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   » What would actually happen if the Israel withdrew from the territories?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What would actually happen if the Israel withdrew from the territories?
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 March 2003 01:44 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a question i would like to see discussed. Over and over and over, we hear people chant "end the occupation" and demanding that Israel with draw from all the territories it occupied in 1967 etc...

What if this actually happened? What if some very enlightened government came to power in Israel and just unilaterally withdrew from the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and yes even East Jerusalem? Would that end the entire Middle East conflict once and for all? Would there would be an iron-clad commitment from the Arabs that Israel would never be attacked again under circumstances? Or would the Arabs regard this as moving the frontline forward a few notches and given them a base from which to attack that is closer than ever to Tel Aviv?

I'm genuinely curious as to whether people think that Israel withdrawing to pre-1967 boundaries is all that needs to happen and before we know it Tel Aviv would be a stop on the Cairo to Damascus railroad and everyone will live happily ever after.

Of course this begs the question of why there was no peace before 1967 when Israel did not occupy any of those territories.

Personally, I think that if Israelis actually believed that a withdrawal would lead to peace, they would go for it, but they just don't believe that. They think that withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza would be like Czechoslovakia ceding the Sudetenland to Germany (remember that the people living in Sudetenland were almost all ethnic Germans who claimed that the Czechs were persecuting them)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 01 March 2003 02:22 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For me, mere withdrawal, particularly for strategic reasons, is not enough. While it's a good start, there must also be acts of contrition and restitution for the kit-and-kaboodle of the whole thing, the creation of Israel itself. This means, at the very least, a historical and moral concession to the rightness of the Palestinian accusation of unjust displacement from 1948 onwards, if not material restitution.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 01 March 2003 04:35 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What would happen if Israel withdrew?

The Palestinian militants and other anti-semites would consider it a victory, but still would not rest until the Jews have been eradicated.

A peaceful solution the the Israel conflict has to involve give and take from both sides, and also moderate cool headed leaders cracking down on extremism within their own populations.

Simply driving the Israelis into the mediterreanean sea is not a solution I can live with.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 March 2003 04:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Simply driving the Israelis into the mediterreanean sea is not a solution I can live with.

Yeah, because that was an option that was presented.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 01 March 2003 06:15 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Withdraw and what?

Withdraw and build a wall exactly on the green line with a big old "Fuck Y'all" painted on the side facing out, or withdraw in the context of establishing "normal" relations between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world?

Israel ending the occupation is a step in the right direction, but they can't just pull out and say "ok, what's for lunch?"

I'm sure either way, violence against Israelis, antisemitism, would be reduced, but this is by no means a cure-all. Some in Hamas or IJ may just think they have won a bit, and try to gain more by the same tactics they have found "successful." They would be in the minority, I think, but are not to be discounted.

At the same time, the end of Occupation is a bridge that needs building, one way or another, for the good of the long term.

How successful depends on who, how, and when.


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 01 March 2003 08:19 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are several issues here. First, Israel should dismantle the west bank and gaza settlements now because they are illegal under international law. Under the same law, they are not obliged to withdraw from occupation of those territories until a peace deal is reached since the occupation was the result of war with Jordan and Egypt. As to how the Palestinians would react, that would vary. I'm sure some would still want to destroy Israel, but I believe most would be satisfied with a settlement. Just as there will be some in Israel who will want to kill the Prime Minister who actually dismantles the settlements and withdraws from the territories.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 01 March 2003 08:40 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I keep hearing this "driving Jews into the sea" crap. Where do people get it? And "destroying" Israel...what does that mean?
Withdrawal from territories occupied since 1967 would be a good step towards peace. But hostilities will probably not end until Palestinians are all allowed to return to their homes.

As for a Cairo - Jaffa - Damascus railway, I think that's a great idea. Better than taking the Aqaba ferry and going through Jordan.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 01 March 2003 09:54 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I keep hearing this "driving Jews into the sea" crap. Where do people get it?

Egyptian President Nasser stating war aims for the 1967 war.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 March 2003 10:58 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find myself in rare agreement with Josh. Dismantling the Settlements and a negotiated withdrawal from the disputed territories would surely be a sign from Israel as to their desire for peace. Indeed I would argue that this is what Barak proposed in 2000 (I know many here disagree )

However, satana's suggestion:

quote:
But hostilities will probably not end until Palestinians are all allowed to return to their homes.
is a non-starter because we all know that to do so would be the end of the Jewish state and while some here would welcome such a solution the vast majority of Jews and Israelis would NEVER accept it EVER.

So while I appreciate this speculative question there are some realitues that need to be acknowledged.


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

posted 01 March 2003 11:17 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I posted this question and from what I am reading in response it sounds to me like all these calls to "end the occupation" are actually very misleading. The demand is not for Israel to end the occupation and that will be the end of the story, the placards should really read "end the occupation now and give the Arabs all that's left of Israel tomorrow".

This would be like having the Nisgaa tribe in BC saying "Recognize our land claim over a section of northwestern BC, and if you do that, we expect you to evacuate Vancouver and let us have that next year too!".

Why do people waste their time demanding an end to the occupation? Why don't they just cut to the chase and instead demand that Israel admit that it should never have existed in the first place, liquidate itself and that Canada and the US and a few other countries be prepared to accept 5 million refugees?


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

posted 01 March 2003 12:13 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nice straw man you set up there Stockholm. I, along with many others, have called for an end to the occupation without also calling for the "destruction" of Israel.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 March 2003 12:27 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, its not a straw man. I too would favour the same thing - an end to the occupation without the destruction of Israel. I just wonder whether this is actually possible and whether the vast majority of people in the Arab world would be satisfied enough with an end to the occupation that they would call a total halt to the suicide bombings etc...and sign peace treaties with Israel.

If anyone can show me clear incontrovertible evidence that ending the occupation = a comprehensive peace treaty and not one single solitary act of terrorism against Israel ever again, then count me in!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 March 2003 02:33 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't the Saudi's just propose such a peace deal, in exchange for a withdrawl?

BTW: Israel started the 1967 war. Israel's history has proven one thing, that if there was any other group of people, other than Arabs, who were opposed to the 1948 partition, it was the Zionist Jews. Israel has shown concretely that it wants the entire Palestine mandate.

The only way to achieve that has been through the wilful application of agressive military might.

Moshe Dyan entered Gaza and said that it had been "liberated" for Israel. Begin, in 1982, stated clearly that there was "no threat to Israel" from Nasser's two division in the Sinai, and that Israel went to war by "choice." He was at the time justifying the invasion of Lebanon at a speach given to the National War College.

After the war one Israeli general went so far as to say that any suggestion that Israel was on the verge of anihilation were "insulting" to the IDF.

These facts are widely understood, agreed to, and spoken of by Israeli's, to the point where right wing politicians have gotten up and in the Knesset and said (paraphraseing here): Get real 1967 was a land grab.

If not, why settle? Why not just turn it into a military neutarl zone and let the Palestinians rule themselves, why provoke the ire of the general population and give those who mean them the greatest harm a genuine political cause?

A few suicide bomings do not a pogrom make, I'm sorry, your whole premis is not very well thought out.

[ 01 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 01 March 2003 03:03 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the vast majority of Jews and Israelis would NEVER accept it EVER
Thats true. However, with international pressure I believe racism can be overcome. It's happened before.

From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 March 2003 03:13 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Satana, I find it offensive that you continue to refer to Israelis and Jews who support the Jewish state of Israel as "racists"

You may recall how offensive you found it when I misused your name. Well since the overwhelming majority of Jews around the world support the Jewish state of Israel, to refer to them as racists is far worse than me misusing your name. Indeed by your reckoning millions of Jews world-wide are racists. Shame on you!!I would ask you to stop immediatley.

There are many Zionists even on the left who believe in withdrawal from the occupied territotries and a fair deal for a two state solution but support the Jewish State. Your offensiveness is breathtaking. Please stop.

quote:
Get real 1967 was a land grab.

If not, why settle? Why not just turn it into a military neutarl zone and let the Palestinians rule themselves, why provoke the ire of the general population and give those who mean them the greatest harm a genuine political cause?


If 1967 was a "landgrab" why in hell did Israel give BACK most of the land it grabbed???

[ 01 March 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]

[ 01 March 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 01 March 2003 03:29 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
a non-starter because we all know that to do so would be the end of the Jewish state and while some here would welcome such a solution the vast majority of Jews and Israelis would NEVER accept it EVER.
I don't know that, so please explain it to me. I don't see how letting people return to their homes in sovereign territory would mean the end of the Jewish state. Palestine wouldn't be part of the Jewish state.

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

posted 01 March 2003 04:55 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find it offensive that you deny the Palestinians' right to return to their homes, a basic human right.

I am very sorry that many people support injustice. But just because they are many doesn't mean I should accept it. It won't stop me from saying the truth. A just solution may be unrealistic now, but that won't stop me from doing anything I can to work towards it.

So long as people know that racism is wrong there is hope that defeating it is possible.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 March 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Verbatim given the number of Palestinians it is clear that the demographics would so change as to make a Jewish state no longer viable.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 01 March 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
addendum -- I would think that if Israel is unwilling to allow people back to their homes, this is expropriation, and the Palestinians should be justly compensated for their loss and the cost of relocation.

Mishei: Couldn't the Knesset set up a constitution that guaranteed protection for the Jewish "minority," and then let the Palestinians back? The simple fact is that if Israelis believe in a racialized state, they're going to have to deal with the inevitibility of the treatment South Africa received from the international community.

[ 01 March 2003: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 March 2003 05:01 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Verbatim given the number of Palestinians it is clear that the demographics would so change as to make a Jewish state no longer viable.

Ah, so Israel is a secular democracy which has Jewish character.

This sets up a contradiction.

A state of secular nature cannot, by its nature, extend preferential treatment to one religion or another within it.

A state of religious character does, by its nature, extend preferential treatment to one religion within it.

So what shall it be, Mishei? A Jewish state or a secular state? Israel cannot be both if the contradiction is to be resolved.

Incidentally, I note that statements about the "Jewish" nature of the state of Israel are often couched in biological terms, which is something that white supremacists often do when talking of the United States.

It would be wise to be careful of the similarities in exclusivist thinking.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 March 2003 05:13 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel offers no preferential treatment by virtue of religion anymore than does say, Canada or Great britain or Ireland or Germnay. These countries with a Christian majority for example celebrate their Sabbath on Sunday nad proscribe Easter and Christmas as holidays.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 01 March 2003 05:26 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel offers no preferential treatment by virtue of religion anymore than does say, Canada or Great britain or Ireland or Germnay. These countries with a Christian majority for example celebrate their Sabbath on Sunday nad proscribe Easter and Christmas as holidays.

Nonsenese. It is illegal in Canada to put conditions on a piece of property barring its sale to members of a particular religious, ethnic or racial group while in Israel it is permissable to ban the vast majority of land from being sold to non-Jews.

In Israel, Jews cannot legally marry non-Jews. Also, Jews who convert to other religions find it almost impossible to get their identity papers changed. There's a recent case of a Jewish family that moved to Jerusalem from New York City and decided to convert to Islam. The family has been trying for several years to legally change their name etc and haven't been allowed to (I believe they are appealing to the Supreme Court). Indeed, the government has stated that they are "insane" using the same logic that put dissidents in the former USSR in mental hospitals.

[ 01 March 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


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

posted 01 March 2003 05:32 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, you must be living in a dream world. By definition, a Jewish State, there is preferential treatment. Arabs can't serve in the armed forces. There has been documented discrimination regarding government money spent between Jews and non-Jews and land settlement policy. And Mishei you know as well as I do that there was little objection to returning the Sinai because the fundamentalists do not consider it part of the "land of Israel."

Dr. C., you're correct. There is an inherent conflict between establishing a land for people of one religion, and secular democracy.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 March 2003 06:14 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahh, yes, the ever fruitful Sinai! How gracious of Israel to give it back to the people who owned it!

"We'll, just keep these little bits here, the water ways of the Golan Heights, and there these fruit farms and yonder that arigable land and you can have this huge expanse of desert. All for the sake of peace you know, because anything more is just not acceptable to our people. A 'non-starter,' if you will.

Hope you don't mind?"

Now that is a fatuous argument.

I notice the Moses gave the Siani a pass as a potential promised land on his way out of Egypt. What more need be said about that.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 March 2003 07:34 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Everyone seems to be losing sight of the original question. If Israel did end the occupation hook, line and sinker, what would happen next?

Would the Arabs accept that? I suppose some people will still claim that they lost their home in 1947. By reckoning anyone old enough to remember that must be over 80 years old! Still, if those people could be each given $100,000 or so in exchange for giving up their claim then let's gorgive and forget. Very few First Nations try to claim that their ancestors once owned Manhattan and therefore everyone there should go back to England.

PS: In 1948, Israel was willing to accept a partition with even less territory than pre-1967, the Arabs responded by having sending droves of machete-waving troops from Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq. The 1967 war was triggered by Egypt blockading the Straits of Tiran and starting a massive troop build up on the border and we all know who started the 1973 war.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 March 2003 07:52 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm yes we do know but some here have a very different view...as though they are on a parallel universe where things happen in reverse.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 March 2003 08:23 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is well-documented that Israel, interally, considers the battle of 1973 to have been a failure. I believe it was Moshe Dayan who actually lost his position as Defence Minister because of this.

Has it or has it not been mooted before that the 1967 battle was intended as a "pre-emptive strike"?

The 1948 and 1973 battles are the closest one gets to a war fought between parties of equal strength (as opposed to the two lousy divisions that threatened Israel from Egypt's side), and between the lack of proper training on Soviet equipment and the successful Israeli battle tactics, the 1973 war ended in a draw while the 1948 battle clearly ended with Israeli victory.

The 1982 incursion into Lebanon was similar to the USA's thumping of Grenada. Beating up on a smaller nation with no ability to defend itself.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 March 2003 08:42 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The 1982 incursion into Lebanon was similar to the USA's thumping of Grenada. Beating up on a smaller nation with no ability to defend itself.

That all depends on which of the 20 odd Lebanese perspectives you are referring to. That country is so factionalized and full of warlords and civil war etc... who speaks for Lebanon? Bear in mind that to many of the Lebanese Christians Israel was regarded as a liberator throwing out the hated Palestinians! Today Lebanon is a Syrian puppet and until very recently the Christian Falangist leader who actually ordered the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was a respected member of the governing cabinet of Lebanon and with Syrian approval.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 March 2003 08:56 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then I guess Ariel Sharon and Mr. Christian Falangist would get on well together, as both thus deserve oppobrium for butchering Sabra and Shatila together.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 March 2003 10:08 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
PS: In 1948, Israel was willing to accept a partition with even less territory than pre-1967, the Arabs responded by having sending droves of machete-waving troops from Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq. The 1967 war was triggered by Egypt blockading the Straits of Tiran and starting a massive troop build up on the border and we all know who started the 1973 war.

a) I find the allusion to machette waving (read infidels) disturbingly patronizing, and possibly racist. But since you bring it up I the relative technological difference bewteen the 'droves' of Arabs and the Israeli militias and army is a sailent feature of the conflict. Where do you think all the British army surplus went to after the war?

You must ask yourself, why is it that innocent little Israel always wins these wars? Surely you are not going to suggest that there is some kind of cultural superiority that is inherent in Israelis or Jews. No?! I am sure you are going to look for more material reasons that the Israeli won in 1948, 56 and 67 (73 being a draw and 82 being a mista.

If you do your research you will find that Israel had the only well equiped army in the region, other than Jordan's Arab Legions, which never even attempted to set foot beyond the demarcation lines of the partition. Later I will provide ou with reference material for this.

b) You aren't reading what I am telling you. WE ALL DON'T ALL KNOW THAT THEIR WAS A MASSIVE TROOP BUILD UP IN THE SIANI. Rabin, who was a general in the war said that in his mind "Nasser wanted to prevent war," arguing that the troop movement was a counter force threat, not a prepartion for battle. Historians of this view point to the fact that HALF OF THE EGYPTIAN ARMY WAS IN YEMEN AT THE TIME.

You will find that if you read the actual historical record, as posed by any number of Israeli politicans, diplomats and generals they all dispute the 'common knowledge' assumptions on which you have based your ideas. The Egyptian airforce was attacked on the ground, in a surprise attack, etc.

c) Egypt has every right to determine commerce through its territory, and the right to boycott and sanction other nations, don't you agree? Or are you going to argue that the US blockade of oil to Japan was 'just cause' for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, as well?

And Mishei for someone who seems to take a sincere and heartlfelt interest in Israel, you know very little about what people who actually had the power of command say about the history of Israel. Unfortunately the parallel universe is one that includes Arabs a human beings, as opposed to the enemy 'other,' it also happens to be the REAL world.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 March 2003 10:41 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
a) I find the allusion to machette waving (read infidels) disturbingly patronizing, and possibly racist. But since you bring it up I the relative technological difference bewteen the 'droves' of Arabs and the Israeli militias and army is a sailent feature of the conflict. Where do you think all the British army surplus went to after the war?

Of course there was a technological difference, how else was a country with a population of about a million (ie: the Jewish population of Israel in 1948) supposed to defend itself against about 100 million Arabs?? The Arabs outnumber the Israelis about 100 to 1, over the years they have been given loads of advanced weapons by the Russians, the Chinese, the French and even the Americans (ie: advanced aircraft to Saudi Arabia over Israeli objections), the Arabs have literally trillions of dollars worth of annual oil revenue that could easily be applied to bolstering the armies surrounding Israel etc... If they can buy Harrod's why can't they depose the Israeli government? or for that matter if the Arabs can buy Harrod's why can't they also use .0001% of their oil revenue to improve conditions in Palestinian refugee camps? (or do they enjoy keeping the misery going for as long as possible for propaganda purposes?)

I know that some people try to imply that the only two forces in the conflict are the Israelis and the Palestinians, but in fact the wars that have been fought in that region have actually been Israel against Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The Palestinians see themselves as a powerless oppressed people at the mercy of the Israeli juggernaut. Israel sees itself as little David against the Goliath of over 100 million Arabs with limitless financial reserves. There is obviously truth in both.

Be that as it may, my questions remains - if Israel withdrew from all the occupied territories - what happens next?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 01 March 2003 10:56 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The irony is Israel is willing to accept non-Jewish immigration from eastern Europe, India and elsewhere to take up jobs formerly held by residents of the West Bank and Gaza but refuses to accept Palestinian returnees for fear of losing its Jewish majority within the 1967 borders and has been eager to accept economic migrants from Russia, some of whom are not ethnically Jewish but are willing to pretend in order to be able to leave the ex-USSR, but again, not willing to accept Palestinians who actually have a claim on residency.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demagography as the enemy of democracy
Fear of the "demographic threat" has haunted Zionism from the very beginning. In its name Ethiopians were turned into Jews over the objections of rabbis. In its name hundreds of thousands of Slavs came here wearing the Law of Return as a fig leaf. In its name emissaries have gone out across the world seeking out more and more Jews.

But in spite all these Jewish "infusions" the Palestinian birth-rate grows and grows, stronger and stronger than all of them together. Meanwhile, the country gets more and more crowded. Soon roads and parking lots, towers and villas will be everywhere. Soon, there won't be any fresh water left - everying will be desalinated, retreated and recycled. Soon, there won't be any more nature. Trees will disappear and we will import shade from Norway. But what does all that matter? The important thing is that we have "a demographic majority."

That's the basic reason behind the proliferating talk of "transfer." But if that alternative is examined carefully - with a cool head, putting aside morality, and assuming it were possible - we will soon discover that it won't make any difference. The angry "transferred" will crowd along the borders and wage incessant war. Transfer will recruit the entire Arab world to unite all its resources against us. The shock in the rest of the world will most likely drive the United States to drop its patronage. And then ... remember Kosovo!

There's no way to win the race against the Arab birth rate in general and the Palestinian birth rate in particular - even at the cost of turning the country into an ecological, urban, military hell. Those who can only see the future through artillery sights will arrive at the day when the cannon on the other will outnumber the cannon on this side.

It is obvious there has to be a withdrawal from the territories - even many in the non-messianic right agree with that. But the problem is far deeper than anything withdrawal can solve - the problem is in the very nature of the state.

If Israel tries to avoid "the demographic threat" by withdrawing and closing itself off inside the "old" Israel, will lead in a generation or two to a situation where the Arabs, foreign workers, and Russians who refuse to convert will be the majority. What will we do then? Expel them? Or withdraw further?

That is the way to becoming, sooner or later, a closed religious cult, hated and isolated. And even inside that ghetto hostilities will still rage between secular and religious, Oriental and Western, "real Jews" and Russians who are buried outside the cemetery wall.

The very term Jewish is becoming a legal fiction.

It has no common cultural, linguistic or even religious content - certainly not a "national" one. It is nothing more than a distinction between those who have full civil rights without duties in a country that they exploit, and second-class (secular) citizens, or third-class (all the rest) residents.

The only viable solution is to turn Israel into what everyone, left and right, is most afraid of - an open democratic state for all its citizens, based on the assumption that a Hebrew culture is strong enough to include Christians, Muslims, Semites and Slavs.

When we give up defining our national essence by religious criteria, and forcing conversion on people who are good Israeli citizens, and give up the effectively illegal preferences afforded to Jews, it will suddenly become apparent there is no need to worry about the "demographic threat."

Closure means decay. Most Americans are no longer White-Anglo as they were at the beginning of the 20th century. Nonetheless, indeed because of it, America is a strong and flourishing country. Israel after Oslo did not flourish because of settlements and yeshiva parasites, but because of the high technologies produced by secular, liberal Israelis, and from the education and talents of every Vassili and Ludmilla who came here and are considered second class citizens compared to "real Jews" whose "Torah is their craft."

Those "real Jews" are a burden who contribute nothing to a modern Israel that wants to be "Jewish and democratic" - a self-contradictory statement if ever there was one. It is nothing more than hollow rhetoric. Its real meaning is the destruction of society through the lie inherent in it.

I am not worried about the future of our culture, if it opens its doors to all the residents of the land. It is strong, deep-rooted culture that can absorb all those who enter into one nation, that stands above religious and ethnic definitions.
By Boaz Evron


[ 01 March 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


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

posted 02 March 2003 08:59 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I should amend my earlier post. Since Jordan has renounced its desire to control the west bank, I don't think Israel has legal justification for continuing the occupation. (I assume the same is true with respect to Egypt and Gaza). Not being an expert in this area, I can't say for sure.

There's not question that the Arab states rejected Israel in the past. But a lot has changed in the last 30 years.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 02 March 2003 09:20 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not a question of territory. Its about human rights.
From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 March 2003 09:50 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First, I want to disagree a bit with the position that is being argued here most directly and clearly by verbatim.

For at least the last decade, I think that the international community was coming to grips with the deep human truth that all states have "contradictions," and that traumatized peoples are better off being given some breathing space to heal themselves -- better off than being forced to cure all their "contradictions" overnight.

That is, we weren't exactly accepting "ethnic cleansing," but we were accepting that sometimes people need a refuge from trauma, especially civil trauma. Think Bosnia, Kosovo, and of our failure in Rwanda, or our even worse failure before in Cambodia.

Now I wish to switch logics. It seems to me that the obvious way to ensure safety and breathing space for traumatized peoples is to get a neutral peace-making force in between them and administer the peace for long enough that the (understandable) vengeful feelings give way to reason.

Why has that solution, which has worked elsewhere, not been applied along the Green Line in Israel-Palestine, as it also was not, for so long, in eg, Ulster (Northern Ireland)?

Now, I am wondering whether Stockholm would accept the entry of an international force, along with an oversight body that could mediate between the two new, protected states for a time -- ?

I am sure that, a generation ago, if the international community had informed the British gov't that it believed it should intervene in Ulster, the British would have been outraged. Why would they have been outraged, if they have joined other nations in intervening for peace elsewhere?

Similarly, would Stockholm be outraged at the thought that a settlement in Israel-Palestine should be imposed and administered for a time by an international body? Would most Israelis be bothered by that solution? Why?

If we're thinking about prejudice, is this not the nub of the now-modern problem: that "first-world" societies are, at first, outraged to find that they can't solve their own problems and need help from the rest of the world? Certainly, I think the Irish agony has gone on as long as it has for that reason.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 02 March 2003 09:57 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
should an international force impose some kind of solution, what assurances do both sides have that their rights will be preserved?
From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 March 2003 10:16 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
International assurance.

We have a UN (is it a Declaration or a Charter?). We have many international statements of good intent concerning the two-state solution.

We have the community of humankind. Yay, eh?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 02 March 2003 10:18 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since Israel/Palestine was created by the United Nations, I think that body has the obligation and the right to try to impose a solution. But the current Israeli government would never agree to it. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain. And such an effort would require an American administration willing to pose as a true honest broker in the dispute.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 02 March 2003 12:57 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl, I'm not talking about the racist and undemocratic two-state "solution". I'm talking about the eventual return of Palestinians to their homes.

And you keep bringing up this romantic "healing" business. Can you explain what exactly you mean by that?

[ 02 March 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 March 2003 01:19 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
satana, I don't think that "healing" is romantic. We're talking about people, many many people, on both sides, who have lost family members to the other side.

We're also talking about two communities that have, in quite different ways, been ravaged and exploited and culturally distorted by European/NA imperial cultures for a very long time.

Sorry, satana, but people learn to be democrats. Your average three-year-old is no democrat, trust me. Traumatized peoples have not had the chances that you and I have had to contemplate, and then assent to, some of the counter-intuitive principles of democracy -- like the assumption of innocence, eg, which is an especially hard principle to swallow when you are feeling outraged.

It bothers me, it's true, that so many liberals claim that the Israelis should be able to go on running this show -- as the Brits did in Ulster -- because they are the better democrats. To me, when two sides are deadlocked as these two pairs have been, it doesn't matter which culture looks more like ours. They are deadlocked. They need mediation. To argue anything else is sheer snobbery -- again, to me.

satana, I agree that the Palestinians who were uprooted at the time of Israeli independence -- and the many more who have been robbed and impoverished ever since -- must be compensated somehow. I'm not enough of a wonk to know what sort of proposals would work, but I believe in compensation.

For everyone's sake, though, I don't see how we can urge a mass return. Some facts on the ground I still reject -- ie, the settlements. But some facts on the ground -- three generations of native-born Israelis -- I think we must accept, as we accept the tragedy of being Canadians, eg, or the tragedy of South Africa, however civil it is now becoming, and God speed them, God knows.

Gee, satana, but I would like to convert you.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 March 2003 02:49 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have to agree to some extent with Skdadl, even though I agree the essential structure of Israel is undemocratic and racist. At the same time legitimate "real" solutions have to be pursued. I think one day the people of Israel will be better off when they learn to live with the Arab brothers without demonizing and exploiting them. Perhaps, after a two state solution is reached and an armistice is declared, then Palestinian and Israeli society can begin the necessary healing (as you put it) and work toward eventual integration along 'more' secular lines.

To me idealism only works to show us the way, so to speak, while the real solution often falls short of those hopes.

quote:
Of course there was a technological difference, how else was a country with a population of about a million (ie: the Jewish population of Israel in 1948) supposed to defend itself against about 100 million Arabs??

I know, I know the barbarian hordes.

Fact is that Arabs only really got it up for the fight once, and that was in 1973. As for so called Arab 'solidarity' the reality is that the Arab world is a fraught with competing interests that the west has shown time and time again it is more than willing to exploit. For instance Jordan's tacit (and some say explicit) 'arrangement' with Israel over the West bank during the war of 48.

Again, it is interesting that you bring up Russian support for the Arab states, in the conntext of the cold war. After 1973, Russian military aid was sharply curtailed, and the various forces of Egypt, Syria etc., have never recouped those loses. The fact is that all of that is old hat.

I think you would be wise to take a look at this alternate narrative provided by Ilan Pappe, of the University of Haifa, in his long essay Israeli Historians Ask: What Really Happened Fifty Years Ago? None of what is being said is intended to hold blameless Arab political forces that have shaped the fate of Palestinians, but instead to balance it, against the common knowledge assertions and understandings that are common in west. Relentless 'Arab agression' and the myth of Israeli 'anihilation' being two of the biggest falshoods that appear in everyday discourse.

Despite the fact that I think the creation of Israel as a Jewish State was a mistake does not mean that I do not recognize its 'existence.' Clearly it does, and it should be defended on that basis. How Israel constitues itself in the future is the real issue, in that I concur with sArab opposition MK's who have suggested that the name and the flag can stay, in recognition of the historic special Jewish relationship to the area, but Israel must also recgonize Arab equality and entitlement.

[ 02 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 02 March 2003 03:06 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know, I know the barbarian hordes. Nice how have excluded the 800,000 Arabs that were moved from the Israeli side of the partition from your census figure. Very typical. Apparently, in your narrative, they don't count to the extent that you don't even count them, literally.

You're absolutely right Moredreads, I don't count the 800,000 Arabs in Israel in 1948 because if I'm not mistaken, very few (read none) of them would have joined with the million Jews in Israel to fight against Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon etc...ergo that war was a war between I million Jews in Israel and 100 million Arabs in all the other countries in the middle east combined, PLUS the fifth column of Arabs inside Israel.

If the whole population of Israel (Jews and Arabs) alike were united in fighting off the Syrian/Egyptian/Jordanian/Lebanese/Iraqi invasion, then I would change my math to 1.8 million against 100 million, instead of 1 million to 100 million.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 March 2003 03:08 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I took it out. It was unecessary to what I am trying to get across to you.

Read the Pappe article, these huge well organized Arab hordes are a propoganda myth, used to reinforce the David and Goliath idea. A well organized and modern European force took on an underamrmed and in large part civilian (your fifth column) army, that was disorganized. Christ Jordan didn't even fight, really.

Its BS.

[ 02 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 02 March 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl: I am in full agreement with the sanity and good judgment a UN-imposed peace in Israel would represent. I just asked a question, and pointed out that the Palestinians were entitled to at least some compensation, if not an actual right of return to their homes.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 March 2003 03:37 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So. I count two so far.

*tap tap tap*

And if you've got ten bucks, verbatim, we can go for coffee, at least.

The hell of it is, we all know why the UN is not going in. The UN is not going in because of the current U.S. admin. Western Europeans and North Americans just will not believe that they are subject to the same moral quandaries that they so decry in the rest of humankind. Or that they should ever submit to outside therapy.

Snobbery. Or denial. Take your pick. See also White Man's Burden.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 02 March 2003 08:00 PM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think one day the people of Israel will be better off when they learn to live with the Arab brothers without demonizing and exploiting them.

Moredreads I feel that this comment is unfair to the people of Israel, the last election proved it so. Israelis didn't vote in Sharon because they all are strict conservatives but because they couldn't at the current moment afford to vote for the Labour party. What they want is to live with their Arab brothers, however its unfortunate that what they need is safety from them. This is widely known.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 02 March 2003 11:53 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think one day the people of Israel will be better off when they learn to live with the Arab brothers without demonizing and exploiting them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and what makes anyone think that the Arabs will ever learn to live with their Jewish brothers without demonizing and exploiting them?? Given the endless pograms, mass murders and seizures of property that Jews have had to endure everywhere from Morrocco to Iraq, what gives anyone any reason to believe that the Arabs would ever tolerate living side by side with Jewish Israelis? hasn't their goal always been nothing less than "throw all the Jews into the sea", have another holocaust and then have 100% of what is now Israel to themselves?

I don't hear Hamas or Islamic Jihad saying they want to live side by side with any Jews, they want to be as "Judenrein" as Hitler wanted Germany to be.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 March 2003 01:27 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Given the endless pograms, mass murders and seizures of property that Jews have had to endure everywhere from Morrocco to Iraq

Perhaps you would like to cite some modern examples of this - ie. post-1950, and not counting in the Arab-Israeli wars.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 March 2003 07:22 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Think Stockholm has got "Morocco to Iraq" confused with "Frankfurt to the Urals", or "Bordeaux to Berlin" if one wants to count in the Dreyfus case and the hideous Nazi collaborators both in Vichy France and the directly occupied zone.

It isn't necessary to buy into the "Andalusian dream" of perfect harmony among the children of Abraham to see that violent, systematic persecution of Jews was far more characteristic of Christendom than the Muslim Umma. There were many cases of discrimination against Dhimmi be they Jews or Christians, but nothing remotely comparable to the great pogroms in Europe, let alone the Nazi genocide of the European Jews.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 03 March 2003 09:14 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps you would like to cite some modern examples of this - ie. post-1950, and not counting in the Arab-Israeli wars.

Gee, that's an easy one. In Syria Jews were held hostage, imprisoned, beaten and kept under virtual house arrest all through the 70s and 80s until the last of them were allowed to leave. Iran (which I know is Muslim but not Arab) has had recent show trials and imprisonments etc...There aren't very many other examples for the simple reason that after Israel was founded, the Arabs basically launched a mass expulsion of all Jews from their territories, so there is virtually no one there left to oppress. Of course all that this accomplished was a major increase in the Jewish population of Israel - a good example of the law on unintended consequences!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 March 2003 11:16 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So who ISN'T oppressed, held for ransom and beaten in Syria, a country with a dreadful human rights record, as any cursory look at an AI yearbook will tell you. And Iran may not be quite as bad as it was, but under Khomenei the Shah's torturers pretty much kept their jobs and expanded their scope.

Most of the severe, brutal oppression of Jews in Arab and/or Muslim lands is a consequence of the Israeli takeover of Palestine and the related wars with Arab countries. The development of a Jew-hatred analogous to the worst anti-semitism found in Europe (and such culturally "European" countries as Argentina) was another sad, ironic consequence of the founding of Israel in someone else's homeland.

Despite this, the worst post-Shoah incidents of anti-semitism (in the anti-Jewish sense) remain European and Argentinian. The massacres of Jews in Poland, the anti-semitism around the "doctors' plot" and the death throes of Stalin's rule, the murder of at least 2,000 Jews among the 30,000 disappeared of the Argentine Dirty War (Jewish prisoners were singled out for "special treatment"), and the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 (if I recall).


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 03 March 2003 03:38 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Most of the severe, brutal oppression of Jews in Arab and/or Muslim lands is a consequence of the Israeli takeover of Palestine and the related wars with Arab countries. The development of a Jew-hatred analogous to the worst anti-semitism found in Europe (and such culturally "European" countries as Argentina) was another sad, ironic consequence of the founding of Israel in someone else's homeland.

I see and I guess that makes it OK!!! Just like I guess its OK to hate Arabs because of Sept. 11 and suicide bombings!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 03 March 2003 03:49 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe someone was recently bounced from this site recently for saying things wich very vaugely resembled speach about ZOG. Yet, here the Muslim/Nazi/Arab/Terrorist antisemitic conpiracy seems to be common currency. Why is all of this talk of a 100,000,000 machete wielding Arabs hordes vs. little Israel, and all this other rubish allowed to be propogated here on this site?

Its completely paranoid. I don't really mind, but again, it strikes me as being hypocritical that racsim against Jews is carefully monitored, but anti-Arab/Muslim prejudice slides by without official comment.

[ 03 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 March 2003 03:51 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, of course hatred of Jews isn't ok. Describing how AIDS spread in Africa doesn't mean one likes AIDS.

One of my closest friends, of Jewish descent, was taunted and threatened by youths of North African (Muslim) descent in the Paris métro. It is absurd to think I could be unconcerned about the safety of my friend, or his aged mum who lives on a kibbutz in Israel.

The point is to try to come up with an equitable solution for all of this mess.

(edited because of other poster in between Stockholm's post and my reply).

[ 03 March 2003: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 March 2003 03:56 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, of course it isn't ok. Describing how AIDS spread in Africa doesn't mean one likes AIDS.

One of my closest friends, of Jewish descent, was taunted and threatened by youths of North African (Muslim) descent in the Paris métro. It is absurd to think I could be unconcerned about the safety of my friend, or his aged mum who lives on a kibbutz in Israel.

The point is to try to come up with an equitable solution for all of this mess.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 03 March 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
healing: It's still a vague and abstract idea to me. What does it mean in real life? Or, better yet, try explaining "healing" in legal terms. (What steps have to be taken? How does a "healed" status look like? How long does it take? ...)

democracy: who said anything about democracy? Democracy is a great ideal. The whole world is still learning about it. I was talking about basic human rights. I feel we're speaking different languages here.

compensation: You know the conflict is not about material loss. Way more important than any generous compensation the world can come up with is "recognition".

return: No one is urging mass return. Any repatriation would of course have to be a gradual process.

"facts": Its hard not to accept the facts. I don't reject the settlements. One generation, two, three makes no difference to me. Israelis have made their homes in those settlements. I feel it would be wrong to force them out. Regardless of the settlers' intents. It was wrong to allow settlers onto that land in the first place. But they were allowed. No one can change that. Each settlers should have the freedom to stay or leave voluntarily.

The majority of Palestinians will tell you they do not want to move Israelis out.

Accepting the tragedy is not the problem. Again, it's recognizing it.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 03 March 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Moredreads I feel that this comment is unfair to the people of Israel, the last election proved it so. Israelis didn't vote in Sharon because they all are strict conservatives but because they couldn't at the current moment afford to vote for the Labour party. What they want is to live with their Arab brothers, however its unfortunate that what they need is safety from them. This is widely known.

Glad to see you have the inside track on the mind of Israeli electrorate. I love phrases like "widely known." In 1936, it was 'widely known' in Germany that there was a conspiracy of Bolsheviks, Jews and bankers to rule the world. This didn't make it true.

BTW a cabinet minister, I can't remember his name, called Israeli Arabs 'lice.' His tenure was cut short by an assassins bullet, I believe. Is having people like that in cabinet and example of Sharon's desire to live in peace with Arabs?

[ 03 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 03 March 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
and what makes anyone think that the Arabs will ever learn to live with their Jewish brothers without demonizing and exploiting them?? Given the endless pograms, mass murders and seizures of property that Jews have had to endure everywhere from Morrocco to Iraq, what gives anyone any reason to believe that the Arabs would ever tolerate living side by side with Jewish Israelis? hasn't their goal always been nothing less than "throw all the Jews into the sea", have another holocaust and then have 100% of what is now Israel to themselves?

This comes off as a nice rationalization for any nastiness Israel chooses to inflict on its Arab brothers. Was that the intent?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 03 March 2003 06:12 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the whole Stockholm thesis should be examined from the perspective of its racist content. As we have seen it develop over the last few days, I think more and more that it is a racist. In truth I doubt that Stockholm is a racist but one need not be a racist in order to expound racist ideas. The latter may be a result of simple ignorance.

The Runnymede report, penned in Britian and one of the few thorough scholarly texts to define 'Islamaphobia, has a useful chart outlining 8 concrete themese of Islamapobia. Of these the Stockholm thesis conforms to more than one.

1) Islam seen as monolithic and static rather than as diverse and dynamic

NOTE: Stockholm's repeated reference to the 100 million Arabs, all to a man out to get little Israel.

2) Islam seen as other and separate rather than as similar and interdependent

4)Islam seen as an enemy not as a partner

5) Perceptions of Islam as a threat

NOTE: the report makes a specfic reference to Gibon's quote about “The hooded hordes,” that is so simillar to Stockholms droves of Machete wielding Arabs.

7) Discrimination against Muslims defended rather than challenged

NOTE: The occupation is defended on the basis that the Arabs are an intransigent and implacable enemy, so therefore Israel's descriminatory policies are justifiable, etc.

More important to me is that is seems thatit is the case that on this board 8. 'Anti-Muslim discourse seen as natural not problematic,' in that there has been no official censure of this thesis. Where are the moderators who quickly terminated Rubble, now?

The Runnymede report.

[ 03 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 03 March 2003 06:50 PM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Widely known" Moredread you are right and I foolish to trust that you would accept this as the true(is it all right for me to use that word?) general will of Israelis.

The Canadian Foreign Affairs Department is pulling dependants and some staff from embassies and offices in Israel, citing rising tensions over Iraq. They are concerned with the safety of their staff in Israel. Hezbollah is said to be urging its Palestinian counterparts to band together and mount an internal offensive against Israel if an Iraqi war begins. "A volatile environment might encourage radical Palestinian groups or Hezbollah to intensify its attacks" Ephraim Kam of Tel Aviv University's Jaffe Centre for Strategic Studies.

And the Israeli government “isn’t a right-wing government, but a government of formerly right-wing parties that have moved dramatically to the centre” Bar Ilan University professor Yossi Katz. Even “the National Religious Party shows that they’ve become pragmatists. They know their support comes from the pioneering settlers who are now in their 50s and Tired of the struggle

I referenced my information from two people who happen to be Israelis participating in democratic elections for elected parliament representatives who are voted in based on what voters Want and what they need. This all in support of my earlier statement that what Israelis want and what they need are one and the same but far apart from each other currently. Hopefully when Israelis are safer they will be able to concentrate on greater things such as Peace, which always brings justice and security. However smetimes you gots to keep on living.

Israelis want to live with their Arab brothers however like I said before, they cannot afford to vote in favour of a more Peace oriented party such as the Labour party because they fear their brothers. But trust me moredread this is not at all a sign that Israelis are not going to pursue peace any longer; maybe that was your concern?
Past history of electing other Peace oriented government officials adds to their want to live in peace, the variation of these Parties their platforms and plans for peace have shown Israelis experimental and open minded with their continued hopes of peace. That I trust myself will continue until it is achieved, as a result of both sides hard work! Peace moredread.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 March 2003 07:05 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm said:

quote:
Given the endless pograms, mass murders and seizures of property that Jews have had to endure everywhere from Morrocco to Iraq

I asked for some examples. Stockholm replied:

quote:
Gee, that's an easy one. In Syria Jews were held hostage, imprisoned, beaten and kept under virtual house arrest all through the 70s and 80s until the last of them were allowed to leave. Iran (which I know is Muslim but not Arab) has had recent show trials and imprisonments etc...There aren't very many other examples for the simple reason that after Israel was founded, the Arabs basically launched a mass expulsion of all Jews from their territories, so there is virtually no one there left to oppress. Of course all that this accomplished was a major increase in the Jewish population of Israel - a good example of the law on unintended consequences!!

You specifically claimed that there were "pogroms" (ie. wanton and massive destruction of Jewish property as well as assaults and/or murders of Jews, such as was common in Russia in the 18th century, roughly) and "mass murders" against Jews.

The only thing you've actually proven are the seizures of property and the use of house arrest, which do not add up to a "pogrom" or a "mass murder".

I see that you have difficulty not going overboard in your rhetoric against Arabs.

I also note that you had to bring in Iran, even though you specifically stated that Arabic countries were the guilty parties.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 March 2003 07:06 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone who doesn't believe the current Israeli government is a right-wing government is a victim of self-delusion.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 03 March 2003 08:37 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And the Israeli government “isn’t a right-wing government, but a government of formerly right-wing parties that have moved dramatically to the centre” Bar Ilan University professor Yossi Katz. Even “the National Religious Party shows that they’ve become pragmatists. They know their support comes from the pioneering settlers who are now in their 50s and Tired of the struggle.”

I think that we really have to start by asking what we mean when we say 'right' and 'left' wing. Also, what constitutes a dramatic policy shift. I hardly think that Sharon's recent, and growing opposition, to the two state solution is an example of his move to the center. I can't remember where I read it but I think it was Ha'aretz, wherein someone from Likud (it may have been Sharon himself) spoke of how his previous position had been formulated around maintianing coalition with Labour. Suffice to say this is no longer necessary.

In the end Likud is in no way shape or from a centerist block, when we talk about policy shifts, as best as I can tell, we are talking of a range between the extreme right, wherein the WB and Gaza are entirely annexed, and the less slightly less right supporting the slow appropriation of Arab land through Osmosis.

In the same article someone said this is a 'settlers' govenment, elected by 'them' and for them. As has been clearly established, continued settlement is a formula for continued strife, not resolution.

Israelis know this. By voting for Sharon they have eschewed peace and asked for war, they are not innocent.

[ 03 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 04 March 2003 01:42 AM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By voting for Sharon they have eschewed peace and asked for war, they are not innocent.

Moredreads you are dogmatic on your belief of Israelis regarding Peace and it concerns me because you belittle their efforts for peace, which I feel is in no way progressive to peace.
Your belief that Israelis want war is unjustifiable. And I say so believing in this…we can treat the current conflict like we do a science experiment. We have to off course have one constant variable in order for us to be able to determine any inconsistencies. Well allow us than to ponder as to whom that constant variable is? Yasser Arafat has been in power of the Palestinians for over thirty years, no change in party platform, leader or to that affect anything. Now we cannot blame him for the tragic continuation of this conflict …however we can say that while Israelis have consistently changed governments, parties, plans, platforms leaders, elected representatives, approaches towards peace, from hard-line conservatives to Peace pursuing leftists we cannot at all say the same for Palestinians. They have not elected Meretz, Chadash, Shinui, Ale Yarok, MAPAM, Labour or Likud. Unfortunately their government/leader does not give them a vote nor anything to choose from.

We would be more inclined to say that Palestinians have been the constant variable in the continuation of this conflict and that being said must look towards them for answers. Had they changed leaders somewhere in the past it would be more difficult to say this but they haven’t and their general will as it seems only because of this is to keep fighting. Now I am not going to at all claim that this is the truth but remain sceptical of any assertion that Israelis have not worked hard towards Peace. And contest any statement made that they haven’t. I am not shaking a finger at Palestinians but am looking towards them for answers, why haven’t they been able to work with any of the parties elected, to work out some sort of deal/compromise? I heard Madeline Albright say, “Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” that sounds allot more like an act of avoidance or eschewing of peace to me. Sorry…Moredreads but I have to call you on this one and ask that you prove to me your belief that Israelis have not worked towards peace.

ALSO

Just because Israelis voted in Sharon this last election doesn’t mean that they want war, as I said before they need to secure their safety. Reflect on circumstances. A war in Iraq holds a heavy toll on Israelis to bear, if things go wrong or are prolonged and instability in the region rises Israelis don’t want to be faced with the dilemma and casualties of having to change governments. Better to be safer than sorry. Moredreads.

Also this weekend’s edition of Israeli daily Maariv, Israelis responded to a poll on the subject of their support on a war against Iraq. 41% supported the war against Iraq while 49% supported the continuation of the United Nations inspectors by peaceful means. By no means a vast majority especially when Iraq is the greatest supporter of Palestinians of all the Arab nations. This could be all a disillusion, but only if Peace is also a disillusion, which I don't believe it to be.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 04 March 2003 01:55 AM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To Josh, I do not contend that Sharon's party is not a right wing party, just not so right anymore. I mean people were forced by circumstance to vote for Sharon and being that many of his votes came from people on the left seeking security. And now Sharon has an obligation to the people on the left who voted for him. But Katz has a point more right parties are willing to make "painful concessions" Sharon, in order to gain peace to appease their constituents.

It is Yossi's views that this is not a right wing goverenment but I was voicing the opinions of Israeli electorates and my own.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 04 March 2003 04:01 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First off, your long theoretical diatribe is all well and fine, except that there is one sailent feature missing; facts.

For instance other than your Kantian a priori 'common knowledege' assumption that Arafat is the sole source of 'terror' in this conflict, what evidence do you really have for it? What of Sabra and Shatila on the Israeli side? What of Hamas, which I can assure you is not a front group fo the PLO.

One of the facts that is striking in its absence from our critique is any sense of the diversity of Palestian leadership, Sheik Ammed Yassim as well as the PFLP for instance listen to Arafat as much as most people listen to their mothers. You view Palestinian politics is exceptionally monolithic. To say that Arafat has 'ruled' Palestinians for thirty years is just a plain old error of fact. His nominal status as ruler of the WB (and therefore any sizable group of Palestinian civilians,) is something that was a direct result of Camp David, the rest of the time he was in exile, and 'ruled' (to use your phrase) divergent groups of Palestinian refugees, at most.

Secondly, when I refer to Israel, I am more often than not talking about Israel as a generality, not in the specific. To assume that I am not aware that Israel is a diverse society with differing trends and ideas is to assume that I am stupid. To assume stupidity on the part of someone with whom you disagree, is stupid in itself.

To get back to the first, point, informed by the second, in which I am speaking of the general direction and trends of Israel over the last 50 years, one thing is clear: Israel is a highly militirstic expansionist society. No country In the world has expanded its territorial bounadries more than Israel (as a percentage) in the last 50 years. None, none in the world.

It is no accident that Generals, and miltary people are the rule, not the exception of Israeli leadership. Both Sharon and Mitzna (Sharon's erstwhile 'left' wing' competitor} are generals for instance.

Think about it.

Thirdly, what is always ignored in this discourse of Israel's 'peaceful intentions' is the primary source of the Palestinian complaint and that is the continued settlement by Israeli's of Arab land. At no point in time has Israel as a gesture of good faith put a moratorium on the settlement project -- in fact during the period of the Oslo peace process, Israel did the most otrageous and unpeaceful thing it could do it increased settlement. If Israel desires 'peace' it must do more than send it representives to conferences make speaches, it must als do peaceful things. So, yes, most Israelis want peace, yet consciously vote for peace 'our way.' Peace our way does not require negotiation with another party but the total surrender of the other party.

That is what Sharon is all about, and the other end of 'peace our way' is not peace, as you and I construe it, but Sabra and Shatila.

Furthermore, Israel touts itself as a democracy. In a democracy the people are as responsible for the government, as the government is responsible to them, therefore you can not seperate the voting decision from the elecorate, in this sense Israeli's are not innocent of the crimes commited by the people they elect.

[ 04 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 March 2003 10:13 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jonathan, it's all relative. Likud doesn't seem so right-wing because it has even further right parties in its government.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 05 March 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To assume that I am not aware that Israel is a diverse society with differing trends and ideas is to assume that I am stupid. To assume stupidity on the part of someone with whom you disagree, is stupid in itself

I didn’t assume you were stupid. I am rather existentialist and would appreciate it if you wouldn’t put words in my mouth. Aside from that, I am not here to appeal to name calling. I respect others opinions and seek to understand them.

Also I never said

quote:
Arafat is the sole source of 'terror' in this conflict

I explicitly said “we cannot blame him (referring to Arafat) for the tragic continuation of this conflict”. What I was working at was that based on the empirical evidence of differences between Israeli and Palestinian society, I can than make the positive statement that Palestinians need more pluralism in their society.
At least the “our way” of Israelis has changed, which really refutes that they have an “our way”. Can I assume that the Palestinians do not have an “our way” and are willing to comply with anything set forth by Israel? No I cannot because it’s not true. Both parties have interests however Israelis have been far more vocal and active in criticizing and changing their interests in pursuit of Peace. To what extent have Israelis been more active and vocal about changing their interests is another debate. But what is of little of no debate is that they have been more vocal and critical of their interests in exchange for Peace.
And my “theoretical diatribe” can be supported by factual history so do not go off claiming that I am some sort of Kantian. But as an empiricist I would have to say my argument is very valid, as it exists in the REAL PHYSICAL world.

Do I support the settlement? No. Especially during times such as these. I believe in peace and the State of Israel, do I believe in the justice of the death of a pregnant mother by the IDF during a raid on one of Hamas’s leaders? NO! And being that way I speak against it, and stay critical of the Israeli government when things like that happen.

[ 05 March 2003: Message edited by: -jonathan- ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 05 March 2003 04:12 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What I was working at was that based on the empirical evidence of differences between Israeli and Palestinian society, I can than make the positive statement that Palestinians need more pluralism in their society.
What I think you're trying to say is that Palestinians need better organization. There is a wide variety of opinions among Palestinans. There are Moslems and Christians, fundamentalists and moderates, Communists and capitalists,.... Israel knows what they all want: equality. The one thing Zionism can never give. A democratic, pluralistic, organized society would be one of the most powerful weapons Palestinians could bring with them to a negotiating table. It would spell the end of the Zionist dream. No. No, this can not be allowed! Better to keep them running, dispersed and divided. Call Washington! Call the Hashemites! Give them Arafat, the "hero"! Give them "Hamas"! ....

From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 06 March 2003 12:40 AM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1.
quote:
A democratic, pluralistic, organized society would be one of the most powerful weapons Palestinians could bring with them to a negotiating table

Santana I don't exactly follow you on this? Could you clarify your position for me?

2.
Just correct me if I am wrong, are you saying that Arafat is an Israeli prop or puppet leader? That Israel is the source of Palestinain dis-organization? You sort of go on a rather narotic tangent.

quote:
Better to keep them running, dispersed and divided. Call Washington! Call the Hashemites! Give them Arafat, the "hero"! Give them "Hamas"! ....

3.
What do you mean by "Zionist dream"?

I don't mean to trouble you but I want to further this discussion with you, but I don't want to discuss something I might agree with or debate with no relevance to the post.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2003 01:15 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What I think you're trying to say is that Palestinians need better organization. There is a wide variety of opinions among Palestinans. There are Moslems and Christians, fundamentalists and moderates, Communists and capitalists,.... Israel knows what they all want: equality. The one thing Zionism can never give. A democratic, pluralistic, organized society would be one of the most powerful weapons Palestinians could bring with them to a negotiating table.

Is there any concrete evidence that the Palestinians want this pluralistic, democratic society? If there were a referendum, or even research that showed overwhelming support among Palestinians for living side by side with Jewish Israelis I'd like to hear about it. My impression (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the bulk of Palestinians have been promised by their leaders that some day they will reoccupy 100% of what is now Israel and that they won't have to share it with anyone. That was one of the reasons why Arafat freaked out when Israel under Barak offered him almost everything he had ever said he wanted - the Palestinian people had never been prepared to accept any outcome other than seizure of 100% of Israel and all Israelis being exiled.

Is there a peace movement in the Palestinian Authority that preached non-violent civil disobedience and renounces all violence and has contact with Israeli peace groups and actually wants to live in a multicultural society? Or have all Palestinaisn with those views been accused of being collaboators and summarily lynched? I'm curious to know.


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

posted 06 March 2003 08:44 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1.
Good organization is one of the best things any group can have before it can accomplish anything. A organization representative of the its people, can focus its energy towards its goals much more effectively than, say, a bunch of rival thugs. Such a tool at the hands of Palestinians could help them gain a powerful, independent voice promoting their interests and raising support for their plight around the world, much more effectively than the mess the world is dealing with today.

Powerful Palestinians are a threat to Zionism.
Israel does whatever it can to infiltrate, discredit, counter, and destroy these threats.

2.
Arafat is a thug. He's never represented Palestinian interests. Through out his history you will see that he has sabotaged the work of other Palesinian organizations and destroyed people who opposed him. He is a puppet leader as all Arab leaders are. Western powers push him onto the Palestinians and Israelis who have no choice.

The problem is Arafat is the only leader Western powers are willing to recognize today.

3.
The Zionist dream is to create a Jewish state, where Jewish people are sole sovereign authority. So far, Zionists have shown that this can't be achieved without ethnic cleansing and continued violence and oppression.

Palestinians don't want to remove Jews from Israel. They want their homes back. Nothing less than equality, will satisfy the Palestinians. Nothing less will end the violence once and for all. Zionists know that. Smart Zionists know that eliminating all Arabs from Israel and its occupied territory is their only hope of securing a Jewish state.

quote:
My impression (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the bulk of Palestinians have been promised by their leaders that some day they will reoccupy 100% of what is now Israel and that they won't have to share it with anyone.
It seems racist nationalists on all sides like to promote this impression for their own bloody purposes. It is false. All Palestinians want is the freedom to return to their homeland and equal rights. They are all willing to share, and even ready to accept Jewish settlements in exchange for recognition of their rights. Believe it or not, the only just solution, an undivided democracy, is all the Palestinians want.

[ 06 March 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2003 09:51 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It seems racist nationalists on all sides like to promote this impression for their own bloody purposes. It is false. All Palestinians want is the freedom to return to their homeland and equal rights. They are all willing to share, and even ready to accept Jewish settlements in exchange for recognition of their rights. Believe it or not, the only just solution, an undivided democracy, is all the Palestinians want.

Says who? Is there any concrete evidence that this is what Palestinians want? Or is this some naive small "l" liberal fantasy by Arab sympathizers in the West about what they wish Palestinians believed in - regardless of whether there is any truth to it?

On another note, if Palestinians are entitled to having their homes given back to them, how do you propose dealing with restition to the 2 million Israeli Jews who were kicked out of their homes and stripped of all their possessions in places like Casablance, Bagdad, Cairo, Tunis, Damascus etc... in the 1950s? Should we prevail on Saddam Hussein to give those Isrealis back the keys to their homes in downtown Bagdad as well?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 06 March 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
is this some naive small "l" liberal fantasy by Arab sympathizers in the West about what they wish Palestinians believed in - regardless of whether there is any truth to it?

Maybe it's just me, but this statement smacks of racism. It makes it sound bad to be sympathetic to Arabs? It lumps all Arabs together in a group that apprently doesn't deserve sympathy. And then suggests that Palestinians don't want peace and that if we believe that we are deluded fools.

quote:
On another note, if Palestinians are entitled to having their homes given back to them, how do you propose dealing with restition to the 2 million Israeli Jews who were kicked out of their homes and stripped of all their possessions in places like Casablance, Bagdad, Cairo, Tunis, Damascus etc... in the 1950s? Should we prevail on Saddam Hussein to give those Isrealis back the keys to their homes in downtown Bagdad as well?

Oh, I get it. So what happened to groups of Jews gives them a right to do it to another group of people. I was confused about what happened when you have two wrongs. I guess it makes a right after all. This is a pointless tangent to take, if it was wrong once it is wrong now, so I guess Isreal is really wrong because they should know better. People are still losing their homes because of their race, there is time to turn this human rights violation around.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh, I get it. So what happened to groups of Jews gives them a right to do it to another group of people. I was confused about what happened when you have two wrongs. I guess it makes a right after all. This is a pointless tangent to take, if it was wrong once it is wrong now, so I guess Isreal is really wrong because they should know better. People are still losing their homes because of their race, there is time to turn this human rights violation around.

No it doesn't give them the right at all. I'm simply saying that if we want to open up the Pandora's Box of figuring out who owes what to whom, let's do it comprehensively. Let the Palestinians send a restitution/reparations bill to Israel for any expulsions/property losses in 1948. Then let all the Sephardic Jews in Israel who lost everything in the late 40s and early 50s send a reparations/restitution bill to Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia/Libya/Egypt/Syria/Yemen/Iraq/Iran (have I left anyone out?) and then have a great reckoning. (maybe we could hire Price-Waterhouse to total it all up)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 06 March 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In this case, we have an injustice ongoing, with wider current, existing consequences for the world as a whole. We have to start somewhere.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 06 March 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Except that settlement is still ongoing. We aren't talking about 50 years ago, we are talking about a current occupation. Current bombings, bulldozers and curfews. A current conflict. Not about the past. They want the occupation to cease. So bringing up reperations for past sins, of decades ago doesn't seem very relevant. What is your suggestion, that the Palestinians just say thanks and move on after losing their homes. I doubt you'd say that if I came and forcible removed you from your home so I could live their? You'd say I stole it and you'd want it back.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm getting confused. What are we debating? Is it the occupation since 1967 (and I am all for withdrawing from that territory in exchange for total peace)? Or is it giving Palestinians back what was supposedly taken from them in 1948 when Israel was founded.

I was under the impression that when we talk of Palestinians "getting their homes back" this has little or nothing to do with what is going on in the West Bank/Gaza now. This is about people who might have had a farm back in 1948 in the heart what now may be Tel Aviv suburbia. They want to knock on the door and take it back as if the past 55 years had never happened. My argument is that if we are going honour THOSE claims then the Jews from Arab countries who were expelled in 1948 should also be compensated.


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

posted 06 March 2003 04:25 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Says who?
I've met many Palestinians in North America and the middle-east. There is a large Palestinian community in Toronto. If you really want to know what Palestinians really think you can try talking to some of them.

As for Jews who lost their homes in the Arab world, they certainly deserve to get their property back. I don't know anyone who could be opposed to that. Definitly not Palestinians.

quote:
They want to knock on the door and take it back as if the past 55 years had never happened.
I think everyone knows that's not possible. After 55 years of humiliation what Palestinians need is recognition that they do have rights in Israel just as much as Jews. Once these rights are recognized then Arabs and Jews can sit down as equals and negotiate restitution.

It's not enough to throw money at people and expect them to go away. Its not just about losing your farm. Its losing your homeland. Its like telling Fist Nations "OK, you can have some reserves, just stay out of the rest of Canada."

I think Israelis know what a "homeland" means, and they know what it means to Palestinians. It scares them. They don't believe that a homeland can be shared. They don't realize that sharing it is the only way they can have it all.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2003 04:35 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Palestinians have a homeland. Jordan is the eastern half of the mandate of Palestine. If only the British had named Palestine and Jordan Palestine East and Palestine West back in 1923 things would be a lot clearer today. A half a loaf isn't great but its better than no loaf at all.

There are still 20-odd Arab countries in the world and several more where Islam is the state religion. If Israel didn't exist as a Jewish state who would be willing to take Jewish refugees from Ethiopia, Russia, Iran etc?...we know no one would take anyone in 1939!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 06 March 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Palestinians have a homeland. Jordan is the eastern half of the mandate of Palestine. If only the British had named Palestine and Jordan Palestine East and Palestine West back in 1923 things would be a lot clearer today. A half a loaf isn't great but its better than no loaf at all.
There are still 20-odd Arab countries in the world and several more where Islam is the state religion. If Israel didn't exist as a Jewish state who would be willing to take Jewish refugees from Ethiopia, Russia, Iran etc?...we know no one would take anyone in 1939!

So if you were evicted from your home and sent off to live in, say Thunder Bay,you'd have no problem settling in your new home, right? After all, on epart of Ontario is pretty much the same as another, just like one Muslim country is, apparently, pretty much the same as any other.
Okay, it's not the greatest analogy, but I think it's unfair to ask a people who were more or less forcibly removed from lands they had occupied for hundreds of years to settle up somewhere else.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2003 04:46 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm, how many Arabs are in the middle east, and how many Jews? I don't think you want to get into that twenty country business because if you went by population and habitable territory, the Jews would be lucky to keep Tel Aviv.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 06 March 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The irony is, Stolkholm, that the Isreali govenment has actively lobbied western governments to deny Jews refugee status! When the USSR finally opened the doors and allowed Soviet Jews to leave freely in the mid 1980s , AIPAC, the AZF, CIC etc lobbied the Canadian and American governments to alter regulations so that Soviet Jews were no longer automatically granted refugee status. Why? Because only a small percentage of Soviet Jews were moving to Israel, over 80% were going to North America and Israel and their Zionist supporters wanted to give them no choice but to go to Israel. In the early 90s you actually had refugee camps in Italy and Spain full of Soviet Jews who didn't want to go to Israel but who, because of Israel, couldn't go anywhere else.

This is also why the Zionist lobby lobbied for so long for "direct flights" from Moscow to Tel Aviv, in order to prevent Soviet Jews from landing in a third country like Austria and claiming refugee status.

So, rather than advocate for the rights of Soviet Jews the Israeli government and its supporters worked to restrict their rights and options, treating them like pawns.

As to your broader question, we should be ensuring that all countries, certainly western countries, have liberal refugee laws and abide by UN treaties on refugees so that in the future, all refugees, Jewish and otherwise, have rights and options rather than be railroaded into moving into a war zone.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 06 March 2003 05:57 PM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Santana???
quote:
The problem is Arafat is the only leader Western powers are willing to recognize today.

Arafat has not been sent into exile solely because

quote:
Mr. Sharon has promised President Bush that he will avoid inflaming the region in the build-up to war with Iraq(Washington Times)

Israeli finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only openly advocates sending the Palestinian leader into exile he RAN for prime minister of Israel with that as a promise he would fulfill if elected.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer made a withering attack on Mr. Arafat as "someone who cannot be trusted or be effective," and hinted that Mr. Bush does not consider him irreplaceable.
I have no idea how you came to believe that he is the only leader Western powers are willing to recognize???
ALSO
If Arafat doesn't represent the Palestinian people who does? How can the Israeli government get in contact with them so that Peace negotiations can take place? Seriously who is the leader of the Palestinians, cause they should work to get him into power and if they can't do that than they can at least come to some agreement with the Israeli government and work together to get Arafat out. Santana you might be angered by this most of all.
quote:
Arafat is recognized, whether you approve of it or not, as the leader of the Palestinian people," Powell told CNN. (Washington Post)

And I suggest that before the Palestinian people wage an intafada on Israel they do it amongst themselves first. That being said in the context of this quote “You must become the change you seek to see in the world” – Mahatma Gandhi.

I still have to speech on one more thing, but I need to be out.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2003 06:47 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The irony is, Stolkholm, that the Isreali govenment has actively lobbied western governments to deny Jews refugee status! When the USSR finally opened the doors and allowed Soviet Jews to leave freely in the mid 1980s , AIPAC, the AZF, CIC etc lobbied the Canadian and American governments to alter regulations so that Soviet Jews were no longer automatically granted refugee status. Why? Because only a small percentage of Soviet Jews were moving to Israel, over 80% were going to North America and Israel and their Zionist supporters wanted to give them no choice but to go to Israel. In the early 90s you actually had refugee camps in Italy and Spain full of Soviet Jews who didn't want to go to Israel but who, because of Israel, couldn't go anywhere else.

You may be right and I find that to be deplorable on the part of Israel. To be fair, the Arabs have also gobe to great lengths to make sure that palestinians are never able to settle in any other country either. They have shot down any attempt to let Palestinians move to countries like Canada. When Canada offered to let 10,000 Palestinians immigrate here, Chretien was burned in effigy by the Palestinian fanatics. The Arab country treat Palestinians like second-class citizens and forbid them from taking out citizenship in any of their countries even if they have lived there for the past 50 years. Could it be that the Arabs would rather that the palestinians continue to be statemless than risk letting them immigrate and assimilate and no longer have the same propaganda value??


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 06 March 2003 07:00 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is some element of that. However, I have a Palestinian friend whose family lived in a refugee camp in Syria. She's not a "fanatic" but she does say that her family and other Palestinians she knows were adamant that they didn't want Syrian citizenship because they didn't want to lose their identity or their claim to Palestinian citizenship.

This may be seen by some as "fanatical" but is it any less fanatical than the Jews exiled to Babylon who refused to give up their religion and assimilate and instead wrote a Talmud in order to preserve their traditions and adapt them to their circumstances in exile? For two thousand years, more than that actually, Jews have refused to assimilate, refused to give up their identity and fought for the right to maintain their Jewishness. It would be truly ironic for us to turn around and condemn the Palestinians for refusing to give up their Palestinian-ness and become Syrians, Lebanese or what have you.

Indeed, if anything, the refusal by so many in the Palestinian diaspora (and I use that word deliberately) to assimilate in exile to neighbouring culture underscores to me that they are the "new Jews". Palestinians and Jews have a lot in common, more than either group wishes to admit.


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

posted 06 March 2003 07:27 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is some element of that. However, I have a Palestinian friend whose family lived in a refugee camp in Syria. She's not a "fanatic" but she does say that her family and other Palestinians she knows were adamant that they didn't want Syrian citizenship because they didn't want to lose their identity or their claim to Palestinian citizenship.

Fine, i have no problem with that. But right now Palestinians have no choice in the matter. They are barred from becoming citizens of any Arab country (except Jordan) whether they like it or not. Don't you think that if a Palestinian WANTS to take out Syrian or Egyptian citizenship, they should be allowed to do so. Those who prefer life in a refugee camp can have that option too. Or let them have dual citizenship.

One difference between Palestinians and Jews is that the vast majority of Jews do take out citizenship in the countries in which they live and they consider themselves Canadian or French or Argentinian first and Jewish second. Before the Holocaust most of them thought that Zionism was ridiculous! (I mean why would anyone in their right mind want to leave waltzing in Vienna for draining swamps in Israel?)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 07 March 2003 02:00 AM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't promote any elitism, the archetype of the Jew has a lot to do with history. New Jew? I pray not, I sincerely do.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 07 March 2003 07:18 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
-jonathan-, don't you think if the U.S. wanted to deal with another Palestinian leader they would have made one already? Instead Arafat is left to sit in his office while the US "threatens" him, turning him into some kind of hero. Its true he has a long history and is symbol to many Palestinians of their struggle. You're absolutely right about a Palestinian intifada amongst themselves. And its not like they haven't tried. Palestinians are in a really miserable mess.
But that takes me back to my original post about organization and treacherous leaders
quote:
...Powerful Palestinians are a threat to Zionism. Israel does whatever it can to infiltrate, discredit, counter, and destroy these threats.... [Arafat] has sabotaged the work of other Palesinian organizations and destroyed people who opposed him. He is a puppet leader as all Arab leaders are. Western powers push him onto the Palestinians and Israelis who have no choice.

Stockholm, here's another analogy: Let's give back all Canadian territory back to the original natives and move everyone whose descendants immigrated in the last 400 years to the US.

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
peacepiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2489

posted 08 March 2003 02:22 AM      Profile for peacepiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"These "settlements" are in fact part of a network of armed colonies that, by one estimate, effectively control 42% of the occupied West Bank. Many of them dominate and intimidate Palestinian communities. They are illegal under international law and have been condemned by the UN.

The Israelis bring with them a version of apartheid. On the way to one settlement near Gaza, John Pilger passed a road being built for the sole use of Jewish settlers and soldiers. Until it's opened, the Palestinians who also live there must wait hours for the few settlers to drive by.

Inside the settlers' fortress is a surreal, middle class suburb, dropped into one of the most overcrowded and poorest corners of the world.

One of the strategic aims here is the control of water, which is precious in the Middle East. While Palestinians often don't have enough running water - sometimes none at all in the heat of summer - the settlers seldom run out. And the symbol of the occupation is the wall that surrounds the settlement. "

http://pilger.carlton.com/palestine


From: fd | Registered: Apr 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