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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the NDP   » Layton to Martin on Palestine/Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Layton to Martin on Palestine/Israel
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 14 December 2004 02:24 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Dear Prime Minister,

As you are aware, on November 29 the United Nations marked the
International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People in which
member states presented and debated ways to encourage peaceful means
of uniting and strengthening the Palestinian people in their efforts
to achieve statehood and self-determination.

At the conclusion of these debates Canada voted against the resolution
on the floor of the General Assembly. Historically, Canada has
abstained during votes of this nature. In light of our traditional
voting pattern, it is difficult to see how changing that vote is not a
change in Canada's Middle East policy. Just as important, I am
disturbed by the lack of clarity on this issue from you and your
government.

I believe the current situation in the Middle East provides an
opportunity to make progress, with the ultimate goal of an
independent, functional Palestinian state and security for Israel.
This goal is the reason our position towards the Middle East has
traditionally been even-handed, and I am disturbed that any change
from that position may signal an abandonment of that commitment.

I urge you to recommit Canada to a balanced Middle East policy that
recognizes both Israel's and Palestine's rights to secure statehood. I
do not believe the shift we have seen in recent votes since you became
Prime Minister assists in this goal.

I recognize the historic and contemporary injustices that make lasting
and meaningful peace in the Middle East difficult, but also recognize
a balanced policy towards the region is the best way to protect
innocent lives in both Palestine and Israel.

Sincerely,

Jack Layton, MP

Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada


Someone drew my attention to this letter, which seems to have gone under the radar. I think it's much better than the statements earlier this summer.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 14 December 2004 03:47 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There really is no reason for anybody to get their knickers in a bunch over this vote. Six resolutions were passed that day regarding Palestinians. Canada voted for (didn't abstain) five of the six. The one we voted against was not exactly passed with unanimity. The votes went like this: 84 in favour, 9 against, 80 abstentions. I haven't found the original text yet. But here was Canada's explanation:
quote:
The representative of Canada, said her country had revised its voting and decided to vote against the text on the Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices. Canada was very concerned about the suffering of the Palestinians and the Israelis, and deplored all violence. It had called on Israel to comply with its obligations under international law. However, the resolution added no value to the work of other organizations involved in the peace process. Moreover, it distorted the picture that should reflect the rights and obligations of all parties.
Sounds reasonable to me.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 14 December 2004 03:53 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Though marginally better than what Layton was saying during the election campaign, this letter is still rather weak.

I consider Canada's traditional abstention position at the UN to be every bit as disturbing as the position it is taking now.

Why won't the Canadian government uphold the principles of peace and justice, not to mention international law, and condemn the illegal, immoral occupation of Palestine and everything that goes with it. And why the hell does the NDP back away from holding the Liberals feet to the fire.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 09:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is true Tim, but it is free of the earlier moral atrtrocities evidenced in previous NDP material on the subject such as suggesting that Israeli had a right to a state and security while the Palestinians had a right to a state. Secure state for Israel, just a state for Palestinians.

I notice this forumlation is better:

quote:
I urge you to recommit Canada to a balanced Middle East policy that
recognizes both Israel's and Palestine's rights to secure statehood.

You have arrived mid-debate, as it were.

Really of course the NDP should be moving into the territory recommended by noted Israeli historian Illan Pappe from the Universisty of Haifa, whom only few month ago made this point in interview:

quote:
The first agenda is not a peace agenda. If you are in the business of protecting the cause of Palestine you are not just on the business of peace — you have a much more urgent agenda, which is saving the Palestinians in Palestine. I'm not sure that you can prevent the Israeli government from taking its next steps in its policies of destruction and expulsion by talking about dialogues for peace.

I think you should start thinking about what an activist group can do to create an atmosphere in which Israel is a pariah state as long as these policies continue. Talk about sanctions, talk about boycotts, talk about anything that drives home the message that enough is enough, that such behaviour cannot be tolerated from a state that claims to be part of the family of civilized countries.


IMHO

PS: Of course the Liberal explanation sounds reasonable to you Phonocidal, the explanation doesn't explain anything. It is in line with the general contentlessness of your thinking.

[ 14 December 2004: 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 14 December 2004 09:55 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The letter is definitely more clear on NDP stance than the one that was debated elsewhere though. Which is good and perhaps if Jack and the NDP have not received a response, pressure could be put upon Martin by letters asking for a response. How we voted at the UN after years of abstaining really was shocking.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 10:37 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh no. No, it is much better. It is not painfully lopsided, as it was before were it seemed the NDP was only interested in addressing Israeli issues while ignoring Palestinian ones. It was as if one ear was filled with wax, the other clean.

But I think it is time for the NDP to consider the possibility of reccomending sanctions.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree, Canada should have sanctions against countries that finance Palestinian terrorism: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria etc...etc...etc...
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 01:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes well, when Saudi Arabia or Syria occupies Israel and makes the 8 million Jews who live there live under marshall law and then kills them daily in a grinding occupation, cuts them off from their means of livelihood, and makes them live as second class citizens, wherein some roads are barred to Jews, as "Arab only roads," that will be a consideration.

In the meantime, in case you missed the brief, you should know that 3.5 million Palestinian Arabs do live under marshall law, and have been subjected to that for 40 years.

I guess, according to your logic, we should boycott Italy, as it is the place from which sicilian mobsters control terrorist crime activites in all over the world... even here. But no, lets only deal with Arab criminals.

Amazing how you can calculate the murders of persons numbering in the hundreds against the thousands killed by the IDF in the last four years of occupation, on top of the complete removal of the civil rights of a population of 3.5 million persons, and suggest that the 2 are equal.

Talk about moral relativism.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 01:10 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes well when Saudi Arabia or Syria occupies Israel and makes the 8 million Jews who live there live under marshall law that will be a consideration. In the meantime, in case you missed the brief, you should know that 3.5 million Palestinian Arabs do live under marshall law, and have been subjected to that for 40 years.

The corrupt, illegitimate, fascistic regimes of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran occupy their own countries and force ALL of their citizens to live under marshall law 365 days a year and on top of that they regularly stone people to death for the slightest infractions of religious law.

I'd rather be an Arab living under Israeli occupation than live in a giant concentration camp like Saudi Arabia.


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

posted 14 December 2004 01:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently the Arabs don't agree, otherwise they would be blowing themselves up in protest every couple of weeks. But of course, you know best, don't you. One of the reason being that you don't even have to break any laws, religious or otherwise, to be executed. They don't even give Palestinians trials before they shoot them.

The difference is, Stockwell, that the Saudis are not trying force the people who live there off of their land in a concerted effort to impose a racially pure society. Israel is. It called racism. And you support it because you are a racist.

You probably don't even know it. Ernst Zundel doesn't think he is a racist either, or rather he think racially segregated societies are justified, just like you do.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 December 2004 01:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's see, the US installed Assad in Syria, they prop up the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia and they overthrew a democratic government in Iran to install a brutal dictatorship which led directly to the current situation. And you support US actions in Iraq, right stockholm. But I forget, you have no problem with white mass murder conductd in a clinical remote control fashion. It is non-white individual murder conducted with long knives you object to.

Oh, well.

So now I understand. You can forgive the brutal occupation of olive skinned Palestinian people by white Israelis but not the oppression of olive skinned people by olive skinned people. White American brutality and oppression of olive skinned Iraqis is okay though, eh?

Ah, the blinders of cultural racism. So many easy answers.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 01:29 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The difference is, Stockwell, that the Saudis are not trying force the people who live there off of their land in a concerted effort to impose a racially pure society. Israel is. It called racism. And you support it because you are a racist.


Jews are not even allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia and non-Muslims can't get into Mecca. This reminds me of a line from Ulysses by james Joyce:

"You know Ireland is the only country that never persecuted the Jews and do you know why Mr. Bloom? Because we never let them in in the first place!"


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 01:32 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let's see, the US installed Assad in Syria,

Oh really?? Assad is a Baathist who (along with his father) has led the most virulantly anti-Isreal and anti-US regime outside of Iran and Sudan and Afghanistan under Taliban. I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA hasn't tried to know him off countless times.


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

posted 14 December 2004 01:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Jews are not even allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia and non-Muslims can't get into Mecca.

You know you are absolutely right there.

But then the Saudis have not gone an occupied a racially diverese neightbouring region that is filled with people whom are not of their kind, and then made them second class non-citizens, in an effort to force them to leave.

Not being allowed to go somewhere is completely different from being forced from where you are.

When did you first recognize your racism?

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 01:38 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Saudis" are not even an ethnic group, it is the family name of a scummy corrupt royal family. There was a time when the territory that is now Saudi Arabia was a lot more mixed, before Islam demanded that all non-Muslims be converted or killed.

Anyways, I have a constructive idea idea. Why doesn't saudi Arabia try to set an example for Israel and for the region and declare freedom of religion, abolish the death penalty, give equal rights to woman and announce that Jews and Christians will be welcomed with open arms by the best in Saudi hospitality.


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

posted 14 December 2004 01:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Which one of those rights have the Israelis given to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza? By definintion having equal rights depends on having rights in the first place. Unless you mean that Palestinian men are equal to Palestinian women in their mutual lack of rights.

For instance, the right to a trial before execution. At least the Saudis try their criminals before they kill them. In that sense the Saudis are presenting an admirable model of civilized behaviour far and away superior to anything that Israel offers the Palestinians.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 14 December 2004 01:52 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
So now I understand. You can forgive the brutal occupation of olive skinned Palestinian people by white Israelis...?
You've obviously never been to either Israel if you can speak about them as "white". A huge percentage of the Israeli population are just as native to the Middle East as any Arab Muslim (at least 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries like Iraq, Yemen, Iran). Not to mention the Ethiopian Jews, Bedouin, Druze. For that matter, a great deal of Palestinians are just as white as any European. So, skin colour should have nothing to do with this. I don't know why you would bring it up.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 01:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, that surely justifies 40 years of marshal law imposed on 3.5 million people.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 14 December 2004 02:02 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
At least the Saudis try their criminals before they kill them.
You're going to hang your hat on the Saudi "justice" system...uh...OK.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Von Mises Pieces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6792

posted 14 December 2004 02:14 PM      Profile for Von Mises Pieces     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
You're going to hang your hat on the Saudi "justice" system...uh...OK.

Well, screaming "racist!" didn't work for him, did it?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 December 2004 02:30 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
You're going to hang your hat on the Saudi "justice" system...uh...OK.

He's not "hanging his hat" on it, he's pointing out that when something called the "Saudi justice system" gets favourable comparison to something called the "Israeli justice system", then those "hanging their hats" on the "Israeli Justice system" should consider keeping their hats on their head!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 December 2004 02:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I would like it if people didn't call each other "racists" here, even if you think, truly, in your heart of hearts, that someone is racist. Calling people anti-semites is against the rules, and so is calling people racists. This is a highly-charged debate, and I don't think that's constructive on either side.

I don't want to put a chill on the debate in this forum either, though. Maybe we could make it a "convention" in this forum to frame it in terms of "I think the argument you have made is racist" rather than "You are a racist," and the same with anti-semitism. I want to be even-handed about this.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 02:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You're going to hang your hat on the Saudi "justice" system...uh...OK.

K, so about the trial of Ahmed Yassin. Can you please direct me to the judgement, and the evidence provided to the court, before his death sentence was carried out? The sentencing judges summary should be good enough.

Perhaps also the names of the judges, etc. etc. Normal things you know, in the application of law. You know the law that is used to enshrine the rights of people... etc. You know... "not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done."

Was it jury trial, or presided over by a justice?

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 December 2004 02:36 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You've obviously never been to either Israel if you can speak about them as "white"

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what stockholm and others like him think. He shares a cultural affinity for Americans and Israelis and therefore easily accepts their crimes and atrocities as being reasonable and humane including the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while he finds a single beheading abhorent and worthy of violent and immeasurable retribution.

Whether it is because he sees them as white or non-Arab or non-Muslim, I don't care. It is still racism, in my opinion.

quote:
Oh really?? Assad is a Baathist who (along with his father) has led the most virulantly anti-Isreal and anti-US regime outside of Iran and Sudan and Afghanistan under Taliban.

Yes, and Saddam was a Baathist also installed by the USA, nice, eh?

But my mistake, it was not Assad:


quote:
1947 - Washington is displeased by Syria's government.A CIA-Army `political action team' mounts a coup, employing a `CIA asset,' Gen. Husni Za'im. As senior CIA Mideast agent Miles Copeland delightfully recalls, the Americans kept calling Za'im `our boy,' or `Husni,' and ordering him about. The day after Za'im's coup, Copeland and the American agents went to inform the new dictator whom he would appoint as ambassadors and cabinet ministers. When the Americans called him, `Husni,' Za'im ordered them to `stand at attention,' and address him as `Excellency.' US-Syrian relations have been terrible ever since. Two subsequent, US-backed coups backfired.

Source

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 December 2004 02:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh geez, this isn't even the Middle East forum. Forget I said anything!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 14 December 2004 06:46 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Alright, back to the original topic of this thread.

Layton manages to write an entire letter on the subject of Canada's position on the Israel/Palestine conflict without mentioning any of the facts on the ground. FYI, the most important facts on the groud are:

1. The Illegal and immoral occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel.

2. The ever-expanding Israeli-settlements and the Jews only roads, both of which serve to divide the palestinian people into small enclaves. These are illegal under international law

3. The Israeli checkpoints that deny Palestinians movement between these different enclaves.

4. The Israeli policy of demolishing Palestinian homes.

5. The Apartheid wall.

6. Denying Palestinians the right of return, while allowing Jews from anywhere in the world the right to immigrate to Israel and become Israeli citizens.

Layton's position demanding a "balanced" approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict is very similar, if not the same, as his position during the election campaign. That wasn't a 'balanced' position, and his current position aint either.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 14 December 2004 06:48 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tim isn't it great that people can get their backs up in arms from both sides of the ledger so to speak over a letter that really did not say anything, did not say anything new and does not attempt to alleviate the feelings of biaised support.

I love it when our politicians try to take a stand without actually standing for anything

Edited to add:

Supporters of the Palestinians will still feel that the party is moving towards Israel, supporters of Israel will still feel that the party is biaised towards Palestinians. It is amazing that Jack can piss off both sides without doing a damn thing

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 14 December 2004 06:55 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
johnpauljones wrote:
quote:
Supporters of the Palestinians will still feel that the party is moving towards Israel, supporters of Israel will still feel that the party is biaised towards Palestinians. It is amazing that Jack can piss off both sides without doing a damn thing

In light of the facts on the ground, any politician or political party that doesn't condem what Israel is doing is biased towards them. There's just no other way about it.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 06:58 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I actually like Jack's letter. It goes along with own view of the Middle East:

We recognize Israel's right to exist, we recognize the Palestinans to exist to have a state and we deplore violence on both sides.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 14 December 2004 07:03 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I actually like Jack's letter. It goes along with own view of the Middle East:

We recognize Israel's right to exist, we recognize the Palestinans to exist to have a state and we deplore violence on both sides.


Stockholm that is the problem with the position. It can be construed as being reserved and not giving preference to either side.

Some liked Sven's "biais" some liked Libby et al's biais. Which is sort of like what the current caucus approach is to the question of the middle east.

It is too bad that the party can not see that it has such a golden opportunity right now.

If Jack wanted to he could present his own plan to peace. In a minority parliament his "plan" would have to be listened to and his plan could very well not only become policy but also assist Canada's "new role" in the Middle East

Or we could just play this continual game of silly bugger trying to prove non-biais towards one side.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 14 December 2004 07:19 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by wingnut:

quote:
It doesn't matter what I think.

Why is that wingnut?

Your hatred for Israel and it's citizens is clear, why shouldn't people care what you think?

When you attack Israel ( we know you want it destroyed ), are we not supposed to care what you think?

Most curious. Is it that your hatred is blind, the kind that says: "Don't mind me, get those Israeli's, they kill kids for sport"?

You're a hater wingnut, and you dress up your hatred as virtue. There's nothing new under the sun. And we've seen it all before.


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 14 December 2004 07:21 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
We recognize Israel's right to exist, we recognize the Palestinans to exist to have a state and we deplore violence on both sides.

How is this different for George Bush's position?


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 08:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Supporters of the Palestinians will still feel that the party is moving towards Israel, supporters of Israel will still feel that the party is biaised towards Palestinians. It is amazing that Jack can piss off both sides without doing a damn thing

I dont actually feel that at all. I feel that very simple criticism, made here and elsewhere, which showed ho it was clear that the NDP policy was not neutral have been heard. The result is not the proactive position that both Tim and I would want, but not one that is directly harmful. It is inert. This is perhaps the best that can be expected of a bourgiouse social democratic party.

Bourgiouse social democratic party?! Did I say that? Christ almighty! Ok I'll let it stand: "This is perhaps the best that can be expected of a bourgiouse social democratic party."


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 08:17 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We recognize Israel's right to exist, we recognize the Palestinans to exist to have a state and we deplore violence on both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is this different for George Bush's position?


If you DISagree with this it means one of three things either: a. You don't think Israel has a right to exist and you favour genocide of all Israelis b. You don't believe that Palestinians have a right to exist and you deny them their right to a second state (Jordan being the first)ergo they should all be shipped somewhere c. You support violence and escalation on both sides.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 08:20 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is too bad that the party can not see that it has such a golden opportunity right now.

If Jack wanted to he could present his own plan to peace. In a minority parliament his "plan" would have to be listened to and his plan could very well not only become policy but also assist Canada's "new role" in the Middle East


What is the golden opportunity for the NDP? Is it to declare bias in favour of the Arabs, lose the Jewish vote and gain nothing from the Muslim vote since they tend to oppose same sex marriage and equal rights for women.

Oh boy, Jack Layton is going to unveil a "plan" for the Middle East that is going to be so original that he will succeed where every well meaning foreign expert has failed for the last 50 years. Maybe after he instantly brings peace to the Middle East, we can fly him to Belfast where only HE can reconcile Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 14 December 2004 08:44 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
If you DISagree with this it means one of three things either: a. You don't think Israel has a right to exist and you favour genocide of all Israelis b. You don't believe that Palestinians have a right to exist and you deny them their right to a second state (Jordan being the first)ergo they should all be shipped somewhere c. You support violence and escalation on both sides.

Not so. George Bush says that he supports a Palestinian state, but he supports the Israeli settlements that have de facto annexed 60% of the West Bank for Israel. Thus the Palestinian state that George Bush favours isn't worth fighting for and won't solve the problems facing the Palestinian people.

Jack Layton's letter does not explicitly support giving the Palestinians ALL of the West bank and Gaza Strip. Thus we don't know if Layton's position is any different from the George Bush Position.

FYI: The George Bush position was also the Ehud Barak offer during the Camp David II negotiations in 2000. That's why Yasser Arafat couldn't support it, it would have left him a "Dead Man" (his words).


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 14 December 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm Wrote:
quote:
What is the golden opportunity for the NDP? Is it to declare bias in favour of the Arabs, lose the Jewish vote and gain nothing from the Muslim vote since they tend to oppose same sex marriage and equal rights for women.

The progressive Jewish vote tends to support the Palestinian cause. The Zionist vote, be it Jewish or Christian zionists, will never vote NDP, due to the NDP's positions on social issues like same-sex marriage, abortions, ect. Thus it is ridiculous to try and court this vote by moving the NDP's position on Israel/Palestine away from support for the Palestinian cause.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 09:25 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Zionist vote, be it Jewish or Christian zionists, will never vote NDP, due to the NDP's positions on social issues like same-sex marriage, abortions, ect.

That is ridiculous and with all due respect you obvious know ZILCH about the Jewish community in Canada!!. A lot of "Zionist" institutions in Canada have a socialist heritage. I knew Zionists when I was a teenager with the movement Hashomer Hatzair who were ardent Marxists and had extremely progressive views on social issues and wanted Israel to give back all the territories and make Jerusalem an international city. Being Zionist, just means you support the concept of a Jewish homeland - it doesn't say anything about how big that homeland has to be or whether or not it can co-exist with other peoples. You are confusing "Zionist" with being Orthodox - which just means being very religious. For a long time the Orthodox were anti-Zionist because it wasn't founded by the Messiah.

Progresssive Jews are typically also progressive Zionists (much like their confreres who vote for leftwing parties in Israel but still consider themselves to be Zionists). Half the people who work on NDP campaigns in downtown Toronto are Jewish and I suspect that most would describe themselves as favouring the existence of Israel but wishing that Labour not Likud were in power.

There is probably no ethnic group in Canada that outdoes Jews for being socially liberal on equity issues, including gay marriage and on anything to do with women's rights. The same is true in the US. Why else do you think 78% of American Jews voted for Kerry despite Bush endless attempts to pander to them by being more pro-Israel that most Jews are!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 14 December 2004 10:03 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
That is ridiculous and with all due respect you obvious know ZILCH about the Jewish community in Canada!!

What I do know is that there are progressive jews like those in the group Jews for a Just Peace who support a just solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. One of their members in Vancouver is also a marxist, and I suspect that he would be insulted to be called a Zionist.

I also know that there are conservative jews in this country who support the disposesstion of the Palestinian people and who also oppose things like gay marriage, abortions ect. I have met people of this stripe belonging to grops like , the Hillel and the Israel Advocacy committee. These people will not vote NDP no matter ho hard we might try.

BTW, when I use the term Zionists I am also referring to Christian Zionists, who are even more conservative than Jewish Zionists. I don't know if any significant group of people consider themselves Christian Zionists in Canada, but I believe there are people in this country that fit the Christian Zionist definition.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 December 2004 10:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are also conservatives Muslims, Buddhists and atheists, but the proportion of Jews who could be described as having conservative views is probably smaller than just about any other group. I would say that a lot of mainstream Jews in Canada are grandchildren of socialists from eastern Europe and have very liberal views on social issue and support social justice. As long as the NDP isn't seen as being "anti-Israel" a lot of those people would be as willing to consider voting NDP as anyone else, if not more so. But if the NDP openly takes sides and supports the dissolution of Israel - forget it.

For that reason I also don't want us to turn off the Irish Protestant community in Canada by adopting a pro-REAL IRA policy on Northern Ireland.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 14 December 2004 11:37 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
As long as the NDP isn't seen as being "anti-Israel" a lot of those people would be as willing to consider voting NDP as anyone else, if not more so. But if the NDP openly takes sides and supports the dissolution of Israel - forget it.

At no point have I sugguested that the NDP support the dissolusion of Israel. What I do want the NDP to support is the following.

1. The Withdrawal of the Israeli millitary from the West Bank and Gaza Strip (all of it, not just 40% of it).

2. The removal of all illegal settlements in the west bank and gaza strip (they are all illegal).

3. The dissmantling of the apartheid wall and the Jewish only roads.

4. The right of return for Palestinian refugees.

5. Israeli recognition of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip based on the 1967 Green Line.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 December 2004 12:16 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
4. The right of return for Palestinian refugees.


Like I said you favour the dissolution of Israel. When palestinians talk of the "right of return" they don't mean Palestinians from around the world moving to Gaza and West Bank. They mean millions of supposedly Palestinian people deciding that a hundred years ago their ancestors had a farm in the middle of what is now Tel Aviv and therefore they shoudl seize it. The quivalent would be giving all of Canada back to the Indians and the rest of us all go back to Europe.

Essentially, this means creating THREE Palestinians states:

1. Jordan, the eastern half of Palestine
2. A state made up of the West Bank and Gaza
3. Israel proper, which after a huge influx of Palestinians who would quickly form a majority, woudl become yet another Palestinian state.

What will they cvall them? Palestine East, Palestine Centre and Palestine West???


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 12:48 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your hatred for Israel and it's citizens is clear, why shouldn't people care what you think?


I haven't expressed any hatred for anyone and you have never expressed anything intelligent at any time. Why don't you fuck off like a good little troll?

quote:
They mean millions of supposedly Palestinian people deciding that a hundred years ago their ancestors had a farm in the middle of what is now Tel Aviv and therefore they shoudl seize it.

Isn't that what Israel is all about?

Is it your argument Israel can't exist unless it is a race based state?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 15 December 2004 12:56 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Ok, wingnut.

You're opinion is that atrocities against Israel are ok.

You lead the noble charge.

A glass of champagne at the end?

Troll.


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 15 December 2004 01:04 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First off they are not JORDANIAN. Stockholm, you even said Saudi represents a family. Much the same can be said of palestinians. It is people who reside in Palestine. I guess you are right there are no palestinians because most have been killed by isreali military or have grown old and died. I have an Atlas that clearly shows the region as PALESTINE. Would you also say the quebecers don't consider themsleves different from other provinces or Albertans for that matter. They are all fromer provinces of the Ottoman empire and WAY before that the Byzantine empire. These are a once proud people who are constantly told they have to eat shit and like it. And if they don't, then isreals uncle...you know Sam, will bring over a few more guns, a few more helicopters, and a few more missles to teach them their place.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 01:12 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You're opinion is that atrocities against Israel are ok.

That is my opinion? You are a filthy liar.
Worse than a filthy liar. Filthy liars actually have more integrity than you. And good filthy liars actually require a little intelligence. You are stupid asshole of a filthy liar.

I abhor all violence and have never expressed nor condoned violence on behalf of any person or cause. You will find, if you weren't so stupid and such an asshole and not a stupid, asshole of a filthy liar, that I have argued, on more than one occassion, that the Palestinian resistance ought to drop violence and instead adopt a policy of peaceful resistance.

The supporters of atrocities are stupid assholes and filthy liars, like you, who take sectarian positions in favour of whatever side and will accept any level of atrocity committed by their side because they are such miserable failures as human beings they can only find affinity with others on the basis of race, religion, culture or some other superficial characteristic that they enjoy, or suffer from, only by accident of birth.

You are a loser and you are pathetic as well as being a failure as a human being and a stupid asshole of a filthy liar.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 15 December 2004 01:16 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Wow, wingnut, talk about proving my point!
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 01:16 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If your point is that you are a filthy liar and a stupid asshole, you are welcome. Asshole.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 December 2004 01:19 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Of course, the idiot Frac Tal is currently being challenged by Blake, who thinks Magoo is a racist.

God, I love Babble.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 01:20 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think magoo is a racist. Not at all. I don't think he even thinks in those terms.

I do agree frac tal is an idiot, though. As well as a stupid asshole of a filthy liar.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 15 December 2004 01:20 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Go back to bed , Hinterland.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 01:21 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stupid asshole of a filthy liar.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 15 December 2004 01:22 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Keep spreading your shit, wingnut.
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 01:23 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stupid asshole of a filthy liar.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 December 2004 01:24 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Go back to bed, Hinterland

Why? Do like the idea of picturing me in bed, stud?

You're a fucking arsehole.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 01:25 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And he is a stupid asshole of a filthy liar.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 December 2004 01:30 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
The point about Blake was that he was making such a drama about Magoo, whereas troll-a-mundos like Frac Tal stink up every thread they post in with no repercussions whatsoever. This is what is pissing me off about Babble, no end. And I don't care if I'm supposed to email Audra about this. First of all, individually, it seems petty, and, secondly, to be honest, she's never answered any one of my emails anyway, so what's the point?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 December 2004 01:56 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have an Atlas that clearly shows the region as PALESTINE.

If you have a variety of Atlases you will see that Palestine only appears for the first on a map in 1919 after the treaty of Versaille when the Allies decided to call the southern half of the Ottoman province of Syria "Palestine". One could argue that in fact all the Arab residents of what is now Israel and Jordan are actually Syrians. The British decided to give the Arabs the eatern two-thirds of Palestine in 1923. they renamed it "Jordan" because of the Jordan River and barred any Jews from so much as setting foot in it. It was an is the orignal Palestinian state. BTW, up until 1948, when the term Palestinian was used it was to describe the JEWISH inhabitants of what was then Palestine. They only started calling themselves Israelis after 1948. The Arab residents of Palestine apparently called themselves "Arabs".


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 15 December 2004 02:24 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
quote:4. The right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Like I said you favour the dissolution of Israel. When palestinians talk of the "right of return" they don't mean Palestinians from around the world moving to Gaza and West Bank. They mean millions of supposedly Palestinian people deciding that a hundred years ago their ancestors had a farm in the middle of what is now Tel Aviv and therefore they shoudl seize it. The quivalent would be giving all of Canada back to the Indians and the rest of us all go back to Europe.


I do not favour the dissolution of Israel. That said I do not favour a Jewish exclusionary state either. You will probably try to ataack me by claiming that Palestinians do live in Israel, which I admit yes some do. They live on the land Israel conquered in the 1948-49 war. However, the fact that they live there does not make it right to deny Palestinians the right to return to their homeland. And if their homeland is Tel Aviv, then they should be allowed to live there if they want. That said, they have to find housing not occupied by Israelis.

Another point. Polls have shown that only ten percent of Palestinian refugees would want to return to Israel, this will not result in a palestinian majority in Israel. What will result in a palestinian majority in Israel is the high population growth among the palestinian population already living there.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Tim Kennelly ]


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 15 December 2004 02:31 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Tim Kennelly ]


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 December 2004 09:45 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Social services and wages are so much higher in social democratic Israel than in feudal places like Jordan that inevitably letting Palestinians settle anywhere in Israel proper would be like totlaly opening the US-Mexican border (ie: within a year there would be no one left in Mexico!).

Arab citizens of Israel are (I suppose) Palestinans as well.


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

posted 15 December 2004 09:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You still off on your paranoia fantasy trip about how SSM is a gay plot to destroy the institution of marriage... shit I'm sorry, are you still off on your paranoia fantasy trip about allowing Palestinians the right of return is Palestinian plot to destroy Israel.

We all know that Israel sponsors the "right of return" only for Jews on exactly the terms you described above, and that Palestinian demands have never been as sweeping. Demands for equal treatment among people, only seem to be of interest to you in specific human rights debates.

I see now you have extended your racist anti-immigration parnoia to include the wet back plague from the south. Don't forget the yellow peril, infecting the purity of our sacred white blood, while you are at it.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 15 December 2004 10:12 AM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by wingnut:

quote:
I abhor all violence and have never expressed nor condoned violence on behalf of any person or cause.

Originally posted by wingnut:

quote:
There's the crux of the issue right there. If we could begin a collection to assist the Palestinians in purchasing artillery to target Israeli cities, and tanks and armoured bulldozers to crush their homes and raze their crops, and helicopter gunships to fire missiles into busy streets in legitimate efforts to assisinate Israeli political leaders, then we would have a just and legitimate war and the Palestinians could end the suicide bombings.
Its win-win-win.

Wingnut is a Lying Hypocritical Fraud


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 December 2004 10:18 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, WingNut has a sense of humour and sometimes a sharp tongue, as it were.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 15 December 2004 10:30 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, as the old saying has it, Frac Tal, "you're talking farts, not words".

As for me, I DO support the right of violent resistance, in particular, when it effectively targets the security forces of the occupying power.

As Gandhi said, use nonviolence, or use violence, but don't be a coward.

I agree with Cueball (minus the rhetoric!) that it's a racist double standard to support the Jewish right of "return" to Israel but not the Palestinian right of return.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 15 December 2004 10:46 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Or no right of return for anybody. As long as the position is consistent and treats individuals equally.

One can compensate people for their loss of property, whether they are Arabs from Jaffa or Jews from Alexandria. They don't have to be forced to return anywere.

As someone said though, if refugees are part of some peace deal in let's say the year 2126, polls show only 10% of refugees would want to return to Israel so the point is a bit exaggerated, or just part of the regular noise and wasteful rhetorical fury over this issue.

However, given the way things are going, this is all going to remain theoretical for the next 300 years anyway so no one is "going home".

P.S. Why is this not in the Middle East forum so the rest of us can avoid being exposed to the tit-for-tat insults?


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 December 2004 10:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are you posting on the thread? Are you magnetically drawn to the debate in such as way that your keyboard will not allow you to simply click on another thread? Are you forced to then write out what it is you feel?

Or is your main point that the board is only about things that interest you?

The NDP has issued a statement on the issue at hand, that statement is being discussed in the NDP forum. I am sorry if you believe the NDP should only concern itself with pertinent subjects like federal funding of efficient garbage collection on the streets of Toronto.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 December 2004 10:55 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Or no right of return for anybody. As long as the position is consistent and treats individuals equally.

This is not the case. In order to enforce the double standard, Israel has imposed marshall law on 3.5 million people.

Is this right or wrong? Should the NDP not note that Israel perpetuates a double standard on the issue ot the right of return?

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 15 December 2004 11:08 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
See nothing wrong with Layton's letter.

Now, as I normally do when I see the words "Middle East" or "Israelis and Palestinians" in my newspaper, I will "turn the page" since I think there is no solution anytime soon - the Israelis and Palestinians always end up sabotaging anything useful the outside world comes up with.

And I'm sure it's a good thing, that NDP policy on garbage.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 December 2004 11:18 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I too, said there is not a lot wrong with the Layton letter, except that it is limp. As I said ealier it is not directly harmful.

However, you have highlighted the fact that there is a double standard in play by saying that their should be no 'right of return' for anyone, for all things to be equal. You are right, here, at confirming the problem, even if our solutions may be different.

It would seem that this double standard, in play actually may have some baring on the subject of Layton's letter, as Layton talks abour forwarding the peace process. It seems logical to assume that the double standard you have underscored might have something to do with lack of peace that Layton is critical of.

Now, do you think that it would be right for Layton to note the existence of the double standard as a possible, if not probable cause of the violent conflict, and by doing so might he not be pointing the way to a solution?

It would seem apropos since he has made a comment on the subject, and likewise you seem interested enough as an NDP memebr to post on this thread, that Jack, (based on his campaign of 'ideas,') might identify problems and then forward some possible 'ideas' for solutions, just as he might about efficient garbage collection?

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 15 December 2004 11:22 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Hye if he wants to poimnt it out, why not? What harm could it do?

I just don't think this will prevent Israelis and Palestinians from being their creative selves and once again sabotaging things. Masters at grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 December 2004 11:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey great! Perhaps jack can help out there by identifying problems and offering solutions.

We have both identified a problem that we can agree on. Excelent! Now given that Jack is commenting on the topic, don't you think it might be wise, since he is interested in forwarding the peace process, as I know you are, that he should point out problems and offer solutions, since he is bothering to comment at all?

How would you phrase such a position that identifies this problem and add it to Jack's letter?

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 December 2004 12:52 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is this right or wrong? Should the NDP not note that Israel perpetuates a double standard on the issue ot the right of return?


Well then i can give you a long list of countries that are equally deserving of condemnation. Did you know that if your ancestors left Germany in the 17th century and moved to Siberia, you can move back to Germany and get immediate citizenship because of your German heritage - even if you don't speak a word of German. But until very recently if you were BORN in Germany of Turkish you could not ever become a German citizen and even now it is a long laborious process.

You can be from a family that has lived in japan for generations, but if your ancestors are Korean you still can't be a Japanese citizen.

I'm not saying that I support these policies, but as usual Israel gets targeted as if it was the only country on the face of the earth that favour people of its own national origins in its immigration policies.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 December 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I see now you have extended your racist anti-immigration parnoia to include the wet back plague from the south. Don't forget the yellow peril, infecting the purity of our sacred white blood, while you are at it.


If you are suggesting that there should be no immigration laws whatsoever in the world and that everyone should be free to live anywhere they want - that is a whole other discussion. and it wouod be interesting to speculate on what would happen if say Canada and Nigeria had a bilateral open immigration policy. Would the entire population of Nigeria move to Canada within six months leaving behind only a few oligarchs to run the oil fields while our populatation instantly goes from 30 million to 90 million?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 12:57 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is terrible. How does it excuse Israel?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
scribblet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4706

posted 15 December 2004 01:26 PM      Profile for scribblet        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Would the entire population of Nigeria move to Canada within six months leaving behind only a few oligarchs to run the oil fields while our populatation instantly goes from 30 million to 90 million?


It would ensure that Canada would become a third world nation overnight.

Every country has the right to determine who it should allow to immigrate there and should be able to determine who is the best fit for their country.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 December 2004 02:04 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Every country has the right to determine who it should allow to immigrate there and should be able to determine who is the best fit for their country.


A lot of people seem to think that every country on the face of the earth has that right EXCEPT Israel.

We can't let those uppity Jews have their own country, can we??


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

posted 15 December 2004 03:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry the argumentation is patently fraudulent.

First of all there is no constituency of Jewish people dispossesed by the Arab Israeli wars whom are asking to return to Iraq, for instance. It is not the right of nations, to determine wether or not someone should or should not be compensated for lost property. The right of return is an individual right. There is however a badly taken care of and uncompensated group of Arab indivduals whom are demanding compensastion or repatriation.

Were their a group of Jewish people, say those evicted from Syria in retalition for the eviction of Palestinian Arabs, demanding compensation, I would fully support a move to have them compensated by the Syrian state. No such demand has been made, and Israel has never made the case. The issue has never been raised officially. The issue is only used to rhetorically pad the morally deficient arguements of those who oppose compensation for Palestinians. It seems that Jewish refugees have been adequately taken care of by Israel in the mean time, compensation and resettlment that Israel voluntarily agreed to.

In fact it was a thinly veiled goal of Israel to seek this patriation of Middle Eastern Jews to Israel.

None of this has anything to do with the personal rights of Arab individuals dispossesed by the Israeli state. Israel is responible to those individuals, not the neighboring Arab countries, of whom the dispossesed are not citizens. Nor did those individuals have any part in the eviction of the Syrian Jews.

I have no right to take your house away Stockholm and give it to an Arab family just because some Jewish people evicted some Arabs from their homes in Israel.

Your appeal to actions of Germans in 17th century, as a defence of Israels in the 20th century is exact in underlining the primitive nature of the position you are defending. Your comparison between the tyranical monarchies of Europe and Israel today is exact. At least we are on the same page in terms of understanding that Israels position is one that is only defenisble within the principals of Europe just exiting the dark ages.

You want to defend the explusion of Serbians by Germans on the basis of Israeli practice as well, I assume. Why don't we just can the whole idea of law and morality altogether and issue everyone guns so that we can live (don't i mean survive?) in Stockholm socialist utopia.

We are not talking about an age old ethnic cleansing we are talking about one, from which there are still survivors, not only that, there is an ongoing process of ethnic cleansing taking place today.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 December 2004 03:52 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your appeal to actions of Germans in 17th century, as a defence of Israels in the 20th century is exact in underlining the primitive nature of the position you are defending. Your comparison between the tyranical monarchies of Europe and Israel today is exact.

THis is NOT about Germany in the 17th century. Its about Germany TODAY under social democratic rule. If you have any trace of German "blood" you can move to Germany tomorrow and claim full citizenship. You have a "right of return". If you are born in Germany of non-German parents you do not have that right.


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

posted 15 December 2004 03:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what. Even if you were born in Israel as an Arab and had the misfortune to be evicted in 1948. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RETURN becasue you are Arab.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 December 2004 03:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As far as i know Germans born in Silesia or the Sudentenland or Alsace-Lorraine have no right of return to France or Poland or the Czech Republic.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 04:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm, you are arguing a racist double-standard. Plain and simple. And yet you claim you don't believe in religion aven though your double-standard is religion based. Jews who have never lived in Israel have a right of return while non-Jews who lived in Israel just years ago do not. Hmmm. I think Stockholm you are full of shit with much of what you say.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 15 December 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where in Layton's letter does language call for debate on the merrits of the right of return?

Somewhere probably about 70 posts up or so but i am not sure this thread returned again to the debate of Palestinian versus Israeli who is right and who is wrong.

I though that this thread was about NDP policy and a letter to the PM.

But I guess as with most threads on the middle east and I am as guilty as anyone else here on this. We can not help but return to the debates that have happened in all middle east threads.

So simply what should Jack's next step be. What should the party's next step be. Bearing in mind that as members of the party we have those who do not give a damn about the middle east, we have pro-palestinian members and pro-israeli members.

Remember that Jack needs all three groups and many others to raise his seat total in the house in the next election.

So if you were Jack what would you do as a next step

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 December 2004 04:17 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
your double-standard is religion based.

No, it isn't. Being Jewish is an ethnicity, a nationality and aculture. It happens that the vast majority of ethnic Jews also are born into the Jewish religion, but it doesn't have to be so. In fact the Catholic Archbishop of Paris was born a Jew, converted to Catholicism and became and archbishop - and still considers himself a Jew. in the eyes of the Gestapo, you are Jewish based on your blood lines not whether or not you were a member of a synagogue.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 04:19 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, it isn't. Being Jewish is an ethnicity, a nationality and aculture.

Oh, okay. So it is just pure racism then.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 December 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

No, it isn't. Being Jewish is an ethnicity, a nationality and aculture. It happens that the vast majority of ethnic Jews also are born into the Jewish religion, but it doesn't have to be so. In fact the Catholic Archbishop of Paris was born a Jew, converted to Catholicism and became and archbishop - and still considers himself a Jew. in the eyes of the Gestapo, you are Jewish based on your blood lines not whether or not you were a member of a synagogue.



So, now you relying on the Nazis as to the definition of Judaism? Judaism is a religion. It is not an ethnicity. There are cultural aspects to every religion. It is a nation to the extent that it has sought to create one. That doesn't mean it is not a religion. Israel is a state based on religion. If you are a true secularist, you would oppose all such states.

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 15 December 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I hear one more arguement about the "poor" jews I think I will throw up. I am not a racist but everyone can point to atrocities done to them. In world war 2 the jews lost 6 million. Ya and the Catholics lost 10 million what is your point, just because there are more catholics around the world does that mean that becasue we didn't kill X percentage it doesn't mean anything. The poor me/us syndrome has got to stop it is devicive. Blacks complain about their grandfather being enslaved 400 years ago in the states, ya so what! Does that give you a right to hate me because of something that happened sometime ago in another country. The chinese and Japenese and of course first nation have legitimate gripes. We enslaved chinamen, took away the japanese homes, and did an aweful lot bad shit to natives. They can complain about what canada has or hasn't done. I could complain that being short, I have therefore been discriminated against my whole life. But it doesn't change anything. You still didn't answer weather you think that albertans or quebecrs or newfies are exactly the same as someone from the region known as ontario. If you live in nunavuit are you a proud nunavuitian or a NWT person even if N hasn't existed for that long.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 15 December 2004 06:09 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thorin, I'm no Zionist, but I consider your comment extremely offensive. The Nazis targeted the Jews - and the Roma and Sinti - as dangerous races to exterminate. The Catholics were not exterminated for being Catholics (Many were targeted as Slavs - seen as an inferior "slave" race).

Josh, I don't quite agree - certainly in "Yiddishland" Jews had a distinct culture and were seen as a nationality (nationality being different from citizenship in the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires). I don't think Jews are nation and they are certainly not a single culture - a Polish Askenazi Yiddisher was very different from a Sephardic or Mizraic Jew - but isn't it possible to be an "atheist Jew"? (and not just because Nazis say so).


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 15 December 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
If I hear one more arguement about the "poor" jews I think I will throw up. I am not a racist but everyone can point to atrocities done to them. In world war 2 the jews lost 6 million. Ya and the Catholics lost 10 million what is your point,

Thorin whenever someone starts a conversation with I am not a racist or one of my best friends is an X I have to respond.

One quick question. Where Catholics forced to wear a yellow cross sewn onto their clothing to distinguish themselves like the yellow star for Jews or Pink triangle for Gays and Lesbians? Were they exterminated not killed in war but exterminated?

If you can answer yes to both questions then you are not a racist.

If you answer no. Then find another example to use because what you said is not only historically not accurate but does border on a racist comment.

It is these types of comments made by all that have led to thread wars about bullshit rather than the topic of the thread.

Seriously even if the comment was not racist or insightful what does your comment of "If I hear one more arguement about the "poor" jews" have to do with the letter that Layton wrote to Martin?

edited to add:

we have had a lot of discussion lately about what is a racist comment and should someone be "called onto the carpet for a racist comment" Is this comment ok? Should it be allowed.

My answer to both is no. It is hateful, hurtful and only asking for a heated response.

Thorin may not have meant to state something so provocative but you know what that is what it was.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 15 December 2004 08:17 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well then i can give you a long list of countries that are equally deserving of condemnation. Did you know that if your ancestors left Germany in the 17th century and moved to Siberia, you can move back to Germany and get immediate citizenship because of your German heritage - even if you don't speak a word of German. But until very recently if you were BORN in Germany of Turkish you could not ever become a German citizen and even now it is a long laborious process.

You can be from a family that has lived in japan for generations, but if your ancestors are Korean you still can't be a Japanese citizen.

I'm not saying that I support these policies, but as usual Israel gets targeted as if it was the only country on the face of the earth that favour people of its own national origins in its immigration policies.


Germany and Japan havn't evicted the peoples you mentioned form their countries. Israel specifically DID evict Palestinians from the territory that was given to Israel in the 1947 partition plan. Plus, as has been mentioned by others in this thread, it forces 3.5 million of them to live under martial law.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Tim Kennelly ]


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 December 2004 12:46 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Czechoslovakia "evicted" all ethnic Germans from the Sudentenland after WW2. Where are the protests outside Czech embassies all over the world? Doesn't anyone care about the plight of all those poor Sudeten Germans who lost everything in 1945 and who aren't allowed to march into their ancestral villages in the Czech Republic and reclaim what was theirs. So what if most of them were Nazi sympathizers who cheered on the German conquest of Czechoslovakia. Nazis are people too!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 December 2004 01:06 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What people is The Czech Republic occupying, killing, ethnically cleansing, brutalizing, denying basic human rights too?

There is apparently no straw too weak for you to grasp in defence of racism stockholm.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 16 December 2004 03:42 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
Czechoslovakia "evicted" all ethnic Germans from the Sudentenland after WW2. Where are the protests outside Czech embassies all over the world? Doesn't anyone care about the plight of all those poor Sudeten Germans who lost everything in 1945 and who aren't allowed to march into their ancestral villages in the Czech Republic and reclaim what was theirs. So what if most of them were Nazi sympathizers who cheered on the German conquest of Czechoslovakia. Nazis are people too!

Two wrongs don't make a right. The Palestinian people still deserve the right of return.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 16 December 2004 10:16 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Kennelly:

Two wrongs don't make a right. The Palestinian people still deserve the right of return.

If the Palestinians agreed to a final peace agreement that gave up the right of return in exchange for other compensation, would you condemn that agreement?


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 16 December 2004 10:53 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
andrewtgsadler, all the journal articles I have read and all the background interviews I have seen over the years with refugee specialists and Palestinian leaders especially in european papers indicate that is what will happen. The Palestinians will "give up" the right of return. They just want the israeli negotiators to say they're sorry for having contributed to the expulsions in 1948. Once they say they're sorry, even radical Fatah faction leaders have said everyone can be reasonable and find practical compromises on how to compensate refugees who won't be going back.

The diplomats who have to find a settlement have all been assuming for the better part of the past 20 years that the right of return will be dropped quietly in exchange for apologies, compensation and cash for resettlement or economic development programs. They're not going home, everyone has known this all along.

The refugee issue is just being manipulated by both sides for various propaganda reasons.

Which is why it's never been an issue I could get worked up about. And why the NDP should not address the issue. Because both sides have made it known to the diplomats in charge of this thing that it won't be an issue in the final settlement.
Not an issue for them, not an issue for me.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 16 December 2004 10:59 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
You know there is a Middle East forum where people can go after each other to their heart's content over this.

Not that this is not important but I don't see how Layton can fix something Israelis and Palestinians don't appear to want fixed for a very long time.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 December 2004 12:02 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
andrewtgsadler, all the journal articles I have read and all the background interviews I have seen over the years with refugee specialists and Palestinian leaders especially in european papers indicate that is what will happen. The Palestinians will "give up" the right of return.

That pre-supposes a Palestinian state which is very unlikley if the offer from Israel remains unproductive, waterless, defenceless, Bantustans with separate Jewish and Arab roads.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 16 December 2004 12:05 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I'm just guessing Labour will one day come to power with allies from the centre and peace parties and negotiations will create their own dynamic.

Or not.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 December 2004 12:44 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that would be nice. I'd like to see Israel withdraw from all or almost all of the occupied territories (with special arrangements for East Jerusalem since last time the Arabs were given control of it they went out of their way to desecrate every Jewish holy site they could get their hands on).

But instead of having this so-called collection of Bantustans, isn't there a better solution? Why not reincorporate the West Bank into Jordan and reunify East and West Palestine and simply rename the new state Palestine. That would give this new country more stability etc...


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 December 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why not just integrate the West bank and Gaza into Israel and call it a democracy?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 December 2004 01:35 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because national boundaries should, where possible, reflect demographics. Jordan and Israel were the two states that were carved out of the old mandate of Palestine. Why not put all the areas that are overwhelmingly Arab in one country (ie: Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza) and let the areas that are overwhelmingly Jewish be in another country and then everyone can live happily ever after.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 16 December 2004 01:49 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

That pre-supposes a Palestinian state which is very unlikley if the offer from Israel remains unproductive, waterless, defenceless, Bantustans with separate Jewish and Arab roads.

Wingnut I think you hit on one of the problems with regards to the entire peace process. The lack of trust that if one side offers up a major concession that the other side will actually act on it.

In any successful negotiations whether it is in the business world, political world or even in an attempt to find peace between 2 warring parties. both sides must be prepared to compromise and both sides must acknowledge the concession that the other has made.

I can only hope that your description of Israeli offers of the past does not hold true for the future. And unless you are in the inner circle of either side we do not know what future concessions will be.

Hopefully this idea if it is factually and if the removal of the right of return has been unofficially agreed on then maybe Israel will offer the proper concession in return and maybe just maybe we will have peace.

But as long as neither side continues to trust the other side. THere will never be a chance for peace.

Over the last 2 decades both sides have turned down concessions that I am sure if they had it to do over again both sides would want back.

The difference now is. And getting back to Layton's letter to the PM. THis area of new concessions by each side could be an in for Layton. An area for Layton to propose and idea and demand a seat at Canada's table regarding the Middle East.

On another note. Maybe I and Lagatta were the only ones who were offended by Thorin's comments up above.

But it strikes me as odd that on almost every other thread we are quick to accuse people of racism whether the intent was sarcastic or actualy racism. But here people have been strangley silent.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 December 2004 01:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just assumed the outrageousness of Thorin's comment was so obvious that it spoke for itself and barely meritted rebuttal.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 17 December 2004 01:14 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
andrewtgsadler wrote:
quote:
If the Palestinians agreed to a final peace agreement that gave up the right of return in exchange for other compensation, would you condemn that agreement?

Although I think such an agreement could work in the short term, I do not believe that it would be workable in the long run.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 17 December 2004 01:21 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
I agree that would be nice. I'd like to see Israel withdraw from all or almost all of the occupied territories (with special arrangements for East Jerusalem since last time the Arabs were given control of it they went out of their way to desecrate every Jewish holy site they could get their hands on).

Arafat knew that if he signed away the Palestinians' claim to East Jerusalem, then he would be dead politically in the eyes of his own people. When Camp David II required that the Palestinians ceede East Jerusalem and more to Israel, Arafat knew that he could not sign the deal. No self respecting Palestinian leader will ever sign away East Jerusalem. If the Palestinians were to sign away East Jerusalem it would ignite a third intifada that would make the cureent intifada look tame by comparrison.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 December 2004 01:27 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can only hope that your description of Israeli offers of the past does not hold true for the future. And unless you are in the inner circle of either side we do not know what future concessions will be.

I think past and current practice is as good a crystal ball as we can get. In every single peace effort Israel has promised to cease settlement expansion but has doen just the opposite including under labour governments.

Currently Israel has avowed, according to media reports, to freeze settlement expansion in the West Bank. Yet those same media reports tell us in fact Israeli is expanding settlements apace.

It has been argued time and time again by the Israeli lobby and their US allies that Arafat was not a "partner for peace." Now where is the Israeli partner for peace? Where is the Israeli leader who will make the concessions? The Butcher? His intentions have been telegraphed by Formaldahyde. Nethan-Transfer-You? I don't think so.

I would like to be optimistic. But there is only one power in the region capable of pressuring Israel and that power, the US, as any Arab will tell you, is not an honest broker and has given Israel a free ride.

There is no reason in the near future for Israel to compromise. It is Israel, through lack of compromise, that is eroding any real opportunity for a two state solution.

They want their cake and eat it too in that they want a Greater Israel taking huge parts of the West Bank and control of water resources but no repsonsibilty for the indigenous inhabitants who are to be relegated to worthless Bantus and exploited only as cheap labour or fodder for prisons (while Gaza is to become one huge concentration camp).

Anyone who truly believe in peace and justice must recognize and oppose this.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 17 December 2004 01:27 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm worte:
quote:
Because national boundaries should, where possible, reflect demographics. Jordan and Israel were the two states that were carved out of the old mandate of Palestine. Why not put all the areas that are overwhelmingly Arab in one country (ie: Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza) and let the areas that are overwhelmingly Jewish be in another country and then everyone can live happily ever after.

The Arab/Palestinian population within Israel is increasing at a rate much faster than the Jewish population. If this Demographic trend continues then the Arab/Palestinian population will be a majority within Israel within the next 10-15 years. If/When this happens, your position will become untenable.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 December 2004 01:44 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why not put all the areas that are overwhelmingly Arab in one country and let the areas that are overwhelmingly Jewish be in another country and then everyone can live happily ever after.

Change Arabs to Blacks and Jews to Whites and who does Stockholm sound like?

Here's a hint:

quote:
But finally the races live separate, now permitted to progress as truly distinct cultures, rescued from the racial meltdown and "Brazilianizing" of the U.S.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 17 December 2004 08:43 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Kennelly:

Although I think such an agreement could work in the short term, I do not believe that it would be workable in the long run.

So basically, you want to impose your own solution on the Palistinian people, and don't give a rat's ass about what they actually think or want? What, because you know better than them? Glad we've clear that up.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 17 December 2004 09:34 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
"Saudis" are not even an ethnic group, it is the family name of a scummy corrupt royal family. There was a time when the territory that is now Saudi Arabia was a lot more mixed, before Islam demanded that all non-Muslims be converted or killed.
Your such a fucking bigot Stockwell. Islam doesn't demand that, you stupid asshole. Are you saying that in hopes that people will read and hate Muslims as much as you do (through your lies)?

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 December 2004 09:37 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Change Arabs to Blacks and Jews to Whites and who does Stockholm sound like?

Look, that's the way the world works, unless you want all national boundares to be abolished and the world to be one big country. For the mkost part, nations reflect ethnic boundaries. That's why French people live in France and German people live in Germany. That's why India is Hindu and Pakistan is Muslim and that's why East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

We have enough trouble in CXanada trying to maintain a rickety confederation with English and French. There are about 25 countries in the world where Arabs and/or Muslims are the overwhelming majority of the population. Now you are saying let's make that 26 countries and Jews can have less than half a country and be at the mercy of an Arab majority that has a pathological hatred of Jews.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 17 December 2004 09:46 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Zionist did the right thing in the early 40's, they should have immigrated to Palestine and lived peacefully with the Indigenous people. Not commit the horrible act of racisim through expulsion. Then perhaps your so called a "pathalogical hatred" would have not developed. Racists such as yourself (Stockwell) insist that it's the Arabs fault for bringing the Zionist to Palestine.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 December 2004 10:11 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee, Stockholm, not only are you racist you are quite open about it. Good for you. Don't let the PC'ers slow you down.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 December 2004 10:28 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If the Zionist did the right thing in the early 40's, they should have immigrated to Palestine and lived peacefully with the Indigenous people.

and that is exactly what they tried to do, but then the Arabs kept attacking and killing them, esp. under the leadership of the pro-Nazi "Mufti of Jerusalem". All through the 30s and early 40s the Arabs kep killing Jewish settlers at every opportunity. The so-called indigenous people (most of whom migrated to that area in the 19th century) didn't want ANY Jewish sttlers living in their midst and they tried to kill every single one they could get their hands on.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 17 December 2004 10:54 AM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can see Cueball sitting on Santa's lap and telling him what he wants for Christmas:
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
...Saudi Arabia or Syria occupies Israel and makes the 8 million Jews who live there live under marshall law and then kills them daily in a grinding occupation, cuts them off from their means of livelihood, and makes them live as second class citizens, wherein some roads are barred to Jews, as "Arab only roads,"

From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 17 December 2004 11:06 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
and that is exactly what they tried to do, but then the Arabs kept attacking and killing them, esp. under the leadership of the pro-Nazi "Mufti of Jerusalem". All through the 30s and early 40s the Arabs kep killing Jewish settlers at every opportunity. The so-called indigenous people (most of whom migrated to that area in the 19th century) didn't want ANY Jewish sttlers living in their midst and they tried to kill every single one they could get their hands on.
The arab retaliation was a result of the Balfour declaration "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" If you were Palestinian, how would you interpret that? It doesn't sound like it was suppose to be just a immigration policy for Palestine. The declaration further states... " it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"
quote:
The so-called indigenous people (most of whom migrated to that area in the 19th century)
That is a very troublesome comment on your behalf. You join the ranks of Holocaust deniers in refusing to accept the nearly 2000 year Arab history in the region.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kinetix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5296

posted 17 December 2004 11:09 AM      Profile for Kinetix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Krago: He was being FACETIOUS.
From: Montréal, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 December 2004 12:23 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said "most" not all. There have been Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Ottomons, Armenians, Christians etc... living in what is now Israel off and on for thousands of years.

The Balfour Declaration was about the idea of a Jewish homeland in part of Palestine. At that point in time, the plan was for Jews to be allowed to immigrate there and legitimately buy land from often absentee landlords. The Zionists of that era had good relations with their Arab neighbours and fully intended to live peaceably with them. They even accepted having two thirds of Palestine hived off to form Transjordan which Jews weere specifically barred from living in. It was only in the 30s that neo-Nazi elements in the Arab community got this obsession with wiping out all Jewish settlement in Palestine.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 17 December 2004 12:54 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
It was only in the 30s that neo-Nazi elements in the Arab community got this obsession with wiping out all Jewish settlement in Palestine.
Are you sure that you didn't mean "It was only in the 30s that Zionist elements in the Jewish community got this obsession with wiping out all Palestinians in Palestine."

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 December 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CAN you give us some examples of that (from the 30s)?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 December 2004 04:27 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who is the obstacle to peace? Oh, look:

quote:
In a major policy speech Thursday, Sharon said the withdrawal, coupled with Arafat's death, could turn 2005 into a "year of great opportunity."

But Sharon also reiterated his determination to hold onto some large West Bank settlements and all of Jerusalem in a final peace deal. The Palestinians want all the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem for a future state.

In a telephone interview from the Gulf state of Qatar, Abbas called Sharon's comments a "disaster."

"If (Sharon) puts these conditions on the table and says that he wants to negotiate on this basis, then I think he's closing all the doors to peace," Abbas said.



http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/041217/w121738.html

When will there be an Israeli partner for peace?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 17 December 2004 08:22 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So basically, you want to impose your own solution on the Palistinian people, and don't give a rat's ass about what they actually think or want? What, because you know better than them? Glad we've clear that up.

I have never suggested anything of the sort. However, I do not believe that the palestinian people will sit idly by while the powers that be sign away their rights.

Some palestinians may be willing to give up the right of return, but there are guaranteed to be some who won't. If the powers that be try to shove this down their throats, watch out.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   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