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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the NDP   » (Pat) Martin to Layton on Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: (Pat) Martin to Layton on Israel
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 17 December 2004 02:00 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Check out this link:

http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=4576

Nice to see two MP's in the Federal NDP -- Pat Martin and Judy Wasylycia-Leis -- take a sane stancce on this issue.


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 17 December 2004 02:16 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oog.
We gotta do something about bloody Pat Martin.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 17 December 2004 02:25 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
“It was an incredible experience for me,” Wasylycia-Leis said. “It was an opportunity to see first-hand the impact of terrorism on the lives of the people of Israel. We also got a good sense of what the fence is all about. Israel certainly has the right to defend itself from suicide bombers.”

Martin expressed regret that the security fence is necessary, but said he sees it as the most peaceful response that Israel could have come up with to protect Israeli children from terrorists.

“That fence shows a lot of restraint on Israel’s part,” he said. “If I were living there, I don’t think I would be able to exhibit such restraint.”


Seems very Pro-Occupation to me.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 17 December 2004 02:58 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Oog.
We gotta do something about bloody Pat Martin.

I agree. Like elect him NDP leader!


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 December 2004 03:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
“If I were living there, I don’t think I would be able to exhibit such restraint.”

Oopsies. I think this statement has just made Pat Martin even more problematic than he was.

This is obviously a report written from a particular point of view, and it is old news. But if Wasylycia-Leis and Martin want to go on taking one foot out of mouth before inserting other, let them.

I mean, deconstruct the logic of a line like this:

quote:
“We were presented with the evidence and left to draw our own conclusions,” Martin said. “The organizers of the trip obviously felt that the merits of their arguments spoke for itself.”

Pat, honey: if those are the arguments made BY THE PEOPLE WHO ORGANIZED THE TRIP, and if all you saw is what you report you saw, then of course the organizers are gonna be feeling pretty confident, yes?

Predictably, these two are feeling defensive, so they sound defensive. They are making things worse, though -- or maybe not. Maybe this needs full airing.

[ 17 December 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 December 2004 03:35 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you oppose the occupation, then you should be happy about the fence since it creates an official boundary separating Israel from the occupied territories and makes them that much harder to ever annex. A lot of Israelis on the far right hate the fence for that very reason.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 17 December 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pat is - and has been for a very long time - totally wrong on this issue. He has a right to disagree I guess but this is pretty unproductive - particularly the last comment.
From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 17 December 2004 03:40 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Pat Martin:
In essence, though, we have always believed in a two-state solution within secure borders for both peoples.

While not liking Pat's statements later on in the article, I did find the similarity between this statement and what some here were arguing Jack Layton should have said elsewhere on the topic somewhat ironic.


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

posted 17 December 2004 03:40 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you oppose the occupation, then you should be happy about the fence since it creates an official boundary separating Israel from the occupied territories and makes them that much harder to ever annex. A lot of Israelis on the far right hate the fence for that very reason.
But heh! "you should be happy about the fence" It's an open air prison. You really wouldn't expect Palestinians to like the fact that it is a land grab.

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

posted 17 December 2004 03:41 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't really see how his view is all that different from the general NDP view. He thinks Israel has a right to exist with secure borders - so does everyone else. He favoiurs a two-state solution that gives the Palestinians a state - so does everyone else. He says that he personally might find it hard to show restraint if his people and family were being murdered by suicide bombers - a very human sentiment that many people can probably relate to.

My only quibble is that the fence should have been built entirely on the Green line inseatd of making some slight incursions into the occupied territories.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 17 December 2004 03:48 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

My only quibble is that the fence should have been built entirely on the Green line inseatd of making some slight incursions into the occupied territories.


Although it's good to see you modified your previous post totally ignoring the geography of the wall, your reference to "slight incursions" is total bullshit. At several points, the wall cuts deeply into the west bank. For security, the wall could have been built along the green line. It wasn't because it is a mask for another Israeli land grab.

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 December 2004 03:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good catch, andrew: I noticed that too.

Martin has obviously learned to correct himself lingowise. Baby steps, baby steps.

Och, poor Jack. Just when he thought he'd dealt with this outbreak.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 17 December 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Oog.
We gotta do something about bloody Pat Martin.

Rufus, there are two MPs mentioned in this article, yet you seem to think only one needs to have their head adjusted. Why the differential response?

