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   » Has the time come to end the Zionist experiment?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Has the time come to end the Zionist experiment?
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 March 2003 04:43 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://www.counterpunch.org/sale03032003.html
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 04 March 2003 11:57 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was with Sale until I got to this:

quote:
We all understand the reason for Israel's existence in the first place. Guilt, and reparation. But was it not a certain recipe for unrest and disorder to forcibly establsih a Jewish homeland in the Middle East and, in effect, put down 2 million Jews in the middle of 200 million Arabs?

By "we all", he means himself and a few dozen other anti-Zionists. Where else would the Jews be put; Nebraska? Bangladesh? Antartica?

His proposed solutions are equally ridiculous:

quote:
In its place one might establish a non-religious Palestine covering all of the original British Mandate in which Jews, Moslems, Christians, and others would have equal rights and equal votes, as a few Israelis have suggested in recent years; or a "bi-ethnic/bi-national" state with equal powers to Jews and Moslems something along the lines of Switzerland, Belgium, or a future Ireland; or an Islamic state that would be forced by international vigilence to give, and maintain, full religious and political rights to the Jews, who would then be free to settle in the West Bank and elsewhere.

Has he given more than the most cursory thought to the consequences of these idealistic solutions?
The assumption is that everyone would get along in peace, love, and harmony. Get real!

Something has to be done about the mess in the Middle East, but it's going to take much wiser heads than these to solve the problem.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 05 March 2003 05:09 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. The point is to create and aminstrative and legal structure to ensure that they live in relative peace, and wherein all are treated equally under the laws instituted to preserve that peace. This is so, because the laws of Israel, and the practical application of those laws, exacibate the tensions, as they favour one group over another.

[ 05 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


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

posted 05 March 2003 03:13 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What would have happened if it was decided in 1948 that 2 million African-Americans should be returned to, say, a partitioned Ghana, supported by an annual $6 billion in aid from the American government?
Hey, that sounds a lot like Liberia.
In the early 19th century, realising that freed slaves can never fully integrate with rest of society, progressive Americans set out to help free blacks create their own state in their original continent. After 150 years of "independence", this proud nation is a model of stability, living at peace with its neighbours.

[ 05 March 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


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

posted 05 March 2003 09:29 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I've often used Liberia as an example of the phenomenon I see in Israel, an oppressed people set up their own state and end up copying the very model of their oppression except that they put themselves in the dominant role. In the case of Liberia, freed American slaves were sent to Liberia and ended up setting up plantations and enslaving (more or less) the local population. In the case of the Israel, Jews settled in Palestine and set up a state structure that imitated the very 19th century nation state which had oppressed them.

This isn't to blame the "Afro-American" Liberians or Israeli Jews but just to point out that this seems to be a sociological phenomenon, a human tendency, to copy what you know.

Here's an interesting item from Haaretz today. In its desperation to preserve the "Jewish nature" of the state Israel is accepting non-Jewish immigrants and asking them to convert. Now I don't have a problem with people converting to Judaism but it is ironic that in order to bolster a claim to an "ancestral" state and prevent Palestinians exiles from returning, the state of Israel prefers to bring in non-Jews who have no ancestral link to the land and make them into Jews.

Perhaps the easiest way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem is for Palestinians to convert to Judaism en masse?

quote:
Jewish Agency plans fast-track conversion for
immigrants from CIS
By Amiram Barkat

The Jewish Agency is readying a quick conversion course for non-Jewish immigrants from the Commonwealth of Independent States.

According to the plan, dubbed Mt. Sinai, a special camp will be opened in an East European country, where immigrants on their way to Israel would spend four weeks in an intensive course that would climax in a conversion by Orthodox rabbis from Israeli rabbinical courts.

Special panels of rabbis will be flown to the camps from Israel. The four-week course would be much speedier than the six months or more it takes to convert in Israel. Several well-known rabbis in the Orthodox establishment have agreed in principle to take part. At this stage, the program is planned for 150-200 new immigrants, but if the plan works, agency officials believe thousands could be converted in the program.

Opening the quick conversion route is a dramatic step for the agency, and is meant to help new immigrants bypass the bottleneck in the rabbinical courts in Israel. Despite mounting public pressure, the rabbinical courts refuse to change their policies and only convert a few hundred people a year from the former Soviet Union. The special seminar for conversions, based on recommendations by a commission headed by attorney Yaakov Neeman, has not made a dramatic change in those numbers, despite its original promise to do so.

Estimates put the number of non-Jewish immigrants in Israel at some 250,000 to 300,000, and agency activists call it a "ticking social bomb."

Three key people are behind the plan. Sallai Meridor, the agency chairman, decided to "break the rules" with the rabbinical courts, accusing them of "an inhumane attitude" toward immigrants and conducting a policy "against the national interests of the state."

The plan's second key personage is Prime Minster Ariel Sharon, who declared last week to the agency's board of governors that he regards finding a solution to the conversion problem as a top priority. "Meridor would not have set the plan in motion without backing from the prime minister," said a source knowledgeable about the program.

The third person is Neeman. The board of governors has named a committee, which he will head, to examine the conversion issue and its possible solutions. There is also no doubt that the appointment of Shinui's Avraham Poraz as interior minister will greatly smooth the way for the program, compared to his predecessor, Eli Yishai of Shas.

The decision to conduct the conversions in an Eastern European country rather than in Russia or another of the CIS countries was made to avoid suspicions in those countries the agency was encouraging citizens of those states to emigrate to Israel. Although theoretically it would be possible to convert immigrants already in Israel, by way of the same program, there are no plans yet to do so, to avoid a direct clash with the rabbinical courts.

In the 1970s, during the first wave of Soviet immigrants, a similar plan was tried, using Israeli rabbis overseas to convert new immigrants. But that program was only partially successful, because many of the rabbis involved were not considered authoritative enough for the Orthodox establishment in Israel so they did not recognize many of the conversions. To avoid that eventuality, this time the agency decided to work with rabbis whose authority is unassailable and the agency is keeping their identities secret for now, to prevent the chief rabbinate from applying pressure on them.

Agency spokesman Ephraim Lapid said the agency regards the issue of conversion as "highly important. The board of governors, which convened last week in Jerusalem, decided to advance the subject with the government and to appoint a committee headed by Prof. Neeman to recommend ways to improve the conversion process." Neeman's office had no comment.



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

posted 05 March 2003 10:28 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The inevitable question - do they (the men, that is) have to get circumcised?

I know adult men who did that, upon converting to Judaism and Islam, but it was their free choice, and out of love in both cases.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 05 March 2003 11:00 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the conversions are being carried out by Orthodox rabbis then circumcisions will be insisted upon.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 06 March 2003 07:36 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps the easiest way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem is for Palestinians to convert to Judaism en masse?
In many ways Palestinians already are the "new Jews".

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

posted 06 March 2003 07:06 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They don't have to become Jews. Just become Israelis and vote en masse. Then watch Sharon's head spin around.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 March 2003 08:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can they become Israelis? Why don't they then?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2003 08:18 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well it could come to that, and it would be a propaganda coup because it would put Israel in the position of choosing between democracy or apartheid. But since most would probably prefer a state of their own, it hasn't come to that.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 March 2003 08:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow. I'm surprised they haven't tried it already. I would! As you say, what a great publicity stunt!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 06 March 2003 08:44 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Palestinians who live in Israel proper are Israeli citizens. Those who live in the West Bank, Gaza or elsewhere are not and cannot become Israeli citizens without first becoming Israeli residents and cannot become Israeli residents because they aren't allowed into the country. So no, they can't just "become Israelis"
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2003 08:48 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But aren't they are part of the "Land of Israel"? "Judea and Samaria."
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 06 March 2003 08:57 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Only the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem have been annexed (meaning the Arabs living there can vote). The West Bank and Gaza have not been annexed because to do so would mean Israel would either have to grant the inhabitants citizenship, expel them to avoid having to give them citizenship or formally become an apartheid state.

However, Israelis living in the West Bank and Gaza can vote even though Israeli citizens normally cannot vote abroad so the West Bank and Gaza are considered part of Israel if you're Jewish but not if you're Palestinian.


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

posted 06 March 2003 09:01 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All true, but the point is that if they did ask to be citizens, it would put Israel in a rather uncomfortable position. To say the least.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 06 March 2003 09:08 PM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems that the Sale proposal to subsume Israel in a Greater Palestine is proof positive that the utopian nonsense of a world government based on United Nations administration would lead quickly to the destruction of Israel. This merely confirms that the fatuous egalitarianism of such proposals disguises a totalitarian determinism that would undo the victories for morality ,freedom and democracy that World War Two acheived. What dread there would be for Jews if they became subject again to the venal edicts of such an authority bent on their destruction. Never again.

[ 06 March 2003: Message edited by: Barry Stagg ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 06 March 2003 09:24 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wasn't Israel created by the United Nations in the first place?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2003 09:40 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't waste you breath Mycroft. These folks don't let the facts stand in the way of a good rant.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 06 March 2003 10:41 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
I almost didn't link to Kirkpatrick Sale's article because of the unduly provocative title of this thread. I understand that there is a small but growing movement on both sides of the Palestinian/Israel conflict that is seriously examining the option of giving those in the Occupied Territories full civil,legal and political rights within a reconstituted secular nation state that also takes in Israel proper.

Given the seeming intractibility of the current conflict (Jewish settlements, right of return, secure borders, Palestian poverty, etc.,etc.,etc.), it's an interesting concept.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 March 2003 10:45 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The thread title is lifted almost directly from the article in the first post of the thread. So I don't think it's unduly provocative, any more than the article itself is.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 07 March 2003 05:52 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But since most would probably prefer a state of their own, it hasn't come to that.
Most prefer a democracy where Jews and Palestinians have equal rights. This is what many Palestinians had been demanding since the creation of Israel, it is also what the British had proposed as late as 1948. If Israel offered citiznship to Palestinians the whole problem would end. Its that most Jews find this absolutely unacceptable that there is a conflict.

From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 07 March 2003 07:01 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There was a letter in the New Yorker a while ago that put it quite neatly: imagine a triangle, the corners of which are democracy, the occupied territories and a Jewish state. Now, Israel has to pick a line out of this triangle - it can have two of those things, but not all three. Right now it is letting democracy slip away.

The idea of abandoning the experiment entirely, well, I don't know. Although I find the idea of the God-given promised land utterly abhorrent as advocates for Israel tend to use it - "God says this land is for us and us alone" - I do sympathize with the desire of many Jews to have a guaranteed haven in the world. I really do. And while I'm all for immigration and restitution and secularization and all that, I don't know if a radical overhaul is the best option at this point. I think it would be wiser to end the occupation, dismantle the settlements, and concentrate on peacemaking with the rest of the Middle East. There's just something I find very unpleasant about the tone of the article - it's a little too close for comfort to "let's make the Jews leave, nobody wants them."


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 07 March 2003 08:02 AM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Objectively, the experiment has failed. It has caused endless cycles of bloodshed. It is fair now to say 'Israel is a mistake'. But it is not a reversable one. It is one the region must live with.

In this land there is a tree
That bears no fruit but misery.

O Israel. Ye are a stiff-necked people.


From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 March 2003 08:07 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tell it from the mountaintop Moses!
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 March 2003 09:16 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Smith that it's important to ask what is the wiser way to look at the facts on the ground, and to be realistic about how long peacekeeping will have to be a priority.

Some facts on the ground (the Green Line) have to be accepted, after this long. Others (the settlements) have to change -- accepting them would be like allowing people to profit off their crimes.

But these peoples have been fighting bitterly for too long for us to imagine that they can all switch to behaving fairly towards one another in a unitary state overnight. Maybe in a generation. Peacemaking has to be a priority, and peacemaking has to include security for Israelis as currently defined.


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

posted 07 March 2003 10:42 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no real difference between settlements built on Arab private land in the west bank or those built inside Israel. They are all just as illegitimate. They are all built on stolen land. If those settlements are to be dismantled all Jewish settlements forcibly seized from Arabs in historic Palestine should be dismantled. If you want to be fair to everyone just stop seizing land and return anything still available to their original owners. There is still a lot of "absentee" Palestinian land in Israel. And restitution is still a realistic option.

It is recognizing a Jewish state on stolen land without recognizing the Palestinians' right to that land that is allowing people to profit off their crimes.

After 50 years people are still hoping the Palestinians will just go away, that everyone will just accept injustice and leave it at that. After the Zionist state has been getting away with its crimes so long people are still hoping that maybe someday Zionists will wake up and change their minds somehow.

Israel can make peace with its corrupt authoritarian neighbours. Israel and its neighbours can kill tens of thousands of Palestinians and throw tens of thousands in jail. These are real practical ways of dealing with the situation. They have worked to a point in the past.

If we keep telling Palestinians they don't have any rights they just might believe it. Its possible if the world just oppresses them a little harder they will shut up and accept "peace".

Fuck your "peace". I won't shut up. And neither will Palestinians. Some people believe there are things worse than death. You don't understand that.

If you want real, long-term peace with the real people on the ground without annhilating anyone give them justice. If you just lock people up and hope for change things will inevitably blow up again in the future.

I also sympathize with Jews who want a haven from persecution. This should be the right of all people. I do not sympathize with those who would create such havens by persecuting others. The whole world should be a safe haven for all people. Maybe there is a possibility of creating a secure, ethnically pure Jewish state inside Palestine sometime in the future. That state is not Israel.

The Zionist experiment has shown that Jews can not live in peace and security so long as they forcibly displace others.

A radical overhaul is not a good option in the long term as the creation of Israel has shown. Change doesn't happen overnight. Everyone can understand that. A process with clear objectives has to be put in place.

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


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

posted 07 March 2003 10:49 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is no real difference between settlements built in the west bank or those built inside Israel.

satana, in terms of international law, this is simply untrue. It is also untrue in terms of human psychology, in my view.

The state of Israel was created by the UN. Period. The settlements in the OT, by contrast, are in clear violation of many UN resolutions -- and furthermore, they make any sort of sane life in an independent Palestinian state very difficult to envisage.

At least that's a place to start, satana.


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

posted 07 March 2003 11:09 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, that's just totally off the wall Satana. Are you saying Jews have no right to live in what is now Israel/Palestine? Are you for a little ethnic cleansing yourself?

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


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

posted 07 March 2003 11:16 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
whoa josh, I didn't say that. I was saying that ethnic cleansing of the west bank from Jews is no different than ethnically cleansing Israel from Jews. I am against any kind of ethnic cleansing.

I'll try to be clearer in future.


and skdadl, Israel was created on condition it respects the rights of the original Arab inhabitants. It was admitted into the UN on condition it accept resolution 194 which affirms all Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes inside Israel.

As for another "independent" (what cruel word) Arab state, there are already far too many to begin with. And a "start" to what? All I see is more hostilities.

Two state solution is basically the status quo in writing. Only instead of Jews doing the killing, it'll be Arabs.

[ 08 March 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


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

posted 07 March 2003 11:26 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay. I just read your first paragraph as saying that all Jewish settlements in the last 100+ years, from the sea to the Jordan, are illegal. Therefore, if you accept that position, Jews who settled after, say, 1896, would have no legal right to live there.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 07 March 2003 11:36 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right, josh. Sorry. I've edited that first paragraph. I was thinking of "settlements" as skdadl had refered to them previously.

In fact there have been Jewish settlements in west bank long before Israel was created. I hope they are not included in any dismantling people are talking about. I do not object to any Jewish settlements anywhere. I object to building them by force on other people's private property.


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

posted 07 March 2003 12:51 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In fact, Jews whose families lived in Jericho prior to the 1940s have come out and condemned the modern day settlers who are trying to build a settlement in Jericho in their names.

My view is that if Israelis want to live in the West Bank and Gaza they should be prepared to take out Palestinian citizenship and live under a Palestinian government rather than have the Israeli military carve out enclaves for them and build security perimiters and live with massive subsidies from the Israeli government.

In fact, if it weren't for these subsidies, most of the settlers would leave (many of them are recent immigrants from Ethiopia and the ex Soviet Union and are moving to the West Bank for ecnomic reasons). If the core of fanatics want to stay, let them become Palestinian citizens without Israeli government support.


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

posted 07 March 2003 01:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Before I go on, may I say that I am so happy to see this discussion carry on as a real discussion, where people with varying levels of knowledge can still talk to one another, filling in one another's blanks, or thanking those more expert (please: I am no expert: thanks to any who are), without anyone feeling defensive. Such a nice development.


quote:
As for another "independent" (what cruel word) Arab state, there are already far too many to begin with. And a "start" to what? All I see is more hostilities.

A large um, here. I'm not sure what this means. I think we would have to ask the "Arabs." It seems to me a Western myth that there is a single group of "Arabs" and they're all the same, you know, doesn't matter where you put them ... I mean, satana, I'm not suggesting that you think that, but that certainly has been an argument in the past for displacing all the Palestinians -- as in, Why can't the Egyptians/Jordanians/Syrians/Saudis just take them all in? A disgusting argument, as I'm sure you'll agree. And a typically European/North American argument.

I know absolutely nothing about the nations/clans/tribes that genuinely existed among the Arab peoples before Europeans began drawing self-interested lines on maps and installing friendly surrogates, but I would be interested in hearing more. Even the movies *wink* tell us that "Arabs" is too big a word to do justice to distinct cultures and traditions.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 07 March 2003 01:31 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It seems that the Sale proposal to subsume Israel in a Greater Palestine is proof positive that the utopian nonsense of a world government based on United Nations administration would lead quickly to the destruction of Israel.

Barry, Israel currently exists because of massive amounts of aid from the US. Without it Israel's economy would collapse and its military capability would degrade to the level that it could be conquered by its neighbours (indeed, Israel only survived in 1973 because Nixon decided to implement an emergency airlift at the last minute).

Israel's supporters are fools if they think this situation will be permanent. The US is a very fickle and opportunistic partner and if it is no longer in US "interests" to back Israel, the state will end up in a very perilous situation. Further, if Israel continues down the path to apartheid the US will end up under enormous domestic pressure to cut off Israel. You denounce "world government" but by depending on US hegemony Israel is signing its own death warrant.

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


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

posted 07 March 2003 05:01 PM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
kirkpatrick Sale and Santana, is there much of a difference?

One openly discusses the abandonment of Israel and the other keeps pressing for “undivided democracy” between Palestinians and Israelis. Sorry to be the cynic but I don't believe that all to many Palestinians would be down for living in Israel. However there is a clear advantage to their "mass return". A nation is a group of people who are banded together by their culture, language and ethnicity. Speaking of Israel that would be Jewish people and Israel is the physical manifestation State of that group of people. If Palestinians were to return, we would be granting the destruction of Israel from the inside out. The population of Palestinians wouldn't take long to outnumber the Jewish population and than what we would have is a Palestinian Israel. The prevalent Nation of people banded by their culture, ethnicity and language would no longer be the Jewish people but the Palestinians. Santana your insidious high praising of "undivided democracy" is the destruction of Israel. Why don't you stop repping some "moderator" or “democratic freedom fighter” image and just say what you want to say. An Israeli state in Palestine? The New Jews? Jewish people have no other country in the world where the national religion is Judaism. My father is from Malaysia, I was born in Israel and I am not allowed in Malaysia, (Canadian passport) if anyone asks me I am "Christian". I love waking up to the sounds of Mosques blaring on headphones, I spend a large time of my summers in Malaysia comfortably (And I prefer to be in Malaysia over Israel), buts that’s because I get away by not looking Jewish. This is serious. Santana you and Kirkpatrick are some rather apathetic peoples, with self-righteous linguistics. And like you attested before

quote:
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.

It seems to me clearly that you have changed my beliefs on the issue (although not permanently and I hope not) that Arafat is the Palestinian people’s leader and their general will remains with him. Because what you say here is absolutely ludicrous, that Palestinians want to live in Israel where that would be their flag (*unless exposed for its true purpose).

For anyone interested read the "What would actually happen if the Israel withdrew from the territories?" thread.


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

posted 07 March 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kikaptrick trys to appeal to Jewish people not having a state by claiming that
quote:
The diaspora, after all, has existed since 70 A.D., far longer than the state has, and might even be thought of as the natural or historic role of Jewry.

Why yeah...Whites are smarter and should be rulers of the world as was thought natural and is very much the historic role of whiteness. Come one everybody I'm a RACIST clown! No...really Kirkpatrick carries lip-stick, eye-liner and face paint to cover up his clown face. In the words of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri "Curse be upon your clown shoes and nose...monkey!"


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 March 2003 06:12 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So who wants a national religion?

"The New Jews? Jewish people have no other country in the world where the national religion is Judaism."

I remember a lot of work secularists went to working on the elimination of confessional schools in Québec. There are many countries that are staunchly secular, including France where there are a lot of people from Muslim backgrounds (mostly North Africans and West Africans) and a lot of people from Jewish backgrounds (about half Askenazi and half Sephardic).

The last thing I would want to do is live under the shadow of a "national religion", even if it were the religion of my parents!


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 07 March 2003 06:25 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A nation is a group of people who are banded together by their culture, language and ethnicity. Speaking of Israel that would be Jewish people and Israel is the physical manifestation State of that group of people.

You're conflating "nation" and "state." Often the two exist together. In the case of the Jews, they have been made to exist together. But to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that the elimination of Israel as a state (something I don't necessarily think is a good idea, but others do) is equivalent to the elimination of the "nation" of Jews is pretty ridiculous.

quote:

If Palestinians were to return, we would be granting the destruction of Israel from the inside out. The population of Palestinians wouldn't take long to outnumber the Jewish population and than what we would have is a Palestinian Israel. The prevalent Nation of people banded by their culture, ethnicity and language would no longer be the Jewish people but the Palestinians.

Well, yeah. If I and a bunch of other Ontario Methodists (or whatever) set up a new, colourblind, democratic country in, say, China and then complained that it was being flooded with Chinese people, you'd laugh at me, I'm sure. That's the demographic nature of the region. You can't just tell those inconvenient Arab people that they can't be there because they're not Jewish. Or rather, you can, but to do so is inevitably, explicitly racist, and that kind of racism has been applied to Jews a lot (as you see in Malaysia), so it's kind of hypocritical to endorse it. If that doesn't bother you, fine. But it would bother me.

quote:

The New Jews? Jewish people have no other country in the world where the national religion is Judaism.

Well, I don't believe in national religions at all, so that's kind of irrelevant to me. As for Jews ending up in the minority, well, IMHO, that's what happens when you're a minority. Minorities deserve protection and respect, but I don't think they are entitled to force other people out of a piece of land so they can be a majority.

quote:

My father is from Malaysia, I was born in Israel and I am not allowed in Malaysia, (Canadian passport) if anyone asks me I am "Christian". I love waking up to the sounds of Mosques blaring on headphones, I spend a large time of my summers in Malaysia comfortably (And I prefer to be in Malaysia over Israel), buts that’s because I get away by not looking Jewish. This is serious.

Yes, it is. But should your goal be to maintain Israel, or to fix Malaysia?

As I said, I'm not in favour of abolishing Israel - I don't think that would work; I agree that these people have been at each other's throats too long to suddenly settle down and share a state. I think a two-state solution, with heavy supervision from UN peacekeeping forces, etc., is the most realistic course of action at this point. But I can at least dream of a time when these clumsy ethnic barriers - Jews here, Arabs here - will no longer be necessary.

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rumrumrumrum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3832

posted 07 March 2003 06:38 PM      Profile for Rumrumrumrum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The greatest defence for people of the jewish religion--or any religion is a vital UN and total support of human rights and the universal declaration by all of the military and economic power centers of the world.

It would also be the best defence USA could have against terrorism. Maybe we can help wake the USA's up.


From: BC | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3558

posted 07 March 2003 07:39 PM      Profile for Apples     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The best defence against terrorism is a good offence, not a powerless assembly dominated through sheer weight of numbers by countries that couldn't be happier if someone popped a nuclear weapon over Washington tomorrow.
From: no | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 07 March 2003 09:20 PM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel should become the main staging area for American forces in the Middle East. Let us remove all pretenses and have full and lethal American military bases all throughout Israel. Then let Hamas and the PLO dare to attack. Honesty and clarity would do wonders for the backbones of our dithering allies. Let them know that the Middle East is under the formidable supervision of America and its most able ally, Israel.

If our local peace prigs oppose that move as inflammatory, then it would reveal their basic position of profitable appeasement: Israel is as disposable to them as Czechoslovakia was to Neville Chamberlain in 1938. Source of this missive

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: Barry Stagg ]

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: Barry Stagg ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 March 2003 10:34 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh good, folks, we are PEACE PRIGS! Cool, eh?

Beats building the Stagg's instant "Death Trap for Jews", now, doesn't it?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 07 March 2003 11:34 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel should become the main staging area for American forces in the Middle East.

Heck, why not just have the US annex Israel as the 51st state?

Aside from Elliot Abrams and a few ultra-hawk republicans no one in the US shares your wet dream. Any serious American foreign policy analyst knows that such a route would be a disaster, that in any case Israel is an unreliable and disobeident ally and that it makes more sense to develop alliances with Arab states. Indeed, the US support of Israel hasn't made much sense since the fall of the USSR when, from a US foreign policy viewpoint, Israel was convenient as a counterweight to Soviet allied regimes such as Syria, Egypt (until Sadat threw the Soviets out) etc.

Currently, US support for Israel only undermines its intersts in the Middle East and threatens the US' access to oil reserves.

Ironically, if the US succeeds in setting up a "democratic" puppet state in Iraq the greatest loser will be Israel since if Arab countries become western style democracies the pressure for a Palestinian state would increase, not decrease. For years Saudi Arabia, for instance, has been able to give lip service to its populations Palestinian sympathies while its leaders privately deal with Israel. If Arab governments end up in a situation where they actually have to listen to their people Israel's stock will decline as will the US' ability, desire, or need to prop it up.

BTW, perhaps our Israel supporters should consider the question of where Israel gets its oil. You'd be suprised by the answer, and the fact that Israel is already far more dependent on its Arab neighbours then anyone likes to admit.

[ 07 March 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 14 December 2003 04:07 AM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

APARTHEID ISRAEL: A Critical Reading of the Draft Permanent Agreement, known as the "Geneva Accords", by Uri Davis

quote:

...

Since 1973, following the adoption of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, ratified by the UN General Assembly Resolution 3068 (XXVIII) and entered into force in 1976, the international community is largely united in the rejection of the values of apartheid political systems, notably, in rejecting the claim that it was a good idea to attempt establish and consolidate a sovereign political system that would endeavour to guarantee in law and in practice a demographic majority of any given tribe or tribes, ethnic and/or confessional group or groups in any given territory, and has become progressively more aware of the beneficial distinction between "nationality" (national identity) and "democratic citizenship" (the rights of the individual vis-à-vis the state).

Most attempts at a political solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hitherto seemed to have assumed that it was not "practical" to enforce compliance with international conventions and UN resolutions and apply the standards international law on all parties involved with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, first and foremost the Government of the State of Israel, the party in the most blatant violation thereof.

After decades of failing attempts to effect political solutions to the Israeli conflict that in effect accept the political Zionist claim that it is a good idea (or at minimum it was justified) to establish and consolidate in the country of British Mandate Palestine a "Jewish state", namely, a sovereign state such as would attempt to guarantee in law (e.g., Absentees Property Law of 1950) and in practice (e.g., the mass expulsion, under the cover of the 1948-49 war, of the native indigenous Palestinian Arab people) a demographic majority of the Jewish tribes (a demographic majority of ethnic Jews) in the territories under its control - and in light of the continuing cruelty and suffering that the implementation of this idea in violation of the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the standards of international law has inflicted on the indigenous Palestinian Arab people - the time may have come to begin to accept that the continuing failure of such attempts over the past decades suggests that they are less than practical, and that alternative paradigms for a political solution are the more practical.

One of the people most criminally responsible for the plight of the Palestinian Arab people was the late Aba Eban, former Ambassador of the State of Israel to the UN and Minister of Foreign Affairs. He played a most negative role in perpetrating the shameless lie alleging the voluntary exodus of the indigenous Palestinian people from their localities of residence in the course of the 1948-49 war at the behest of Arab leadership.

If I am not mistaken, however, it was the same Aba Eban who observed that in his long political and diplomatic experience, people and governments tend to consider the reasonable course of action only after they have tried every else and failed.

Having attempted over many decades unreasonable courses of action, all predicated on the misguided assumption that it was justified to exempt the Governments of the State of Israel from compliance to the terms of UN Charter, UN resolutions and the standards of international law - the international community, having tries everything else and failed, may now wish to consider the reasonable course of action: a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that conforms to the terms of all UN resolutions on the question of Palestine, including UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 and 194 of 1948.


[ 14 December 2003: Message edited by: salaam ]


From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 December 2003 08:44 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Next time, salaam, could you please just quote a relevant blurb and link to the rest? Don't quote the entire text of an article in a post.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zisel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3851

posted 14 December 2003 07:35 PM      Profile for Zisel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was a young teenager during the war years in Poland where Zionism was a dream not an "experiment".

As a member of Hashomer Hatzair, Zionism was our national dream our hope and our salvation.

That it was realized too late for much of my family and friends will never leave my soul. However with the realization of Israel our dream and hope today please know it will be with us forever.

Do I like everything that has been done in the name of Zionism, sadly no. But that is never a reason to darken our dream and our national aspiration.

I believe in a sovereign state for the people of Palestine. I believe that Israel must find a way to end the occupation, but I believe with all my soul and all my heart in a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people. Now and forever!


From: Florida | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 December 2003 02:29 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I believe in a sovereign state for the people of Palestine. I believe...in a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people.

Why does one have to always be set in opposition to the other?

In a single democratic state Palestinians and Jews may both have sovereignty and a homeland.

Both sides win.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 15 December 2003 05:47 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by -jonathan-:
[QB] A nation is a group of people who are banded together by their culture, language and ethnicity.

Stop the presses. Before we can even move from here, we need to take stock of the words 'culture' and 'ethnicity'. Can you give an adequate definition of these? I don't do this to be pedantic, but a broad statement like that you made above needs some qualifying. Most specifically, there is a lot of possible content to something like 'culture'. Could culture include a prediliction toward multiethnic state structures? Of course it can. If so, does this effect the second part of your statement (discussed below) linking nations to states; specifically effecting this relationship by altering the very ground on which a 'culture' is connected to the state, and thereby the structure of the state itself?

Perhaps.... And what of 'ethnicity'? This much ballyhooed concept is flippantly cast around these days by anyone and everyone, often as a synonym for a 'nation', and yet the parameters of what constitutes 'ethnicity' are quite sketchy most of the time. Instead of me going into a long diatribe about the creation and construction of 'ethnicity', I think it best that we start with you defining what you mean, and then we can see where we might head from there. If it's not too much trouble.


quote:
Speaking of Israel that would be Jewish people and Israel is the physical manifestation State of that group of people.

This is a kind of idealist notion of the nation-state, made common in the mid-19th Century. It is not the only model of statehood available as dozens of more-or-less 'multiethnic' states can attest. The 'one people, one state' ideal is by no means the 'natural' way of determining citizenship, either, as is sometimes argued. For starters, the notion of 'the nation' as we usually conceive of it is a modern historical artifact confined to the past 3 or 4 centuries, originally European in conception, and a product of specific technological and economic conditions. As such, 'nationalism' as the basis for identity, is largely just the identity fad of the age, and there is no reason to necessarily rely on it as the best possible solution for creating viable political communities which can assure the protection and security of their members. Especially as many of the conditions which gave rise to this conception of 'the nation' are very different then they were when the conception was first crystallised.

There are other options. There is a very long history of determining citizenship and belonging in a non-nationalistic (taking that term to mean the identity constructed in the modern European capitalist and industrial mode) way. Moreover, there is much recent history of the developement of new less 'ethnic' notions of 'nationhood' and of trans- and supra-national identity. Let alone leftist and humanist conceptions of 'citizenship' (dominant in Canada, for instance) which seek to describe the relationship of citizen to state in terms of legalistic rights and duties, rather than in terms of 'ethnically' derived content. Many have questioned the way in which 'idealist nationalism' conceives of the relation of the identity of the citizens of a state to the state itself after the horrific experiences of two world wars, and have sought to move beyond the myopic idealism of 'one state, one people' (Ein Staat, Ein Volk!).

[ 15 December 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 15 December 2003 11:53 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
Ghosts of a Dream - How did a great and persecuted people become the persecutors

quote:
My parents rise up from the grave, demanding to know: How has it come to this? How did a great and persecuted people become the persecutors?

By Grace Paley, Grace Paley is a poet and fiction writer. This essay appears in the book "Wrestling with Zion."


1.

Jews are afraid these days. I'm Jewish, so I'm afraid too. I'm afraid for my mother and father in their Russian Jewish youth 90 years ago, their high spirits and dangerous bravery. I'm afraid for my grandmother because she will have to find a wagon to bring her murdered son home. I am afraid for him. He falls down. He's been shot. It's pogrom time. My grandmother finds him among other dead boys. With all her strength, she lifts him, tips him into the wagon. He's 17. His name is Rusya. A photograph about 2 by 3 feet stands on the windowsill of my front room. When I walk into the room I see his intelligent Russian Jewish face and I am afraid for him. It will not be able to save him. I am afraid for my grandmother's sadness. It will never end. It is almost 100 years old.

I am afraid for my grandchildren. Two of them are the great-great-great-grandchildren of imported African immigrants (slaves). My grandchildren are called African American. I am afraid for those two little children. I am afraid of America.



From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 17 December 2003 08:53 AM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zisel, I'm truly sorry for your loss.
While you were in Poland, my grandfather was a butcher in Jaffa. His customers were Arab, Jewish and British. He had no interest in politics, only in work.
News of war and massacres in other parts of the country led my family and thousands of others to find refuge with friends and relatives in neighbouring towns. They were told things would settle down and everyone would be safe to return to their homes in two weeks. Its been 56 years. Its too late for my grandfather to return.

I hope ethnic cleansing is not part of your dream. I hope segregation is not your national aspiration. Palestinians make up a large part of your homeland, and Zionist immigrants make a large part of mine. I wish things didn't have to be that way, but that is the reality. We can't return the past. But we can build a better future, where Jews and Arabs can live freely in their homeland as equals without fear of the other. We can start by recognizing each others rights and extending our dreams of a homeland to include each other.


From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 December 2003 09:05 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That was very moving, evenflow. Thank you.

You too, salaam.

[ 17 December 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 17 December 2003 09:46 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
al-Qa-bong wrote:
quote:
In a single democratic state Palestinians and Jews may both have sovereignty and a homeland.

Both sides win.


That is the only principled solution that will lead to peace in that region. Unfortunately, the forces of radical Zionist and Palestinian nationalism are hell-bent against it, with each desiring the obliteration of the other. And with everyone in between manipulating - or being manipulated by - those two opposing ideological forces.

[ 17 December 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 December 2003 10:04 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They need a Tito.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 17 December 2003 10:06 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hope you mean Jackson
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 December 2003 10:17 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 17 December 2003 10:25 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think a dictator creating a personality cult is what they need. that's what I mean. Maybe some of the policies of Yugoslavia under Tito would be beneficial, a Tito they do not need.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 17 December 2003 11:13 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
They need a Tito.
Hmmm ... but remember what happened when Tito died? Perhaps what they need are a series of Tito-esque policies to create and maintain stability, but they need much more than that, if they are to create and maintain "meaningful unity". Hell, they need someone to figure out what "meaningful unity" is.

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 December 2003 12:30 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agreed, Rebecca. I was using "Tito" as a four-character synecdoche.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 17 December 2003 12:35 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Poor choice, one could have easily assumed you meant they needed a dictator as I did.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 December 2003 01:36 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps, but from now on, make the difficult assumption before jumping to conclusions.

Really, thinking that I was advocating a dictatorial personality cult...


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 17 December 2003 02:00 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe it's not that easy for some of us to see anything but a dictatorial personality cult when we look at Tito. My natural instinct is to cringe when someone suggests such things. When you name a dictator as a solution, how am I supposed to know that you mean only the good policies and none of the abuses of power?

(anyway, i don't want to drag this on anymore. I ften enjoy your posts, I just have something against Tito, that is all).

[ 17 December 2003: Message edited by: clearview ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 17 December 2003 02:23 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Agreed, Rebecca. I was using "Tito" as a four-character synecdoche.
I figured something like that. Actually, that's kind of a cool use for "Tito".

Clearview, ferchrissakes, let it go.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 17 December 2003 02:44 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rebecca West:
Clearview, ferchrissakes, let it go.

Fine Rebecca, I'll let it go. But not before saying that there is a lot of mythology and too little knowledge surrounding Tito and what he did in Yugoslavia. I'll admit a lot of good was done, but a lot of people were killed as well. Something I wouldn't wish on the Isrealis and Palestinians.

*let's go*


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 17 December 2003 03:31 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[ARRGH]Clearview, it'll go easier on you if you just assume that most folks here know all this stuff[/ARRGH]
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  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