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 middle east and central asia   » Resolution up for debate at NDP convention

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Resolution up for debate at NDP convention
sistersanta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3038

posted 19 January 2003 04:21 PM      Profile for sistersanta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd be interested to see Babblers' comments and analysis of the following resolution passed by the NDP federal council in March 2002, and now prioritized for debate at next weekend's convention. Are you FOR or AGAINST?

BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Council endorse the following resolution passed by the Socialist International Council:

The Socialist International hereby announces that its member parties - the Israeli Labour Party, Meretz and Fatah - agree that the mutual recognition of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, as two states to live side by side, should be the initial commitment before negotiations start between the two peoples.

The main elements of a final settlement have long been clear to most involved parties: implementation of Security Council resolution 242; establishment of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel under irreversible security guarantees for both sides; borders ensuring that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are part of the Palestinian state, but opening the possibility of negotiated land swaps; both states to have their capital in Jerusalem, and a just solution to the refugee issue.

The Socialist International and its above-mentioned member parties stress that negotiations have to be opened immediately and handle all outstanding issues. A cease-fire cannot be a condition to the start of negotiations. Extremists cannot be given the upper hand. The above parties renounce violence and will refrain from participating in any violent activity that harms civilian lives. Firm measures must be taken against such acts. We ask the parties to pay particular attention to the protection of the civilian population.

The Israeli Labour Party, Meretz and Fatah will immediately engage in confidence-building activities together, with the help and support of the Socialist International and member parties.

Joint groups will be established to discuss and prepare specific issues that will come up within the framework of final status negotiations.

The Socialist International will work with the aim of encouraging the United States, Russia and the European Union to find a common stand on final status issues. This stand must be consistent with international legality, and enjoy the support of the UN Security Council. It must also allow concerned Arab states to adhere to it. Particularly, it must take into consideration the parameters included in the recent Saudi initiative.

This basic common position should be elaborated before an international peace conference with the participation of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, relevant Arab countries, the U.S., EU, Russia and the UN.

The parties to the conflict should be invited to the Conference on the basis of basic principles: land for peace, 242, and an agreement on the establishment of two states and security for both.

The Conference should set a timetable for final status negotiations.

The Socialist International also encourages our member parties who are parties in conflict to prepare their respective public opinions for a compromise. Israel may not have peace and at the same time keep settlements, while Palestinians may have to accept an internationally supported compromise on the refugee issue.

The Socialist International supports the idea of building an international Fund for the Palestinian refugees, which the UN could administer once a permanent political settlement has been achieved on this issue. The Fund should ensure compensation for the losses and the suffering of the refugees, and provide them with the opportunity to start a new life on the basis of the conclusion of a final peace agreement. The better we can show that solutions are within reach, the more likely people will start working for a political settlement rather than a military one.

Urgent recovery and reconstruction programs for the Palestinian Authority are needed, including the recovery of taxes, customs and other fees still withheld. Development and security are dependent upon developing democratic institutions and establishing a centralized security authority.

The Socialist International insists on the need for international guarantees, international monitoring of implementation of any agreements, international political follow-up of negotiations, and the presence on the ground of a multinational peace-keeping force patrolling borders.

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: sistersanta ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 19 January 2003 06:46 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
For.

It's the international consensus.

It is more or less the same as the only concrete proposal on the table at the moment, the so-called Quartet Performance-Based Road Map (http://www.bitterlemons.org/docs/roadmap2.html). Right now, that's it, the Roadmap or nothing (well not nothing, just a continuation of the current low intensity war of mutual destruction). But essentially, the Roadmap is what the international community is proposing: the UN, the EU and the official co-sponsors of Mideast Peace Efforts, the US and Russia.

The Quartet Roadmap also mentions UN Security Council Resolution 1397 of March 2002, the first time the UN system has openly called for a Palestinian and an Israeli state, and it mentions the Saudi Peace Plan.

The only problem with the resolution is the role of the Socialist International. The International has no standing in the Roadmap and so will not be an official player.

If it wants to be some kind of unofficial player, that's fine.

Aside from that, FOR.

[ 19 January 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 19 January 2003 10:26 PM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What Mimichekele2 said.
From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 19 January 2003 10:30 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would support it, with one semantic reservation:
quote:
The above parties renounce violence and will refrain from participating in any violent activity that harms civilian lives.
Rather than get into debates over what civilian means, why not just remove the term entirely?

From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 20 January 2003 05:14 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The "road map" isn't going anywhere. The creation of a Palestinian state isn't the real issue. A "permanent status agreement" will not end popular aggression towards Israel and Palestine, or bring peace to the region.

quote:
U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: a just settlement of the refugee problem
What does that really mean?

The SI principles of Equality, Justice and Human Rights requires the recognition of displaced people's rights to land confiscated by Israel since 1948. Whether that land is a part of Israel, Palestine, or other state is irrelevant, so long as these rights are recognized.

Any serious resolution towards peace for Jewish and Arab people in the middle-east must work on the restitution of all displaced people.

[ 20 January 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 20 January 2003 11:07 AM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
Is that comment a FOR or an AGAINST?
From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 22 January 2003 12:01 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The above parties renounce violence and will refrain from participating in any violent activity that harms civilian lives.

Do you think this could stop Toady Blair?


From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 22 January 2003 12:07 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
Is that FOR or AGAINST rbil? Does the resolution move us closer to a settlement of the conflict or not?

verbatim, the word "civilian" is well-defined in the applicable international humanitarian law. The opposite of "civilian" is "Combattant" which is also defined. I would keep the line about civilians in the text.


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 22 January 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frankly, I don't care about the resolution going before the Socialist International when it's membership includes the likes of Toady Blair who flaunts any principles this group espouses. The Socialist International has no credibility and I cannot remember that it ever did have any.
From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 22 January 2003 12:48 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
We'll take that for an AGAINST. Next.
From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 January 2003 12:55 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 22 January 2003 01:00 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
Wait a minute. I don't think rbil or mishei are dues-paying members of the NDP, are you? This is about a resolution for NDPers.
From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 22 January 2003 01:39 PM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that discussions on babble were segregated between card carrying NDPers and the rest of us. No, I burned my NDP card many many years ago. I'll go to the back of the bus now.
From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 January 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know what its about. Do you have a list suggesting that I am in arrears?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 22 January 2003 01:46 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
You know very well rbil that that is a ridiculous answer.

If one is a member of the group voting on a resolution, that has a very different coloration that someone external to the group expressing an opinion that will not impact on the decision being taken.

Of course, I can have an opinion on any resolution in front of the Liberal or the PQ party convention. But since I am not a member of those organizations and don't vote in their councils, it doesn't have the same meaning, and especially not if I explicitly express a deep hostility to those parties.

And your only contribution was to attack the people behind the resolution. Not exactly a very positive contribution to the discussion. It reads like "They are full of shit so who cares what they vote on?"


The debate is right now, internationally, Road Map or no Road Map. The resolution is along the lines of the Road Map. Right now, internationally, there is nothing else on the table. That's pretty much the real situation. I take it therefore you prefer no Road Map, which leaves the region in the throes of the current violence. It has taken the international community some 5 decades or so to come to the consensus contained in the Road Map and the resolution. It is a little too easy to think that rejecting it for superficial reasons (I don't like Toady Blair) does not have very negative results. It's not as if there is a menu from which one gets to choose from 15 different diplomatic solutions. Right now, internationally, there is only one being seriously considered. And it took 50 years to get that far.

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 22 January 2003 01:49 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'd be interested to see Babblers' comments and analysis of the following resolution passed by the NDP federal council in March 2002, and now prioritized for debate at next weekend's convention. Are you FOR or AGAINST?

I don't believe this request stipluated any party membership as a requirement for thread participation.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 22 January 2003 02:02 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
See my post just above yours pax. I had badly expressed my thoughts initially.
From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 22 January 2003 04:10 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I understand it, the Saudi initiative isn't clear on the fate of Palestinian refugees, neither is 242, and "land for peace" seems to be about the wrong land for the wrong peace. The resolution is too vague on the most important issues in this conflict. That is why I have no confidence in it.

The resolution only serves Israeli and Palestinian political parties. It doesn't address the concerns of Palestinians or Israelis on the ground. That is why I see the resolution as irrelevant.

I would only say "FOR" if the resolution can be interpreted as an initial step towards the eventual restitution of Palestinians.
Any kind of "peace settlement" between political parties that doesn't settle the root cause of the conflict, the Palestinian people's indignation against Israel, is useless. If this is that kind of resolution then I am AGAINST.

quote:
It's not as if there is a menu from which one gets to choose from 15 different diplomatic solutions. Right now, internationally, there is only one being seriously considered. And it took 50 years to get that far.
And if that resolution is unjust to any side then it would be wrong to consider it.

Israel and the US, at this point, refuse to recognize human rights when considering the Palestinian issue. Accepting a settlement under their terms would be giving in to extortion. I would rather wait another 50 years than betray humanity.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 22 January 2003 04:39 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
The Roadmap addresses all of your issues satana in a way compatible with the relevant UN resolutions.

It is not a settlement under Israeli or US control. The Israeli right will gag on this. It will be the end of their ideology.

No settlement can address your point about feelings or indigination though. Politically negotiated settlements can only address interests and rights, over which there can be compromises and trades. Feelings can be addressed in parallel through other mechanisms (trials, truth and reconciliation commissions, or the passing of time), but not through negotiations. That is a people-to-people process, not a state-to-state process.

I am not sure what you mean by restitution. The terms normally used are repatriation, resettlement and compensation. Some refugees would be repatriated to their former homes, others resettled in the new Palestinian State or in other countries, others would receive financial compensation - this has been in UN resolutions for more than 50 years. The borders would be the 1967 borders, with a few minor adjustments here and there.

Much of this was already discussed at the Taba talks of the winter of 2001 that both (pre-Sharon) Israeli and Palestinian delegations agreed were very productive on issues such as refugees, Jerusalem and borders.

Le Monde had a very interesting series on the Taba talks more than a year ago, as told by people on both sides who had been inside the room. The story is that the Palestinians were stunned by how much the Israelis were prepared to move on the contentious issues after years of stalling. The French expression used by a stunned Palestinian was "failli tomber de ma chaise" (almost felt off my chair). So these are not necessarily new or radical ideas - the Rodmap and the resolution simply bring all the really practical and doable ideas under one umbrella.

Oh, and with UN peacekeepers armed to the teeth to make them stick to it.

I doubt very much you or anyone else would prefer waiting another 50 years. There might not be any people left.


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 January 2003 05:47 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Le Monde had a very interesting series on the Taba talks more than a year ago, as told by people on both sides who had been inside the room. The story is that the Palestinians were stunned by how much the Israelis were prepared to move on the contentious issues after years of stalling. The French expression used by a stunned Palestinian was "failli tomber de ma chaise" (almost felt off my chair). So these are not necessarily new or radical ideas - the Rodmap and the resolution simply bring all the really practical and doable ideas under one umbrella.


Mimi very interesting. This would seem to totally contradict everyting said by many anti-taba people here on Babble who insisted that no PA negotiator accepted anything from the Taba talks. In fact they poo pooed Taba as not enough.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 22 January 2003 06:08 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
I think some people were confusing Camp David and Taba. They were very different.

The official joint Israeli-Palestinian Taba statement of Jan 27, 2001:

"The Israeli and Palestinian delegations conducted during the last six days serious, deep and practical talks with the aim of reaching a permanent and stable agreement between the two parties.

"The Taba talks were unprecedented in their positive atmosphere and expression of mutual willingness to meet the national, security and existential needs of each side.

"Given the circumstances and time constraints, it proved impossible to reach understandings on all issues, despite the substantial progress that was achieved in each of the issues discussed.

"The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections.

"The two sides take upon themselves to return to normalcy and to establish [a] security situation on the ground through the observation of their mutual commitments in the spirit of the Sharm e-Sheikh memorandum.

"The negotiation teams discussed four main themes : refugees, security, borders and Jerusalem, with a goal to reach a permanent agreement that will bring an end to the conflict between them and provide peace to both people.

"The two sides took into account the ideas suggested by President Clinton together with their respective qualifications and reservations.

"On all these issues there was substantial progress in the understanding of the other side's positions and in some of them the two sides grew closer.

"As stated above, the political timetable prevented reaching an agreement on all the issues.

"However, in light of the significant progress in narrowing the differences between the sides, the two sides are convinced that in a short period of time and given an intensive effort and the acknowledgment of the essential and urgent nature of reaching an agreement, it will be possible to bridge the differences remaining and attain a permanent settlement of peace between them.

"In this respect, the two sides are confident that they can begin and move forward in this process at the earliest practical opportunity.

"The Taba talks conclude an extensive phase in the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status negotiations with a sense of having succeeded in rebuilding trust between the sides and with the notion that they were never closer in reaching an agreement between them than today.

"We leave Taba in a spirit of hope and mutual achievement, acknowledging that the foundations have been laid both in reestablishing mutual confidence and in having progressed in a substantive engagement on all core issues.

"The two sides express their gratitude to President Hosni Mubarak for hosting and facilitating these talks.

"They also express their thanks to the European Union for its role in supporting the talks."

The following EU "non-paper" (unofficial minutes) has been accepted by both sides as a true reflection of the behind-doors events of the Taba talks: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/proche-orient/tabaminutes-texte

Here is the Palestinian proposition on refugees: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/proche-orient/refugeespal-en - the parts marked XX appear as such in the text.

The Israeli unofficial non-paper response is contained in http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/proche-orient/israelrefugees-en

The positions at the end of the week in Taba were relatively closer than most people ever imagined possible.

There are factions on all sides which deny this for their own ideological reasons (because they hate the idea of the conflict being solved and want to continue killing each other perhaps - it is called rewriting or distorting history) but the diplomatic reality described by the EU Special Representative is there for anyone to see. The version of the Special Representative has been accepted by all the parties present in the room.

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 22 January 2003 06:13 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
By restitution, I meant restitution of private property lost by non-Jews in 1948 and later within Israel's current borders and occupied territies.

Much, if not all, of Arab indignation towards Israel is a result of its failure to respect the rights of non-Jews to their property before the creation of the Israeli state. Overcoming this indignation can not even begin until these rights are acknowledged.

I believe a serious solution should be explicit on this issue.

quote:
Some refugees would be repatriated to their former homes, others resettled in the new Palestinian State or in other countries, others would receive financial compensation - this has been in UN resolutions for more than 50 years.
How many is "some"? On what basis will this be determined? The language on this especially weighty point can be interpreted in so many ways. This is what I meant by vague. Agreeing to this resolution in its current state will only lead to disagreements later on, as we have seen before.


Israel's position on Taba included: "Israel will never allow the right of Palestinian refugees to return to inside the State of Israel."

According to international law, all refugees are entitled to full restitution, which includes the right of return to their homes of origin, the return of their property, and the right to compensation for material and non-material losses.

Up yours, Mishei.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 22 January 2003 06:21 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
Hmmm, satana. I think you have confused Camp David and Taba on the refugee issue. The numbers would be in large part determined by the international commission to be set up. The numbers would depend on factors such as:

1) security (people would not b sent back to areas where there was still fighting going on)

2) international funding for repatriation or compensation. This includes compensation for lost property. At Taba, Israel explicitly accepted that it would one of the main funders of an international fund.

3) personal choice - many refugees have family in what would be the new Palestinian state or in the Gulf States and might actually want to live in an Arab state. Those who are repatriated to Israel would have to accept living in a Jewish majority state where Hebrew is the official language - I am sure many won't mind but others might understandably want to move in with relatives in the West Bank or in the capital of East Jerusalem instead of Israel proper

Of course, the past 2 years mean a lot would have to start from scratch again but the building blocks are there and there is the precedent of official delegations from both sides agreeing to the basic elements of the final settlement.

I am no longer sure what your objections are satana. You criticize Taba 2001 and the Roadmap 2002 but a close reading of your comments tells me you really mean Camp David 2000 which has been superseded. Campd David is what the Palestinians rejected as being a sell-out.

The Roadmap incorporates a lot of the thinking that has happened since then. It also has the full backing of the EU, Russia and the UN as well as the tacit support of the Arab League. It is quite a solid beginning to build on.

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 January 2003 06:24 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Up yours, Mishei.


The articulate words of a school yard bully.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 22 January 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK ,now I'm confused.

I quote Israel's position on Taba from the Israeli governments's official website.

I'll read the documents you've linked and comment later.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 January 2003 06:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When you resort to ad hominem in a debate, that's called "losing", satana.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 22 January 2003 06:34 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
Yes absolutely confusing.

Two possible explanations:

1) the dates - the MFA web site statement is from Jan 21. The Taba joint statement from Jan 27. Stuff can have evolved during the week

2) typical political maneuvering within Israel, with different factions in the government saying different things. Barak and his negotiators were perhaps not singing from the same song book. I tend to believe this theory. There was an election going on - the diplomats were sincere, Barak was playing games. This seems to concord with the personal sentiments expressed by some Palestinians present in the room: the diplomats really wanted to make things work, Barak was electioneering. That's a bit simplistic I know but it feels about right.


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 22 January 2003 07:40 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, you really read and type fast, Mimichikele. What are you? Anyway, I'll have to look into this Taba/Road Map stuff tomorrow. I gotta go.

Mishei, I apologize for calling you a supremacist on the other thread. It's the impression that I got when you ignored my questions concerning Palestinian rights everytime I raised them on several threads before.

Michelle, how come you get to be babbler-babbler, and everybody else is just a rabble-rouser? Who makes up these rules? ...and those names?


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 24 January 2003 07:08 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The positions at the end of the week in Taba were relatively closer than most people ever imagined possible.
Thats true. Still, according to the unofficial minutes, Israel would limit Palestians' right of return and rejected their right to restitution. I don't think that could ever be accepted. Human rights should never be compromised.

From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 25 January 2003 07:44 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with the The NDP Socialist Caucus' position on Palestine:

quote:
NDP Socialist Caucus members, together with millions of people across North America and around the world say a 'balanced neutrality' is not the means to emancipation for Palestinians or for any oppressed peoples.

We call for an end to apartheid-like discrimination in Israel and the Occupied Territories, an end to the colonization of Palestinian lands, an end to military occupation, an end to ethnic cleansing and state terrorism by the state of Israel. We demand freedom for Palestinian political prisoners, and the right for Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. We strongly condemn support for the Zionist apartheid state by the U.S., Canada, Australia, Britain and most of the social democratic-led governments of Europe.

In the summer of 2000, on the eve of the current Intifada, the Socialist Caucus urged the NDP to call for economic sanctions on Israel until all its forces are withdrawn from the Occupied Territories, Zionist settlements are dismantled, and all displaced Palestinians have the right of return to their homeland.

This is the only road for the NDP to take if it is to play a constructive political role in the quest for peace with social justice.


[ 25 January 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 02 February 2003 05:35 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the brown-red-green thread:
quote:
Mimichekele2 : The only people I will listen to from now on are those who support the Quartet RoadMap (Quartet=UN, Russia, EU plus US which have come up with a pragmatic detailed timetable for creating a Palestinian state - the rest is just empty rhetoric from people who don't want to solve anything anyway, so screw'em)

From the Road Map:

quote:
Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel – Palestinian conflict in 2005, through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397, that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue
My problem with this is why is there no mention of UNGAR 194?
quote:
UN Resolution 194, Article 11: Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Who are you tryin to screw?
Personally I'm apposed to the creation of another Arab state. There are aleady far too many. But that is still secondary to the refugee issue. If Palestinians are denied the right to return to their original homes, there can be no just solution. "agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution" sounds great, but what does it really mean?

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  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