[ 17 December 2004: Message edited by: Budd Campbell ]


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 December 2004 04:03 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fair enough, Budd, although Martin says more (or gets quoted more), which always means there's more scope for saying really silly things.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 17 December 2004 04:10 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
He says that he personally might find it hard to show restraint if his people and family were being murdered by suicide bombers - a very human sentiment that many people can probably relate to.
I generally agree with you Stockholm but this statement is actually borderline racist in its implication.

“That fence shows a lot of restraint on Israel’s part,” he said. “If I were living there, I don’t think I would be able to exhibit such restraint.”


What's he mean? That ALL Palestinians deserve to be shot because of the violence of the intifada? That the whole populace is guilty and needs fencing in? That it would be difficult to not want to conquer the whole lot of them?

In any context it's a terrible thing to say.

[ 17 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 December 2004 04:13 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
My only quibble is that the fence should have been built entirely on the Green line inseatd of making some slight incursions into the occupied territories.

"Quibble"??

Yeah, my only "quibble" about suicide bombers is that they sometimes include innocent children as their victims.

Too bad about this little Israeli / Palestian "quibble", eh?


Or maybe you mean this meaning of quibble? :

quote:
to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words

From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 December 2004 04:19 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with you, Burns: that was my reading of Martin's last line too.

On a more political note: why do we think that the CJC has decided to put this particular cat among the NDP pigeons at this point?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 December 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If I were living there, I don’t think I would be able to exhibit such restraint

So he is advocating terrorism? Did he visit refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza? Or did he learn everything he needed to know about conditions there and those people from the nice Israelis?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 17 December 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I agree with you, Burns: that was my reading of Martin's last line too.

On a more political note: why do we think that the CJC has decided to put this particular cat among the NDP pigeons at this point?


I assumed it was simply a case of the promotion of Israel being the only issue of concern for CJN.

Is there ever another reason?


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 December 2004 05:04 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mea culpa, perhaps: It finally occurred to me to wonder: who is the CJN anyway?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 17 December 2004 05:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canadian Jewish News. Aren't they a CJC publication? I think there's a link to the CJN on the CJC web site.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 December 2004 05:35 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, well then. Scratch the mea culpa.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 December 2004 06:03 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW: on a slightly unrelated note. Doi you know is the most pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel MP in thre federal Liberal caucus??

Answer: None other than Pat O'Brian from London-Fanshawe, who is one of the most fanatical rightwing anti-gay social conservatives on Parliament Hill. For all I know he is anti-Israel to punish the Jews for killing Christ! (sic.)

This is clearly not a right/left issue.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 December 2004 06:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Huh?

That comment relates to this discussion ... how?

[ 17 December 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 17 December 2004 06:20 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of fanatical anti-Israel, have a look at this:

http://www.canpalnet.ca/archive/arafat

Libby Davies at a memorial service for Yasser Arafat?! The scary thing is, she is the house leader of the NDP. Sorry, eulogizing terrorists is not on. I'll take Pat Martin's NDP over her version any day!!!


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 17 December 2004 06:27 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you oppose the occupation, then you should be happy about the fence since it creates an official boundary separating Israel from the occupied territories and makes them that much harder to ever annex. A lot of Israelis on the far right hate the fence for that very reason.

It in fact annexes a whole bunch of the occupied territories. But in any case, nothing's going to stop the occupiers from making a bit more wall here, and then another one there. It's not like the existing wall is straight or anything. All they have to do is make a bit more meandering wall to join these two bits of meandering wall, to "rationalize" something. So the new bit will enclose a bit more, and stick out where the old bit stuck in. Repeat until there's nothing left.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 17 December 2004 06:34 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
BTW: on a slightly unrelated note. Doi you know is the most pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel MP in thre federal Liberal caucus??

Answer: None other than Pat O'Brian from London-Fanshawe, who is one of the most fanatical rightwing anti-gay social conservatives on Parliament Hill. For all I know he is anti-Israel to punish the Jews for killing Christ! (sic.)

This is clearly not a right/left issue.



Parrish plans to vote against SSM too.

I don't believe in "left" and "right" as useful descriptors.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 17 December 2004 06:36 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Libby Davies at a memorial service for Yasser Arafat?! The scary thing is, she is the house leader of the NDP. Sorry, eulogizing terrorists is not on. I'll take Pat Martin's NDP over her version any day!!!
I don't think much of Arafat but I'll point out for the record that lots of global leaders have been labelled terrorists.

From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 17 December 2004 07:22 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Libby Davies at a memorial service for Yasser Arafat?! The scary thing is, she is the house leader of the NDP. Sorry, eulogizing terrorists is not on. I'll take Pat Martin's NDP over her version any day!!!

First, political leaders from around the planet and of various political stripes went to memorial or funeral stuff for Arafat.

Second, you'd take Stephen Harper's NDP over her version any day.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 17 December 2004 08:07 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
http://www.canpalnet.ca/archive/arafat

Libby Davies at a memorial service for Yasser Arafat?! The scary thing is, she is the house leader of the NDP. Sorry, eulogizing terrorists is not on. I'll take Pat Martin's NDP over her version any day!!!


So what? It seems to have been a very low-profile attendance on her part, she isn't even quoted as one of the speakers at this service.

I don't really have an opinion on Arafat one way or the other, but I assume he is considered a world leader and I cannot understand why one would object to an MP attending services for him. Anymore than I can understand the feverish objections to Pat Martin visiting Israel, ... whether Judy W-L is with him or not.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 17 December 2004 08:09 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
If you oppose the occupation, then you should be happy about the fence since it creates an official boundary separating Israel from the occupied territories and makes them that much harder to ever annex. A lot of Israelis on the far right hate the fence for that very reason.

This fence is an apartheid wall that goes around the illegal Israeli settlements and results in a land grab on the part of Israel

OPPOSE THE ISRAELI APARTHEID WALL!!!!


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

posted 17 December 2004 08:14 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Dagmar wrote:
quote:
Libby Davies at a memorial service for Yasser Arafat?! The scary thing is, she is the house leader of the NDP. Sorry, eulogizing terrorists is not on. I'll take Pat Martin's NDP over her version any day!!!

I'll take Libby Davies over Pat Martin any day.

Libby Davies supports tha Palestinian people and stand up for peace and justice in the middle east. Pat Martin is a zionist. For crissakes, there are people in the Liberal party who have better positions on Israel/Palestine than Pat Martin.


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

posted 17 December 2004 08:26 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Libby Davies supports tha Palestinian people and stand up for peace and justice in the middle east. Pat Martin is a zionist. For crissakes, there are people in the Liberal party who have better positions on Israel/Palestine than Pat Martin.


Depends on how you look at it. Some would say the following:

Pat Martin supports tha Israeli people and stands up for peace and justice in the middle east. Libby Davies is an Islamist.

"For crissakes, there are people in the Liberal party who have better positions on Israel/Palestine than Pat Martin. "

No kidding Pat O'Brian thre ultra-rightwing Catholic fanatic Liberal MP who loathes "homosexuals" is the most pro-Palestinian MP in Ottawa. Birds of a feather flock together.

quote:


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

posted 17 December 2004 08:36 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
Pat Martin supports tha Israeli people and stands up for peace and justice in the middle east.

Pat Martin supports the Israeli people by supporting the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel, and the imposition of martial law on 3.5 million palestinians. Doesn't sound very pecaceful or just to me.


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

posted 17 December 2004 09:23 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look, there are two sides to this conflict as there are to most conflicts. If you are pro-Arab, you are convinced that Israel is the guilty party that has provoked all the violence etc... If you are pro-Israel, you blame the Arabs for being the ones who provoked the conflict.

There are leftwing people who are pro-Arab and there are also leftwing people who are pro-Israel. Similarly, many neo-fascists like Jean marie LePen and Jorg Haider are pro-Arab - as are some rightwing pro-business types who think the western world should suck to the Arabs since they have all the oil! and other rightwingers are pro-Israel.

We are all entitled to our opinions.


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

posted 17 December 2004 09:43 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why not just be pro-people and acknowledge both sides are guilty of terrible crimes. And then work for peace. But to do that you would have to stop being a sectarian. I doubt there is much chance of that.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
phoebe
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5466

posted 17 December 2004 09:49 PM      Profile for phoebe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 17 December 2004: Message edited by: phoebe ]


From: vancouver | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 December 2004 10:31 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why not just be pro-people and acknowledge both sides are guilty of terrible crimes. And then work for peace. But to do that you would have to stop being a sectarian. I doubt there is much chance of that.

I do! Believe it or not when i am in the company of rightwing pro-Likud type Jews I argue vociferously with them and attack their abuses and probably sound totally Pro_palestinian to them. But I resent it when naive but well-meaning pseudo leftists get carried away by the "romance" of the Palestinian cause and act if the palestinains can do no wrong and Israel is the only "bad guy".


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

posted 17 December 2004 10:43 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. Sure.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 17 December 2004 10:57 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again I have to shake my head in astonishment: how could someone post on babble for over two years and believe that this...

quote:
well-meaning pseudo leftists get carried away by the "romance" of the Palestinian cause and act if the palestinains can do no wrong and Israel is the only "bad guy".

... represents the consensus here? Are you reading some other site? Did you not read WingNut's "pro-people" post a ways up?

Yeeesh.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 18 December 2004 12:47 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

I resent it when naive but well-meaning pseudo leftists get carried away by the "romance" of the Palestinian cause and act if the palestinains can do no wrong and Israel is the only "bad guy".

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Way to go Stockholm!


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 18 December 2004 01:01 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Way to go Stockholm!

Wow.... the kiss of death, Stock. You've got Daggy on your side!


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 18 December 2004 02:32 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Who's your Daggy?!!!

Edited to add Duckjob graphic

[ 18 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 18 December 2004 02:50 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

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

posted 18 December 2004 04:53 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
Look, there are two sides to this conflict as there are to most conflicts. If you are pro-Arab, you are convinced that Israel is the guilty party that has provoked all the violence etc... If you are pro-Israel, you blame the Arabs for being the ones who provoked the conflict.

The reality on the ground is that of an occupying force, Israel, and an occupied people, the palestinians. Tha'ts a reality that you appear to be in denial of.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 18 December 2004 09:14 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, that's the reality. But don't expect Stockholm or the Macabee crowd to address it. It would disrupt their narrative.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 18 December 2004 10:23 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
The reality is that even the most right-wing Israeli government has been offering a two-state solution for some time. The reality is also that much of the Palestinian suffering has come at the hands of Palestinian leaders who refuse to make any serious overtures to peace. Look at Arafat's vast personal fortune, which he took at the expense of his own people. The reality is, he probably kept Palestinians destitute and desperate for his own political gain.

The reality is also that the Israel wall is actually a mild response to the problem of terrorism.


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 December 2004 10:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Look, there are two sides to this conflict as there are to most conflicts. If you are pro-Arab, you are convinced that Israel is the guilty party that has provoked all the violence etc... If you are pro-Israel, you blame the Arabs for being the ones who provoked the conflict.

Bullshit. A simple way to duck responsibility, or crtitical thought. You probably think most people here blame the Israelis for everything. Here is news: they dont. Guilty/not gulity formulas are just a way of negotiating your way through a problem without having to think.

Your way of thinking about the subject is a perfect example of the essence of the problem, which end up resulting in: "You don't like my side, well tough titty, we have more guns..." la la la. Its not about fucking blame... How long is it going to take you to figure that out?


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

posted 18 December 2004 10:32 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The reality is that even the most right-wing Israeli government has been offering a two-state solution for some time. The reality is also that much of the Palestinian suffering has come at the hands of Palestinian leaders who refuse to make any serious overtures to peace. Look at Arafat's vast personal fortune, which he took at the expense of his own people. The reality is, he probably kept Palestinians destitute and desperate for his own political gain.

Total suposition, based on repetition of half truths. For instance Arafat, if he chose, could have left his burnt out Ramallah compound anytime, and gone to live in Bermuda. He didn't? He lived in a burnt out compound, eating soup. So, you are going to have to calaculate those kind of personal twists into your formulaic greedy-terrorist speil or it makes no sense. I can think of plenty of reasons Arafat would want to hide the PA's money at the service of the organization not himself.

Everyone just thinks... "oh! the money has gone... Arafat must have stolen it for his own personal gain."

Personal gain?

What gain?

Make up a motive sherlock that fits the personality profile.


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

posted 18 December 2004 11:32 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Personal gain?

What gain?


Well we know his humble wife was driving a Mercedes in Paris and going on shopping sprees at Christian Dior.


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

posted 18 December 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The reality on the ground is that of an occupying force, Israel, and an occupied people, the palestinians. Tha'ts a reality that you appear to be in denial of.

If its that simple, why was there no peace before the occupation began in 1967??? ANSWER: Because before there was an occupation, the Arabs wouold settle for nothing less than genocide of Israelis and a 100% Jew-free "Palestine" - that was always the preferred solution and preferably with as much bloodshed as possible. They only changed their tune to "Plan B" after the '67. If Israeli with drew tomorrow, how do we know that the Arabs don't go back to Plan A?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 18 December 2004 05:54 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the Israelis wouold settle for nothing less than genocide of Arabs and a 100% Arab-free "Israel" - that was always the preferred solution and preferably with as much bloodshed as possible. They only changed their tune to "Plan B" after the first intifada. If our martyrs ceased their attacks tomorrow, how do we know that the Israelis don't go back to Plan A?

Hmmm.

You might want to think for a second, Stock, that with a few minor changes, your arguments can be instantly transformed into the kind of fire-breathing rhetoric that might come out of the mouth of an extremist Hamas supporter.

Standard disclaimer for our knee-jerk Likudnik trolls: I don't believe in or sympathize with anything in my surgically-altered quote above. Just pointing out a similarity to make a point.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 December 2004 07:25 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Except that there have always been hundreds of thousands of Israeli Arabs who have more political rights than Arabs in any Arab majority country (since there is no such a thing as an Arab country that holds democratic elections). We know from historical experience that the goal of the Arabs going back to the 1930 was to annhilate all Jews in the Middle East and to "throw them into the sea". I don't know of anyone on even the most most extreme reaches of the Israeli Right that wants to have Israel conquer everthing from Morocco to Iraq and then eliminate the Arab race from the face of the earth.

But, I digress. If the only obstacle to peace is the "occupation", why was there no peace prior to 1967?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 18 December 2004 08:08 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(since there is no such a thing as an Arab country that holds democratic elections).

Say WTF?

Even if that were true, it's entirely irrelevant. Do countries gain the right to conquer other people's lands, impose martial law & kill the people under their control at will, steal their resources, demolish their homes and communities, and implant fortified colonies and roads from which the locals are systematically barred -- all because the country doing this has elections every few years?

Uh oh. I guess that means Dubya would be entirely within his rights to occupy Canada and emulate Israel's behaviour here. And we would have no right to complain.

quote:
We know from historical experience that the goal of the Arabs going back to the 1930 was to annhilate all Jews in the Middle East and to "throw them into the sea".

"The Arabs", huh? All of them.

No comment necessary.

And I'm getting a little sick of this "there was no peace before '67, so the occupation is A-Ok" crap. Yes, hostilities existed before -- no shit. But the occupation has made things decisively worse, taking a bad situation and making it abominable. Removing it would not cause the region to spontaneously explode in flowers and puppies, true, but there is no possible solution as long as 3.5 million people continue to be ground underfoot.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 December 2004 08:37 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In fact from Israel's point of view, the occupation did accomplish one thing. Before the occupation in the 1947-1967 period, the Arab countries were publicly dedicated to annhilating Israel outright and every peace overture that Israel made in that period was derisively rejected. There was nothing to discuss from the Arab point of view except Israel liquidating itself and senind all its citizens to Antarctica or wherever.

Only after Israel crushed the Arabs despite being massive outnumbered in 1967 that all of a sudden the Arabs started to change their tack from demanding the total elimination of Israel to instead demanding a total withdrawal from the occupied territories. In other words, thanks to the occupaition, I will concede that most Arab countries have given up on getting Israel to with draw from its pre-1967 borders.

Personally, I would be happy with the following: Total Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (who wants it anyways), Israeli withdrawal from the vast majority of the West Bank with some land swaps so that the borders make more sense for both Israel and the Palestinian state (for example there is an uninhabited finger of land that was occupied in 1967 that now sits in the middle of the main Tel Aviv to Jerusalem highway. That piece of land should be kept by Israel and in exchange give the Palestinians some other piece of land of similar size that is of no strategic importance. The put old Jerusalem under some kind of international administration. Next let the Syrians take back the Golan Heights in mame only but make it into a demilitarized buffer zone to prevent Syria from using it to shell Israeli town below. Ideally of the formerly occupied territories should be reunited with that part of Palestine that is east of the Jordan River (aka Jordan) to bit a nice contiguous Palestine.

The Jewish settlers in the West Bank (those religious feaks with Brooklyn accents) should be given two choices: move back to Israel with compensation, or stay where they are and become Jewish Palestinian citizens (if there can be Arab Israelis, why not Jewish Palestinians).

The Hamas and Islamic Jihad must be dissolved and all their weapons caches destroyed or decommissioned.

That's my peace plan.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 18 December 2004 09:45 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Everyone just thinks... "oh! the money has gone... Arafat must have stolen it for his own personal gain."

Personal gain?

What gain?

Make up a motive sherlock that fits the personality profile.


Uh, Dude, Arafat was worth over a billion dollars on his death. Must've made the money selling Avon...

Give your head a shake!


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kinetix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5296

posted 19 December 2004 12:19 AM      Profile for Kinetix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Recognizing the rights of Palestinians doesn't mean that one is a supporter of Arafat, Dagmar. The world sure must be boring in black and white...
From: Montréal, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 19 December 2004 01:44 AM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:
If its that simple, why was there no peace before the occupation began in 1967??? ANSWER: Because before there was an occupation, the Arabs wouold settle for nothing less than genocide of Israelis and a 100% Jew-free "Palestine" - that was always the preferred solution and preferably with as much bloodshed as possible. They only changed their tune to "Plan B" after the '67. If Israeli with drew tomorrow, how do we know that the Arabs don't go back to Plan A?

The problem with your position is that it hinges on what might happen if the occupation ends. I would much rather deal with what is happening because the occupation has not ended.

To illustrate my point: the latest incursion by the Israeli Millitary into the Gaza Strip has left 3 palestinians dead. Thry telling their families that the Israeli occupation is necessary.

The lack of trust evidenced by yourself and so many other supporters of Israel is truly appalling.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 19 December 2004 02:34 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kinetix:
Recognizing the rights of Palestinians doesn't mean that one is a supporter of Arafat, Dagmar. The world sure must be boring in black and white...

No shit, Sherlock. I never said it did.

By the same token, recognizing the rights of the Israelis doesn't equate to support of Sharon and Likud. This is evidently lost on the numbnuts who keep bashing Stockholm.

[ 19 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 19 December 2004 02:42 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Kennelly:
To illustrate my point: the latest incursion by the Israeli Millitary into the Gaza Strip has left 3 palestinians dead. Thry telling their families that the Israeli occupation is necessary.
That might not be the best way to illustrate your point. The latest incursion was aimed at disabling the mortar capabilities of terrorists in Gaza who had just fired mortars and Kassam missiles at civillians. Those killed were armed. Israel had every right to respond in self defense.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 19 December 2004 04:27 AM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm wrote:
quote:

Only after Israel crushed the Arabs despite being massive outnumbered in 1967 that all of a sudden the Arabs started to change their tack from demanding the total elimination of Israel to instead demanding a total withdrawal from the occupied territories.

Your language indicates that you are a militarist, violent character. Might makes right !

That very might that "crushes" has generated suicide bombers. A dream-scenario for violent onlookers. It is like a "good action movie", Stockholm.


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

posted 19 December 2004 10:42 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Kennelly:

The problem with your position is that it hinges on what might happen if the occupation ends. I would much rather deal with what is happening because the occupation has not ended.

But that is also the problem with your position.

One side hinges on what happens when the occupation ends, the other side hinges on what happens while the occupation continues, neither side pays enough attention to the real and legitimate concerns on the other side, and nothing ever changes.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 19 December 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Only after Israel crushed the Arabs despite being massive outnumbered in 1967 that all of a sudden the Arabs started to change their tack from demanding the total elimination of Israel to instead demanding a total withdrawal from the occupied territories.


quote:
Originally posted by lacabombi:

Your language indicates that you are a militarist, violent character. Might makes right !


Lacombi: your language indicates typical histrionic, left-wing drivel. It also indicates that you actually believe that bullshit.

Hello.... who attacked whom? Israel was attacked and defended itself handily. So, in your world, Israel should be ashamed that, upon being atacked, it absolutely destroyed its invaders? Please.

I might add a footnote to Stockholm's excellent analysis: it was awfully generous for Israel to give back half of Saudi Arabia and Egypt too. When you consider the lands that Israel won -- fair and square -- after being atacked, the West Bank and Gaza are relatively small. No matter what Israel has given, the demand has always been for more. Makes you wonder whether Arafat and others' agenda was indeed the elimination of Israel altogether. Nah... I forgot. Arafat and Palestine are perfect. Israelis is bad.

Even suicide bombing can be justified with enough ultra left-wing tripe.

Edited for accuracy.

[ 19 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 December 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Amazing, but as I noted above, totally predicatable. Stockholm and Dagmar will do anything to avoid addressing the occupation, and the illegal settlements and ethnic cleansing that has gone along with it. Israel could up and withdraw from the west bank today if it wanted to. It doesn't because, depending on the point of view, it wants to keep all, or part, of the land, and most, if not all, the illegal settlements.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 19 December 2004 02:55 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Fine, I'll address the occupation. Israel isn't occupying anything. Under international law, Israel would only be occupying land if it had ceded the land under a peace treaty. there is no peace treaty with the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, any land won in a war of self-defence is not occupied, under International law. There is no occupation.

I'm not even going to address your claim of 'ethnic cleansing'. Your use of the term is hyperbolic, not to mention offensive. Typical pabulum for the ultra left-wing masses (admittedly small in number though).

[ 19 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 19 December 2004 02:58 PM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lacabombi:

Only after Israel crushed the Arabs despite being massive outnumbered in 1967 that all of a sudden the Arabs started to change their tack from demanding the total elimination of Israel to instead demanding a total withdrawal from the occupied territories.


Dagmar,

1. Originally posted by Lacabombi ? Wrong.
Stockholm originally wrote the above.

2. The 1967 war was started by Israel.

3. No military might that you and your macho-
jingoist-violent ilk are proud of ever
succeeded nor will it ever succeed in
subjugating the people of Palestine. It only
further strengthened their determination.

[ 19 December 2004: Message edited by: lacabombi ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 19 December 2004 03:00 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lacabombi:

1. Originally posted by Lacabombi ? Wrong.
Stockholm originally wrote the above.

2. The 1967 war was started by Israel.

3. No military might that you and your macho-
joingoist-violent ilk are proud of ever
succeeded nor will it ever succeed in
subjugating the people of Palestine. It only
further strengthened their determination.



From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 19 December 2004 03:12 PM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When the facts expose your distortions, fallacies and dishonesty you return to your Freudian anal phase ?

It is an adult game here. Grow up!

You came to defend your buddy but ended up pulverized like he was ? Have you ever thought why he did not reply ?

[ 19 December 2004: Message edited by: lacabombi ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 19 December 2004 03:21 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lacabombi:

You came to defend your buddy but ended up pulverized like he was ? Have you ever thought why he did not reply ?
[ 19 December 2004: Message edited by: lacabombi ]

So... might does make right, eh Lacombi, you militaristic, imperialist swine.

quote:
Originally posted by lacabombi:

When the facts expose your distortions, fallacies and dishonesty you return to your Freudian anal phase ?
[ 19 December 2004: Message edited by: lacabombi ]

I hope this isn't a homophobic remark. When I get my hands on a dictionary, you may be in big trouble.

Speaking of anal phase, pulll your head out of your ass. Your hair is starting to stink.

[ 19 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 19 December 2004 03:25 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Note to moderator: Digitize the troll.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 December 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Fine, I'll address the occupation. Israel isn't occupying anything. Under international law, Israel would only be occupying land if it had ceded the land under a peace treaty. there is no peace treaty with the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, any land won in a war of self-defence is not occupied, under International law. There is no occupation.

I'm not even going to address your claim of 'ethnic cleansing'. Your use of the term is hyperbolic, not to mention offensive. Typical pabulum for the ultra left-wing masses (admittedly small in number though).

[ 19 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


There is no occupation? Tell the people who are being occupied that there is no occupation. No response with respect to the illegal settlement. No surprise there. No ethnic cleaning? Tell that to the people who have been displaced from their homes, their land and their livelihood, to make room for settlements and highways constructed by the occupying forces. As for your name-calling, let's just say that that's typical for your fascist mentality. How's that for name-calling?


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 19 December 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah I can't take Dagmar anymore. And I don't think this thread is going to get any better, either.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca