toward Palestinians. Worse, Canadian political leaders, Harper in particular, express that hate, substituting indians for terrorists (but still with the understanding that the only good one is a dead one), in order to curry sectarian votes at home.

Arguing with them is a waste of time. It didn't help a single Blackfoot or Crow.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 15 February 2007 09:07 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

You challenged my statement that Israel "expelled 750,000 inhabitants and confiscated their property". You said the British had a UN Security Council mandate and handed control to the new Jewish state. All I did was correct your inaccuracies. What is it you want me to "prove" and how? Bring witnesses?

ETA: Here was my original post. If it was wrong, just let me know how.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]



So, I wasn't trying to argue the 'expulsion', what I was trying to say is that it wasn't just Isreal, it was the UN, the security council and Britain who all allowed it to happen. Isreal is not the only party to this, and everyone bears responsibility for the crimes agaisnt humanity.

Sorry if it didn't come across with the proper intent.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2007 09:25 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I felt there was a misunderstanding myself.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca