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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » More suicide/murder bombings

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: More suicide/murder bombings
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 18 May 2003 09:44 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It just does not end

I returned from visiting friends in Israel early today and I saw with my own eyes the heartache in Israel and the WB.

These suicide murders will do nothing other than give Sharon the excuse he needs to delay.

I spoke with Israelis, Israeli Arabs and Christians as well as Palestinians.

It was not a scientific poll,, but one thing they all agreed on as bad as some believe their lives are , the terrorism MUST STOP,

Palestinians I met in Abu Ghosh and Qadr were not happy with their lot and why would they be...but without a doubt they believe that their lot has worsened since the intifada and they blame Arafat ant Hamas specifically MORE than they do the Israelis.

They hate the Israelis for making life a living hell now as a result of the violence (and they are clear with me as to who they believe perpetuates it) but they remember that before the intifada life was slowly improving...and now...

I will never expect many here to see their point or even believe me...such is the way when someone like me, an obvious pro-Israel Zionist posts...but I know what I saw and I know what I heard.

I also saw the dreadful toll terrorism is taking on everyone. I visited my friends family (the one murdered by terrorists), so sad and yet their spirit will not be crushed..it wont..it becomes more of a steely resolve. So sad


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

posted 18 May 2003 10:46 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It appears that Hamas, at least, is stepping up activity to frustrate the road-map meetings. If Sharon is going to cancel his trip to Washington altogether, then it would appear that Hamas is getting what it wants. Is that what Sharon wants?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 18 May 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't pretend to know what Sharon wants. I have heard what some Israelis and Palestinians want and that is the cessation of suicide/murder bombings. Isn't that what you want Skdad?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 May 2003 01:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting, Mishei.

I don't like it that you assume we won't listen to your experience though. I found it quite interesting to read your firsthand account of Israel, right up until you mentioned your low expectations of your readers, which includes me.

How was your flight? Hey, what's it like flying in and out of Israel anyhow? The security must be something else.

I can believe what you say about the Palestinians you spoke with. Because from the Palestinians and Arabs and South Asians I've met (and that's certainly not a scientific sample either ), they are wishing the violence would stop, and most think that suicide murders (now that's a term I can use), while an expression of rage and impotence, are not helpful. But as you also say, despite their distaste for suicide bombers, they understand where the rage comes from, and they put the responsibility for the whole mess mostly on the shoulders of the Israeli government.

Frankly, I don't really see what you've said as controversial, Mishei.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 May 2003 01:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, it is clear from my post that I think that Hamas is trying to destroy the road-map negotiations, in favour of which I have often posted.

I agree with the closing line of Michelle's post. Why do you feel you have to stick your tongue out at babblers in general, Mishei?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 May 2003 01:56 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is an exceptionally depressing article that appears in today's NYTimes:

"Some kind of state for slaves"

And this was the state of affairs before today's bus bombing.

(NB: password for NYT = audrarules)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 18 May 2003 01:58 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, you are right to admonish me for writing so generally. It is improper as well to mention names specifically but my exoerince on this Board bellies my thoughts.

That said, security is tight all over Israel and the WB. The airport is scrupulous in inspecting your passport and the questions they ask are specific to your visit (ie, who you are visiting, where you are staying, addresses etc).

The country itself is not as tightly wound as I would have thought. Peole are still in Cafes and pubs, Discos are packed and buses are still the main mode of transportation. Nonetheless there is a wariness that is palpable. Anyone looking suspicious becomes a possible suspect. There are armed security guards everywhere and everything is checked thoroughly.

Travelling into Rammalah or Qadr is not as bad as driving out. There are 6 or 7 check points on the main road from Ramallah to Jerusalem. Now bear in mind that distances are not what they are like here. Literally at some points there are only a dozen or so YARDS seperating certain parts of Jerusalem with the WB. Ramalla is only about 40km from Jerusalem and AlGhosh is within walking distance.

I am however impressed with the spirit of the people who have undergone terrible trauma. I spent more time with my Israeli friends than with the Palestinians I met but despite the horror there is a sence that life must go on. To some extent there is a real media hype around the suicide/murders but there must be some perspective. There are for example more Israelis and Palestinians killed in traffic accidents this past year than all terrorist incidents combined.

I have to go but will post more later today about my impressions.


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

posted 18 May 2003 04:31 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, I'm glad you mentioned the traffic accident death toll in Israel/Palestine. I have Lebanese friends who have moved back there after the civil war - as you know most Lebanese have remained here, there is a very large Lebanese community in Montreal, but it was a good decision for them to move back, as the man in the couple had become a lost soul, not even looking for work, spaced out on booze and tranquilisers. Now he is fine. His wife says that even during the civil war, the horrific death toll from traffic accidents exceeded snipings, bombings etc. I wonder why the traffic death rate is so high in that part of the world.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 18 May 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because they drive as if God were really driving their cars. I'm not joking. Visiting Karachi, whenever one of my uncles gave me a ride, I would cling for dear, dear life to the seat. No seatbelts, the doors not properly closing, it was nuts.

Lights? What are those blinky things above the road? Do we care? I even saw people casually crossing the road in busy freeways. This, I am told, is the norm from the Middle East to China. I survived.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 19 May 2003 10:48 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A very instructive piece.

Abu Mazen also hurt by terrorist actions


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

posted 19 May 2003 11:00 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Patently obviously.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 19 May 2003 01:05 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And the suicide-murder bombings continue. Who is it that is trying to thwart the peace efforts now?????

More murdered


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

posted 19 May 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The same guys that were trying to thwart it before. On both sides.

(NB: See the news of the death of Omar Sharif, tacked on to the end of the link in Mishei's post.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 May 2003 01:17 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh yeah well this is something I posted before but really puts something's into perspective

Who did you say is putting up road blocks???
Gov't sources: Sharon-Abu Mazen meeting was a failure

Sharon isn't great sure he made a mess of things but still Arafat did not make any effort to move the peace process forward. I hope that things would change after he was pushed aside but he doesn't seem that he wants to let go and Abu Mazen after this last meeting doesn't seem to want to be productive either. When are people really going to take responsibility. Even this crazy right wing government in Israel which I would never support is more accountable and flexible then anyone on the Palestinian side. The Israeli government is doing what it thinks is best to protect its citizens and understands that peace is in it's best interest but so far it seems that the Palestinians government is still head strong on destroying Israel. They could have dealt with someone more flexible but that's not the problem is that the Palestinian authority who has never been flexible and who has never really intended to recognize the rights of Israeli's. Even Clinton was frustrated by Arafat so to has the Canadian government here are a few good reasons why.

Chretien Offers help

To summarize what I'm saying the fact that Sharon was stupid enough to provoke them is irrelevant they would have attacked anyways. It can't be denied.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 19 May 2003 01:23 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
The same guys that were trying to thwart it before. On both sides.



Hmmm I have not seen any Israelis strapping bombs to themselves and murdering Palestinianas. Oh wait yes of course when the IDF attempts to defend their state from these monsters that's the same as suicide-murders. I forgot.

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

posted 19 May 2003 01:28 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A mediator is needed. A serious mediator. The U.S. is not a serious mediator.

Also, leaders on both sides have to be tough enough to face the inevitable delay there is going to be in reining in Hamas, etc. If Sharon is going to use every attack as an excuse to trash the road-map process, then the attacks are just never going to stop. That's why a serious mediator is needed.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 19 May 2003 01:49 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl, what should any Israeli PM do when their country is attacked this way? Doing nothing to protect your citizens cannot be an option. This is not a matter of "just ignore them and they will go away".

These are cold-blooded murderers targeting Jews in order to rid the Middle East of Israel. It has little to with Palestinians and everything to do with extremist Islam now seemingly in control. They will NEVER negotiate. It seems futile.


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

posted 19 May 2003 02:01 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What Israelis should do -- as responsible citizens of the world -- is exactly what any responsible Canadian citizen who is the victim of a violent crime should do: turn to legal civil authority.


Obviously, in my view, the ideal legal authority in cases of international disputes or civil war should be the United Nations.

You don't need to tell me that that system isn't working just now, Mishei. One of the reasons it doesn't work is that certain member states have spent the last couple of generations cocking a snoot at the UN, I would say.

That doesn't mean that as many of us as possible shouldn't keep trying to make the UN work.

All you are doing, Mishei, is justifying vigilante activity, the international equivalent of same, and there will never be any good conscience in doing that, Mishei -- never never never -- no more than there would be in counselling revenge in quiet Canada.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 19 May 2003 02:04 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl, you can say that only from the safety and comfort of your home here in Canada. I seriously doubt if you would feel the same if you were living in Israel today and saw a member of your family (God forbid) dismembered by a suicide-murderer. I highly, highly doubt it.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 May 2003 02:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei:

1. You don't know me.

2. You don't know my family.

3. You are wrong.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 19 May 2003 02:35 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then you are a Saint able to cope beyond all human endurance.

I was in Israel; I saw what they are going through; I saw parents afraid for their children; I saw a country wanting peace but getting terror; I saw Israeli citizens demanding of their government as we would ours in simlar circumstances, to do what must be done to protect them.

No I dont know you but I have some familiarity with human nature as do we all. It is just near impsossible to believe that you would not want your government to protect you from callous murderers. But then again I really dont know you....


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

posted 19 May 2003 02:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Hmmm I have not seen any Israelis strapping bombs to themselves and murdering Palestinianas. Oh wait yes of course when the IDF attempts to defend their state from these monsters that's the same as suicide-murders. I forgot.

*sigh*

They don't HAVE to do it that way, Mishei. They have an armed forces that can thump the Palestians any blame time they want.

When your side has helicopters with bombs that can level an entire building you don't need suicide bombers.


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

posted 19 May 2003 02:50 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh Doc yes the eternal moral equivalancy argument. Yes the IDF protecting its citizens is like a suicide-murderer entering a family resteraunt and blowing everyone to bits. Yes that sounds very simlar to me.

Here is the "education" being given to Palestinian children. Im sure Israeli children are told the same.

Follow me to martyrdom

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 19 May 2003 03:18 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The IDF does more than merely "protect its citizens" (incidentally I find your phraseology quite curious, given that the IDF is *not* the government of Israel. Are you now admitting that Israel is effectively a banana republic where you can still drink the water?); it engages in daily protection of extremist settlers in Israel, many of who use obscure Jewish doctrine regarding Eretz Yisrael and its precise mapping to justify stealing land.

The IDF engages in the daily humiliation of Palestinian-Arabs by subjecting them to arbitrary detention, searches and inspections.

I need not continue to recite the litany of abuses the IDF has committed, which you continue to hand-wave away as "errors", "mistakes", et cetera, that will be "investigated fully".

Even mainstream Israeli human rights organizations get a little worked up about what the IDF's been up to lately. And yet you stand here, claiming to be a largely leftist Canadian, and simply close your eyes to what they have to say. Or you only haul them out when you want to "prove" that nobody got killed in Jenin. Never mind that you shut up real fast when I pointed out that an interview with one of the bulldozer drivers got published in Yediot Aharonot.

I'll make it plain and simple:

The force multiplier on the IDF's side is incomparably larger than that of suicide bombers.

Moral equivalency? There isn't one, Mishei.

There can't BE one, not when there are such different levels of force being applied.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 May 2003 03:24 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Then you are a Saint able to cope beyond all human endurance. [QUOTE]

Not at all. I am a democrat. I have learned about revenge cycles from reading European history and literature. I have learned about stopping them in the same way.

[QUOTE] It is just near impsossible to believe that you would not want your government to protect you from callous murderers.


I certainly do expect our government to protect me. I expect the Crown to prosecute them on behalf of protecting the civil society I live in. That's why the Crown prosecutes, not moi.

I am capable of feeling vengeful, Mishei. I hope I am too strong to act on those feelings; or, if not, that I have good enough and smart enough friends that they would prevent me from acting on them.

You believe in stopping revenge cycles or you don't, Mishei: it's that simple. And if you don't, you're part of the problem.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sophrosyne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4070

posted 19 May 2003 03:32 PM      Profile for sophrosyne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally I support neither Israel nor Palestine. Both parties have lost credibility and legitimacy with years of attrocities and outrages against one another and their global neighbors.

I would like to see the whole "Israel and Palestine experiment" scrapped. As it seems to be completely and horribly unsuccesful, that is.

The Western powers created these countries, which have been at each others throats from day one, and they are the ones who should rectify the situation.

I personally would like to see Israel and Palestine merged into one secular state, perhaps call it Canaan (which BTW was the ancient and orignal name of the region), and give equal rights and religious protections to Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Destroy the division. End the bloodshed.


From: British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 19 May 2003 03:44 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There has been a third suicide bombing, at a shopping mall . At least 3 people killed.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 May 2003 04:13 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sophrosyne that idea is insane how about Canada become one secular country with the United states heck how about we just stick everybody in the American continent we will all have equal voting rights no more signing O Canada we'll sing some other weird national anthem who cares whether we identify with it or not.

To DrConway and skdadl What Israel is doing in most cases is not a matter of revenge or collective punishment it's a reaction which is pointless. If Israel wanted to defend itself it should take a pro-active step unilaterally withdraw and put up a fence to defend itself. Walls are temporary and can come down once the Palestinians are ready to take steps towards peace. Once there is that sort of separation Israel can't be blamed it's up to the Palestinians to run themselves. Israel won't have to let workers in or give Palestinians care in there hospital it won't owe the Palestinians anything. It can continue to do so out of the goodness of its heart if it wishes like it's done quite often already but why should it if it's going to get stab in the back. I can bring some real examples of farms in Israel that provided Palestinian jobs and the worker which they employed many years literally stabs them in the back. This is what's been happening all along the peace process. Too bad on the Israeli side there is too much bureaucracy too simply disengage and apparently other obstacles such as their own fanatics maybe the economic implications are also something to consider. However as far as security goes I believe a unilateral withdrawal with a fence would be the best for the time being. Israel can't be held responsible for the Palestinian suffering if there not occupying their land. If they continue you suffering and don't want to cooperate to make a future that would be mutually beneficial for both sides then that’s their problem.

The education of hate is the root cause of the problem and there is know logical explanation or justification for it. It is primitive and barbaric and is solely the responsibility of the fanatic Arab leadership.

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 May 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are is another example of road blocks please read

Chretien offers guidance to Arafat


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

posted 19 May 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
I can bring some real examples of farms in Israel that provided Palestinian jobs and the worker which they employed many years literally stabs them in the back.

Well, how patronizing. Farms in California often employ Mexicans for sub-minimum wage. I suppose you expect the Mexicans to be grateful for their jobs, too.

And don't start in with "But the Mexicans don't stab THEIR bosses in the back", because I'll bet you dollars to donuts at the very least there's been fights that haven't been documented that broke out between farm workers and their supervisors.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 May 2003 04:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The education of hate is the root cause of the problem and there is know logical explanation or justification for it. It is primitive and barbaric and is solely the responsibility of the fanatic Arab leadership.

Right up to that quote I was semi-following you, Justice, but that is such a breathtakingly ahistorical, irrational statement that I have to remark upon it.

Otherwise, to your more sensible paragraphs: You seem to be missing my point above, Justice. Israel is one of the combatants in this dispute, Justice. Such disputes are not justly decided by one or the other of the contending parties. Israel need not have the sole responsibility for setting up that boundary.

And further: There is an obvious vengeful bitter tone in your implication that an Israeli withdrawal would leave Palestinians broke, starving, and without medical care. Done your way, Justice, that might well be true. That's why it shouldn't be done your way, Justice.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 May 2003 04:33 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not that minimum wage is fair but that's probably what they get same as any other so Israeli's that get minimum wage do they stab there employers in their back. These murders are obviously not about wages. There are also many cases where if they've worked long for a farmer they even get better then minimum wage.

I'll tell what happens sadly the person who stabs the farmer in the back actually all he really wants to do is support his family. A member of some terrorist organizations comes and accuses him of collaborating and says unless you help us kill a Jew we'll hurt you or your family.


Here is a personal experience of mine along those lines. Some one I'm very close too is a tour guide in Israel he's quite a left leaning person votes Meretez usually. Well he's take tourist all over the holy land including Bethlehem where they would by lots of souvenirs and other stuff from Arab shop keepers. This tour guide became friendly with many of them one day he decides as a kind gesture to invite one of the shopkeepers over to his house for dinner with the family he invited the shopkeepers family as well.

The shop keeper politely declined and said he could not because it would endanger his family. He would be accused of collaborating with Jews.


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

posted 19 May 2003 04:35 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When the United Farm Workers organised under Cesar Chavez, growers definitely saw it as a knife in the back.

Anyone else remember the old 'boycott grapes' campaign?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 May 2003 04:37 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
Not that minimum wage is fair but that's probably what they get same as any other so Israeli's that get minimum wage do they stab there employers in their back. These murders are obviously not about wages. There are also many cases where if they've worked long for a farmer they even get better then minimum wage.

Of course it's not about wages.

The wages are just a symptom, an overt statement by the employer that he knows he can treat his workers like dirt and get away with it.

Wages can be rationalized away as value for the work done.

But getting treated without any dignity or respect... now there is something guaranteed to piss off even the most mild-mannered human being.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 May 2003 04:37 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
grapes, lettuce, Kraft ... Aren't we still doing some of that? I lose track.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 May 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl that's the point they don't have to starve but the burden of there care should not fall on Israelis shoulders it's the Palestinian authority that decides how to invest the money they're given. If they want to waste it on teaching hate buying weapons and so that there leaders can live luxurious lives then I don't know what to do about it but how is that Israelis responsibility to solve that problem. It's not a part of Israel they don't want to be a part of Israel and Israel never wanted them to be either. Notice we're not talking about the refugees here, that is a different issue. Every person deserves the right to identify with what ever groups he wants and what ever geographical area he wants but compromises are needed and violence is intolerable.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 May 2003 04:44 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel never wanted them to be either.

We've all noticed that.

You don't see in shades or colours, do you, Justice?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 May 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
DrConway

so the farmers are evil now too??? you didn't read the examples I showed you???. I can tell you there are labor laws in Israel just like in Canada. They are enforced about as well as they are in Canada. Which as we all know isn't perfect. There are many cases as pointed out that these foreign workers are often treated better then average. Israel is full of foreign workers mostly from Thailand and Romania there have been cases of abuse I must admit but on the whole it's better then they ever had it same goes for the Palestinians. These murders are not about wages.

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 May 2003 04:54 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Skadal

I see very well the shades of color I maybe I didn't make it the statement clear what I meant was the Jews that believe in Israel believe that they are entitled to live there. So are the Palestinians entitled to live there? There is no contradiction all that is needed is a compromise. Neither side is going to get everything. Is that so illogical??? Is that so evil. The Palestinians will have to accept an Israeli state and Israelis will have to accept a Palestinian state beside them they Israelis will have to give up some land. You can't expect them to give up everything.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 May 2003 05:00 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't, Justice. I believe in the two-state solution -- as long as the two-state solution isn't the Bantustan solution.

That's one further reason I think we need a serious mediator, and not a USian, either.

I will admit to sharing your frustration on one score, Justice. I think it is quite wrong when these discussions descend into debating the comparative individual agonies of ordinary people on either side, most of whom are patently obviously pawns in a political struggle waged by machiavels who've lost touch with whatever principles they might ever have had.

That, again, is a reason I feel we need a serious, independent mediator, who can absorb everyone's pain and not lash out in response, revenge, or "reaction," as you put it.

I know that the Cyprus solution ain't perfect, but I favour the Cyprus solution, for a generation at least. The settlers have got to go, though. And the IDF, it goes without saying.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 May 2003 05:27 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The settler I agree but what do you mean by "And the IDF"? If you mean leave the so called occupied territories O.K. but if you mean disperse completely. Your inviting all of Israel's surrounding neighbors to destroy it.

I'm also totally for strengthen ties between sides and having economic and strategic cooperation. For a short time there was that sort of. For that there has to be trust which there is none at the moment yet side can easily start building trust for that 2 things have to happen simultaneously the Israel has to withdraw unilaterally and the Palestinians have to halt all attack on Israel or at least make a clear effort too. One big step could be taking books that teach hate out of there educational system.

I don't support the Bantustan solution either I think 67 borders would be reasonable

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 May 2003 05:32 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then we're sort of friends, Justice.

Except: I don't believe that your and my solution is going to be reached by allowing only the two concerned parties to go it alone. Nor do I believe that USian presidents are good mediators.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 May 2003 05:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oops. Let me check on 67 borders. Misread the year there ...
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sophrosyne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4070

posted 19 May 2003 05:34 PM      Profile for sophrosyne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Justice,

quote:
Sophrosyne that idea is insane

So is what we got. My idea involves less bloodshed and bigotry.

quote:
how about Canada become one secular country with the United states heck how about we just stick everybody in the American continent we will all have equal voting rights no more signing O Canada we'll sing some other weird national anthem who cares whether we identify with it or not.

Sure, why not!

I'd be willing to throw my full support behind this sort of idea anytime if the constitution was honourable, the laws fair, and the government representative of all the people living within its borders.

And if anything like that ever happened, it'd certainly be a marked improvement on both Canada and the United States, or what goes for them these days...

I think nationality, especially the cult-like extremism of nationalism, are silly out-dated concepts anyway.


From: British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 May 2003 05:41 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How very breezy of you.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 May 2003 05:43 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sophrosyne

first of all your solutions does not offer less blood shed because once it becomes a secular and all the refugees return not strings attached then what to stop the Palestinians from committing a genocide against the Jews all they have to do is have a majority vote.

Point 2 are you saying that no one has a right to their own identity. Or that personal identity can't include a piece of land or a group of other people. Are you saying we should all be more or less the same???

I personally believe that Canada is a beautiful country with a unique and beautiful Identity the same goes to the US and most other countries it would be a shame for any country to lose I believe it would be morally wrong. I even believe that a country like Iraq has it's own beautiful Identity but Saddam is not representative and can not and should not dictate what the identity is.

No dictators please.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 19 May 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bantusland says Skdadl A state say others. One thing always puzzled me. The PA was offered a state of its own in 2000 that by now could have been further negotiated into a sovereign country. Arafat refused and engaged violence why?. It always seemd to me that he had no interest in Israel being around. In fact he desired the entire land sans Israel. That is why I firmly believe he refused a state when offered.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 May 2003 06:55 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I seem to recall that the PA was constituted as an independent, well, authority in what, 1995? The 2000 agreements would have, I suppose, furthered that progress, but we have only Dennis Ross's word that it was all that lying slug Arafat's fault and that no blame attaches to Ehud Barak for tendering an offer that would, in union bargaining parlance, be called surface bargaining.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 19 May 2003 10:24 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes the IDF protecting its citizens is like a suicide-murderer entering a family resteraunt and blowing everyone to bits.

Let me deconstruct your rhetoric here.

What the IDF does is abstract - "protecting its citizens." The abstraction denies all bloodshed and suffering that occur as a result of this "protection."

What the suicide bombers do is concrete - "entering a family restaurant and blowing everyone to bits."

Were you on the other side, you might say that the IDF collapses houses on their inhabitants, destroys markets, and shoots children, while the suicide bombers martyr themselves. And you would be using exactly the same rhetoric, but in reverse.

I don't expect you to see this. You will deride it as "equivalency." And you will be right. Any Israeli government is going to be in a very tough spot at this point; it's not easy to protect the people. However, if you have any rationality at all, you must face the fact that there is innocent blood spilled - deliberately spilled - by both sides, and admit that in your posts. I don't think you're capable of doing that. And as long as you insist on seeing such a radical split where no such extreme difference exists, I'll have trouble taking your opinions seriously.

I quote Amira Hass:

quote:

A Palestinian is a terrorist when he attacks Israeli civilians on both sides of the Green Line - in Israel and the territories - and when he attacks Israeli soldiers at the gates of a Palestinian city. A Palestinian is a terrorist when an army unit breaks into his neighborhood with tanks and he shoots at a soldier who gets out of a tank for a moment, and he is a terrorist when he is hit by helicopter fire and is holding a rifle. Palestinians are terrorists whether they kill civilians or soldiers.

The Israeli soldier is a fighter when he shoots a missile from a helicopter or a shell from a tank at a group of people who gather in Khan Yunis, after the fighter or one of his colleagues fires a shell or a missile at a house - from which the army says a Qassam rocket was fired - and kills a man and woman. He is a fighter when he encounters two armed Palestinians in the brush. The Israeli soldier kills armed people and kills civilians. He kills senior commanders of battalions of murderous terrorists and he kills kindergarten-aged children and the elderly in their homes. More accurately, they are killed by IDF fire. Most accurately, they are killed, claim Palestinian sources.


You criticize our "equivalency." Well, I criticize you for claiming that the two sides are radically different. They are not. A killing carried out in the name of "protection" is still a killing.

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 20 May 2003 02:01 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
That is right! It all amounts to killing, the labeling of the killers is in many ways irrelevant. Most of us can see through the propaganda by now.

In many ways this convlict reminds my of a typical colonial war. The colonizers slowly pushing the natives in ever more marginal existance by sheer dominating power. The more power is applied the bigger the buildup of resistance.

It might sound somewhat simplistic, but the quickest way outoff this mess is to decolonize and promote equality in every aspect.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 May 2003 10:28 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Suicide bombings will not derail the Road Map as there was no road to map.

It is a farce. Those who carry out the suicide bombings and those who carry out the occupation are one in the same: enemies of peace.

I listened to the news reports in the wake of the bombings saying how the "road map's" future was now uncertain. How the media likes to twist the news. The road map's future was never uncertain. Sharon and the Israeli cabinet made it clear from the beginning it had no life. It was dead. All the talk and pretense is for the cameras.

Hama's, Likud's allies in terror, on rubber stamped what was already decided.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 May 2003 10:51 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bigotry and critisizm of Israel

An interesting and different view by historian James Carroll.


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

posted 20 May 2003 11:05 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Carroll's column starts off well, but then completely jumps the tracks. "Transcedent scorn" for Israeli policies is equated to anti-semitism. Carroll takes off from there. It is not anti-semitism but anti-zionism that it at the heart of the conflict. The conflict can lead to flights of anti-semitism on the part of Arabs, just as it can lead to flights of anti-Arabism on the part of Jews ("all Arabs are pigs" is a comment I have heard, and read, more than once).

As for sophrosyne's suggestion, it may be impractical, but it is not insane. In fact, as I have stated many times, a "modified" one-state solution is the only one that can bring lasting peace. It is certainly more rational than creating a state based on religion in an area of the world totally unrelated to the events which triggered the creation of the state.

[ 20 May 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 May 2003 11:09 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And here is a report I found from Hadassha Hospital in Jerusalem which will give you another side of the Suicide-murder atrocities:

Monday, May 19, 2003
>
>
> After Six Months of Relative Calm, Scenes of Atrocity return to Jerusalem
>
> Hadassah Hospitals Race into High Gear to Treat Victims of Yesterday's Bus
> Bombing in French Hill and Saturday Night attack in Hebron
>
>
> Seven people were killed and twenty wounded when a terrorist blew himself
> up on Bus No. 6 at the French Hill intersection in Jerusalem, in the early
> morning hours on Sunday.
> Ten of the wounded were brought to Hadassah's Hospitals- five in mild
> condition were taken to Mount Scopus and five severely injured, were taken
> to Ein Kerem.
>
> As of this afternoon, only one of the victims remains at Mount Scopus.
> At Ein Kerem, four victims remain hospitalized, including the bus driver
> who suffered injuries to his leg and remains in the ICU after surgery. Two
> also underwent surgery and are in the ICU. A young policeman, wounded in
> his eyes area, remains hospitalized but his condition has improved.
>
> One of those killed in the French Hill bombing was Ghaleb Tawil, a
> Palestinian from the Shuafat refugee camp in north Jerusalem, who was on
> his way to work as a cleaner at Hadassah Ein Kerem. Ghaleb Tawil began to
> work at Hadassah a year ago in order to be close to his 13 year old
> daughter, who became ill with leukemia and was hospitalized at HMO for
> five months. Representatives of Hadassah attended his funeral.
>
> On Saturday evening, Dinah Levi was rushed to Hadassah Ein Kerem's Trauma
> Unit in acute condition, after a suicide bomber detonated himself in
> Hebron and instantly killed her husband, Gadi Levi. Hadassah's surgeons
> did their best, but, unfortunately, Dina died shortly after arrival.
> Dinah's sister, Yehudit Lalum-Har'el is the Head Nurse of the General
> Surgery Clinic at Mount Scopus.
>
> In other news:
>
> The second stage of a trial testing the effectiveness of a vaccine for
> Crohn's Disease will begin shortly.


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

posted 20 May 2003 11:18 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And one more...here is Al aksa Justice.

Al Aksa justice


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

posted 20 May 2003 11:35 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's not unusual in resistance movements Mishei, including the French Resistance. You seem to overlook the fact that there is a war on, except the Palestinians are not allowed the traditional weapons of war.

Somewhere back in 1995 I recall an Israeli prime minister being assasinated, and in 1982 a left-wing demonstrator being killed by a bomb thrown by a right-winger. Must be Likud justice.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 May 2003 12:55 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem is the majority of Palestinians still haven't accepted Israel right to exist you can not say the opposite is also true be cause if Israel didn't accept the Palestinians right it more then has the fire power to eliminate all of them. That's why suicide bombing is not morally and never will be morally equivalent to the IDF operations in the west bank and Gaza. The Palestinians with the same fire power would have long ago blown many cities to bits in Israel. Not just bulldozed a couple building but whole cities wipe off the face of the earth believe.


Don't missunderstand me I do believe peace is possible. I do believe most Palestinians would like to live in peace and don't mind if Israel is beside them. But there is constant state of terror in Palestine that is created by terrorist organizations and elements in the Palestinian leadership that promotes hate and causes them to live this way.

Anyone who thinks a one state solution is possible should read what I wrote before.

[ 20 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 20 May 2003 01:05 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Justice

Read this and you might get an idea what the Palestinians are facing.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030518-114058-5626r.htm


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 May 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
if Israel didn't accept the Palestinians right it more then has the fire power to eliminate all of them.

Justice, the Israeli Tourism minister has recently been speaking very openly -- and was allowed to do this in the U.S., too -- about Jordan as the Palestinian state, and about moving all the refugees there en masse (see article in Sunday's NYTimes, Week in Review). He clearly wishes to reclaim the whole of Palestine -- I think that constitutes not accepting the Palestinians. And as the article points out, he is hardly alone.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sophrosyne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4070

posted 20 May 2003 01:31 PM      Profile for sophrosyne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Justice,
quote:
first of all your solutions does not offer less blood shed because once it becomes a secular and all the refugees return not strings attached then what to stop the Palestinians from committing a genocide against the Jews all they have to do is have a majority vote.

Well, it seems to me that you're basing your argument on your personal belief that, if given the chance, the Arabs will eagerly committ genocide against the Jews. Personally I don't subscribe to that sort of racist-spawned drivel. Nor do I respect it whatsoever.

It seems to me that, most of the time when one encounters hate, it is usually based (1) in ignorance, and (2) in ethnocentricity. It seems that unfortunately too many of us are still culturally programmed to hate and fear that which is different.

I personally do not feel that way.

I feel that the only solution to ending this bloodshed would be to end the division between the peoples of Canaan. You all live there; this is indipsutable; you might want to learn to get along and live together in peace sometime before you wipe each other out.

quote:
Point 2 are you saying that no one has a right to their own identity. Or that personal identity can't include a piece of land or a group of other people. Are you saying we should all be more or less the same???

I never said that nobody has a right to their own identity. ??? I don't know where you get that from.

The fact that you have pride in your ethnicity, or heritage, or religion, does not entitle you to anything material. All you are entitled to, IMHO, is the right to your beliefs, to express them, but not to impose or force them upon others.

FWIW, we are, all of us, more or less the same. We're all human. Everyone's blood is the same colour, we all bleed whether or not we shame the same religion or ethnicity or nationality or political beliefs.

quote:
it would be a shame for any country to lose I believe it would be morally wrong.

What I believe you're trying to convey (sorry if I misinterpret you) is that (?ethnic) identity is inextricably linked to nationality. That is simply completely and utterly false. I could point out many examples of ethnicities living within larger nations (of differing ethnicities) who have kept their culture and separate ethnic identity intact.

josh, it is nice to see somebody thinking along the same lines. I personally believe as long as this division is enforced, the bloodshed will never end.


From: British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 May 2003 03:28 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
the so called occupied territories

So they aren't occupied, or are they part of Eretz Israel?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 20 May 2003 06:03 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think disputed territories fits the bill.
From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 20 May 2003 06:22 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DaddySno:
I think disputed territories fits the bill.

So I guess that would make Iraq one of the new Disputed States of America.
West Bank and Gaza are not disputed, they are occupied. Stop lying to yourself.


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 May 2003 06:31 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cynic:

So I guess that would make Iraq one of the new Disputed States of America.
West Bank and Gaza are not disputed, they are occupied. Stop lying to yourself.


Hmmm can you please tell me who occupied and later annexed the West Bank say from 1948-67? Who occupied Gaza in that same period?

Oh and one more thing what "country" did these lands belong to say from 1845 till 1947?

You my friend are the one that is lying yourself. These ARE disputed territories. They have been for a very long time.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 May 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No al-Qa'bong there not apart of Israel. Israel is not occupying them Israel is defending itself I for one support Israel backing out and putting a fence up it would make things easier don't see why I have to explain the situation over and over again read my other posts.

Bubbles I don't agree with these people and they are hardly representative of the situation. If you were to show me actual proof from that schools in Israel or the IDF were teaching this sort of stuff then you could start to equate. The majority of Israeli's are willing to accept a Palestinians state and have made many moves to do so. You can expect things to be done over night and you can't expect that Israel will automatically agree to all of the Palestinian demands that’s not called negotiating. All Israel asks is that the violence and the hate stop and then they will be willing to accept a Palestinian state along side theirs.

Skdadl the article is hardly representative of the views in Israel and yes they are a couple crazy ministers in the Israeli government but believe me there are no more fanatic and crazy ministers in the Israeli government then they are in the Canadian government.

sophrosyne I just believe that after 3000 years of exile being push around tortured ethnically cleansed from certain areas the Jews need a home land of their own it's the only solution. No less goes for the Palestinians however the Jews have a well documented history of being pushed around and suffering. Finally after many years of suffering they have returned and they are no longer the victims. Every other place that Jews have tried to fit in they were persecuted in Spain, Germany and many Arab countries. These nations didn't care whether the Jews were rich or poor. They didn't even think about how the Jews tried to fit in and contribute to their society. They didn't care if the Jews tried to assimilate all they cared about was the fact they were Jewish. It's not about Israel's right to exist. If the treat were to subside Israel would stop its actions in the territories. Israel back settlements of the Sinai, when it gave the Sinai back to Egypt. Israel gave up oil fields and many resources all it wanted was peace to live in land they felted connected too in peace they never cared about the size. It's not impearlisim or colonialism. So my answer is yes I do believe there is threat that genocidal acts will be attempted its not racist I don't think these terrorist organization or the Palestinian authority is representative of the Palestinian people same as the Nazi's are not representative of Germans.

Another thing I must point out sophrosyne. I'm not religious I'm against any country being ruled by religion. It does cause problems. However I still believe a persons right to identity. Most people even have more then one. Communism, fascism it's all the same no identity no individualism everything is for the state. Anarchy isn't freedom either because if we had anarchy we'd all be living in fear.

Bottom line I guess what I'm saying is a person has many Identities they can be mixed up and he is entitled to geographical area that he/she identifies with. Although in many cases compromises are needed. Every body likes home with four walls the can feel comfortable in the same goes with countries.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 20 May 2003 06:55 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:

Hmmm can you please tell me who occupied and later annexed the West Bank say from 1948-67? Who occupied Gaza in that same period?

Oh and one more thing what "country" did these lands belong to say from 1845 till 1947?

You my friend are the one that is lying yourself. These ARE disputed territories. They have been for a very long time.


Okay - I'll type slow. What occupying army is in the West Bank and Gaza? Answer - the IDF. Even the Israelis know they are occupying these areas. If they thought these lands were theirs fair and square, why are they not part of Israel proper? The only people who can't admit it are the fools that support the illegal settlers. I really can't understand the logic of those who think its ok for a few hundred Brooklynites to hold the entire city of Hebron hostage with the support of the Israeli government, against the wishes of the vast majority of Israeli citizens.


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 May 2003 08:44 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:

Hmmm can you please tell me who occupied and later annexed the West Bank say from 1948-67? Who occupied Gaza in that same period?

Oh and one more thing what "country" did these lands belong to say from 1845 till 1947?

You my friend are the one that is lying yourself. These ARE disputed territories. They have been for a very long time.


Keep pulling the wool over your own eyes.

You know very well that the Ottomans controlled the region until the Versailles treaties, after which Britain and France artificially carved up the area to suit their own political ends. For instance, Lebanon and Palestine were artificailly cut from Syria while Kuwait was taken from Mesopotamia (Iraq) to suit the colonialists' political and economic agendas.

"Disputed" you say? What, then is the present nature of the dispute?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 May 2003 09:04 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So are you saying that the land is really Ottomon? Perhaps it should be returned to the Turks then.

No, clearly these lands are a major dispute.


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

posted 20 May 2003 09:45 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find it interesting that when Mishei encounters an argument he doesn't like (that killing is, in the final analysis, killing, whether it occurs for revenge or "protection" or terror), he draws the "you're an anti-Semite" card rather than deal with the argument head-on.

Typical cop-out.

quote:
No, clearly these lands are a major dispute.

Once again, an abstraction to conceal the actual nature of what is going on. One would think Israeli and Palestinian forces were evenly matched, perhaps sitting at an oak table to argue it out.

[ 20 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 May 2003 09:51 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
I find it interesting that when Mishei encounters an argument he doesn't like (that killing is, in the final analysis, killing, whether it occurs for revenge or "protection" or terror), he draws the "you're an anti-Semite" card rather than deal with the argument head-on.

Typical cop-out.

Once again, an abstraction to conceal the actual nature of what is going on. One would think Israeli and Palestinian forces were evenly matched, perhaps sitting at an oak table to argue it out.

[ 20 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


1. Smith, please remind me when I "drew the anti-semitic card" and it was untrue.

2. We are discussing "disputed" territory, My comments were in that vein.


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

posted 20 May 2003 10:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, so now the lands are disputed.
The Big Lie raises it head. Can anyone say Sudentland?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 May 2003 10:16 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Ah, so now the lands are disputed.
The Big Lie raises it head. Can anyone say Sudentland?


Oh please these lands have been disputed for eons

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

posted 20 May 2003 10:48 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, yes you are right. Mea culpa. So you would agree Israel proper, as defined by the pre-1967 borders, is also in dispute and could be rolled back?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 20 May 2003 11:07 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Smith, please remind me when I "drew the anti-semitic card" and it was untrue.

I don't think anyone but you needs to have that explained, and I'm not going to get into it with you, because although there have certainly been genuinely anti-Semitic posts on this board, I have yet to see such a post made without being contested repeatedly - by multiple posters, not just by you.

I expect your next move will be to insist that you simply wanted to offer us a "fresh perspective" on the situation by linking to yet another article claiming that the bulk of criticism of Israeli policy is anti-Semitic. I expect you will receive many private messages thanking you for this humanitarian effort of yours, but few if any public ones.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 May 2003 11:24 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It doesn't seem as anybody really cares about the whole problem all I hear is Occupation, Occupation, Occupation and the brutal occupation. Do people really expect to be taken seriously after hearing it being regurgitated so many times? You expect people to believe that, that word is not cynical.

Hopefully the Israelis will withdraw soon. Hopefully to the 67 border but mark my words the Palestinian problem won't end with that withdrawal. Even if it were to become a by national state the situation for the Palestinians wouldn't improve. Further more the Israeli's conditions would worsen. This is proof that the occupation is just a distraction from the bigger problem.

How come Israel can absorb refugees that are forced out of their lands? And countries like Lebanon and Jordan can't? They are forced to live in refugee camps not by the Israelis but by other Arab governments. Of heard some pretty crazy excuses I won't even get into that. I've heard that Israel's existence is the obstacle that is stopping the process of democratization of rest of the Middle East. Excuse me for my ignorance I can't understand how Israel is to blame for these troubles. It's Israel who told the Jordanians to massacre Palestinians it's Israel that helped Assad to wipe out whole villages and it's Israel that is stopping the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon from having equal rights. Can't people see it's an excuse a distraction? It's always easier to blame someone else for your troubles rather then solve them.

If we can all agree that all human beings have rights then why can't we compromise why can't we deal with those who are really denying these peoples rights?

The world complains about Israel destroying homes tearing up streets but how come the PA isn't doing anything to repair these streets where are the million and billions of dollars that were given to them from all over the world including the Israeli government. How come they used it by more weapons to fund schools that teach hate to buy the PA officials Mercedes and Palaces.? How come it's not used to build infrastructure what does Israel have to do with how the PA decides to spend its money and neglect its people and leave them in refugee camps?

There no other conclusion but to believe that the radical Islam is still in control and will not accept Israel or any Jews or other infidels right to exist. The Arabs starting with the Palestinians must stop focusing there hate on Israel and start being constructive dealing with their own issues once they begin to love themselves more then they hate others then there can be peace.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 21 May 2003 12:32 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Justice, I had just before come across this article by Linda Heard about occupation and what it means. She can express it so much better then I. So I will let her speak.


http://www.counterpunch.org/heard05202003.html


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

posted 21 May 2003 12:38 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So are you saying that the land is really Ottomon? Perhaps it should be returned to the Turks then.

Keep slithering, Mish.

No, I meant it was English.

How about....I dunno, letting the people who have lived there for centuries run the place? Remember Wilsonian self-determination? It was good enough for the Europeans who were freed from the dominant empires after the Great War. Why not let Arabs have the same rights?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 21 May 2003 02:12 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bubbles I know how much they are suffering more then you can imagine but you were not listening to a word I said.

The article is sensualization it's like reading a Hollywood script. Further more you can not compare or even link Israel to Iraq once again trying to throw around play the blame game.
WMD's were never a pretext for the war with Iraq in my book, nor Oil but did you read about the mass graves that are being uncovered now. Had the Americans not done anything about it they would continue to grow. Sure the Americans are partly at fault for the fact that these mass graves exist but better late then never. And if the Americans just pulled out now there would be chaos and murder in Iraq just like in the Congo so do you have any better suggestions for fixing the problem now.

Back to Israel so the Jews have to be to continue to be the scapegoat of the world of thousands of years they finally have a home land that they feel comfortable that they identify with. Who are you to say they don't deserve it? It doesn't belong to them they should find some place else to live. It was never the intent of the Jews to cause suffering to the Palestinians or any other Arab. Read my other posts. Look how they are managing themselves. Or we get blamed for trying to help and brainwash them or we get blamed for leaving them to kill themselves. If there was another planet like earth I'd give us if there was another place besides Israel sure I'd give that up too. There are many people willing to compromise but nothing seems to be enough. I don't believe there ever will be enough not until people start taking care of there own problems instead of taking it out on other people. Occupation isn't everything. Occupation is a symptom of terrorism. Terrorism is a symptom of radicalism. Radicalism causes injustice and poverty and suffering. Capitalism is partly to blame because it choose to exploit and doesn't care about the long term affects of it's actions which strengthen radicalism. Radicalism won't die with the end of exploitation maybe it would be contained but still million would suffer from injustice Women being, children being used as slaves or tortured whole ethnic groups being oppressed or wiped. The Sunnis kill the Shiites, The Shiites kill the Sunnis. PLO fights the Jordanians the Jordanians fight the PLO. Every one fights with Israel. The Irony is it's the same all over the world. The Tutsi kill the Hutu or the other way around and we all sit back and watch and say they will be able to fix themselves all we need to do is give the money or supplies. If you were a capitalist you'd say not our problem. Well both methods are wrong problems generally don't fix themselves and sometimes lines need to be drawn. Force is needed to lay down the law. I'm not for killing people if a terrorist could be caught and prevented from causing harm to people great many of them have been caught.

One last thing you can't blame suffering and poverty and radicalism. The Ayatollah ain't Osama and Saddam were filthy rich. Even Arafat exploits his own people. It's can't always blame the west for exploitation there are also many times you can blame the west for letting it happen.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 21 May 2003 02:16 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As far as the refugees go here is something I got in an e-mail from an acquaintance of mine I think you should all read carefully.

"Especially since the collapse of the Camp David summit in July 2000, the Palestinian leadership and its supporters abroad have emphasized that the Palestinian refugees have an absolute “right of return” to their original homes in pre-state Israel. They routinely accuse Israel of having created the refugee problem (1947-48) and insist that Israel alone bear moral responsibility for solving it.

By claiming this “right of return”, the Palestinians have broached the reddest of red lines even for those Israelis most prepared for generous compromise. This insistence is viewed by Israelis as amounting to a denial of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state B hence as an existential threat to the state.

The following analysis is meant to shatter a number of myths that have been built up over decades surrounding the “right of return,” and to explain why no Israeli government can be expected to accept it as reasonable.

Moral and Legal Responsibility
Any objective analysis must conclude that Israel does not bear moral and legal responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem. The refugee problem was an unintended consequence of the 1947-49 hostilities in Palestine, hostilities resulting directly from the Arab rejection of the November 1947 UN partition plan and the invasion of Israel by five Arab armies on May 14-15, 1948. Even Benny Morris, a leading authority on the early phases of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a prominent “new historian,” acknowledges that the plight of the Palestinian refugees was born of war and not of Israel’s design. To be sure, recently opened Israeli archival material does indicate that in some isolated instances (as in Ramle and Lod), local Jewish military commanders, in the midst of hostilities, did evict Palestinians from their homes. However, in many other cases, as in Haifa, Israeli officials tried mightily to persuade the local Arab community to remain. The charge of a systematic Zionis! t strategy of expelling all Arabs from Mandatory Palestine B as an act of “ethnic cleansing” B is politically driven and baseless.

In one of his first speeches to the Knesset as Prime Minister, Ehud Barak expressed regret for the suffering the conflict has caused the Palestinian people, but emphasized that this regret was “not under any circumstance based on a feeling of guilt or responsibility for the emergence of the conflict and its results .... We are not to blame but suffering was caused to the Palestinians and the truth must be spoken.”

The essential point remains that Israel cannot, and should not be expected to, accept moral and legal responsibility for events, such as the refugee problem, that it did not cause.

Mark Heller of Tel Aviv University’s Jaffe Centre for Strategic Studies wrote in the Globe and Mail (July 14, 2000) that:

“The [Palestinian] refugee problem was created in 1947-48 when the Palestinians and their Arab allies rejected United Nations Resolution 181 and tried to prevent by force implementation of the partition plan that called for the creation of a Jewish state alongside an Arab state in Palestine ... The major reason for the displacement of people was the [May 1948] war itself which the Arabs imposed on Israel in an attempt to abort its birth.”

Nicole Brackman of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of a forthcoming book on the Palestinian refugees noted the following in the National Post (December 27, 2000):

“... while Israeli leaders have responded with expressions of sympathy for the suffering of the [Palestinian] refugees, they correctly insist that an admission of guilt would be historically untenable and would absolve the Arab states of their own moral and historic responsibility. In November 1947, the Palestinian leadership and the Arab leadership rejected [UNGA] Resolution 181 .... Subsequently, five Arab armies invaded newborn Israel initiating a war that led to the exodus of some 600,000-700,000 Palestinian Arabs.”

These historical facts about the Palestinian refugee issue are beginning to resonate within the media themselves. Take, for instance, the Globe and Mail editorial, “What of the refugees?” (January 6, 2001):

“[Arab] hypocrisy is staggering. One reason Palestinian refugees are there in the first place is that Arab countries attacked the nascent country of Israel in 1947 and 1948, rejecting a United Nations plan to peacefully divide the Holy Land into Jewish and Palestinian states. As the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, said of the attack at the time, >this will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre’ .... The Arab countries have been happy to use the Palestinians for propaganda purposes all these years, holding them up as examples of Israeli malice and making sure they lived in appropriate misery....”

While denying moral and legal responsibility for the refugee problem, Israel has always understood that for practical and humanitarian reasons it is important to help find a solution to the plight of the Palestinian refugees. Indeed, in 1949 Israel agreed voluntarily to allow for the return of 100,000 refugees to their homes but withdrew the offer when the Arabs rejected it. Nevertheless, Israel, over the years, has allowed the return of approximately 70,000 refugees on humanitarian grounds and under its “family reunification” policy; but these have always been in response to individual requests only and when the applicants have been deemed not to constitute a threat to national security.

Unfortunately, Israeli efforts to apply broader practical solutions to the refugee problem have rarely been responded to in a positive fashion. The Arabs have traditionally insisted on maintaining the refugee camps as a political weapon against Israel, backed by strong international sympathy. Even when, in the early 1970s, Israel attempted to resettle refugees from the camps into permanent housing in nearby Arab towns, such efforts were thwarted by Arab opposition at the United Nations lest the “refugee” status of the camp residents be altered.

UNGA Resolution 194 and the “Right of Return”
The Palestinians’ demand that Israel accord the refugees a “right of return” has no foundation. This demand ignores three critical factors:

! The so-called “right of return” is not a right recognized in international law, as the respected Israeli statesman Abba Ebba has noted.

! As a sovereign state, Israel has sole authority for determining its own immigration policy; the repatriation of Palestinian refugees to Israel is a matter subject to permission, not a matter of right.

! A mass return of Palestinian refugees to Israel would threaten the Jewish majority in its own country. The number of Palestinian refugees has been tremendously inflated over the years to include not only the original refugees from the 1947-48 period (600-750,000) but also their descendants down through the generations (as stipulated in the definition of “refugee” provided by the United National Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA]). Consequently, the number of “Palestinian refugees” today is approximately 3.5-5 million, which rivals the Jewish population of Israel and thereby threatens Israel’s Zionist nature.

The Palestinians base their claim of a “right of return” on their interpretation of Article 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of December 11, 1948. The resolution declares, inter alia, that,

“... the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss or damage to property which, under principles of international law or inequity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible.”

Israel disputes that Resolution 194 gives sanction to a Palestinian “right of return.”

The language of “rights” does not appear in the resolution. Since 1980 the term “right of return” has found its way into a limited number of General Assembly resolutions. (It is important to note that Canada has consistently voted against these resolutions.)

In Resolution 194, the repatriation of refugees is premised on their readiness to “live at peace with their neighbours,” a concept that was rejected at the time of the resolution’s adoption by Arab members of the UN because they were still engaged in pursuing a war to destroy Israel. The concept of peaceful coexistence was officially rejected by the Palestinian leadership until Oslo, and with the outbreak of widespread Palestinian violence and terrorism in September 2000 it appears to have been rejected again.

The resolution imposed a solution to the refugee problem rather than treating it as an issue to be negotiated between the parties themselves.

As adopted by the General Assembly, Resolution 194 was only a recommendation and did not have binding authority. The only Security Council resolution (which does have the binding authority missing from GA resolutions) to deal explicitly with the refugee issue is UNSC 242 (November 1967), but even here, the resolution speaks only of the need to achieve “a just settlement of the refugee problem” and does not refer specifically to the Palestinian refugees.

Finally, Israel challenged the legitimacy of UNGA Resolution 194 because it sought to deal exclusively with the plight of the estimated 600,000-700,00 Arab refugees from the 1948-49 war for historic Palestine, while ignoring the roughly equivalent number of Jews forced to emigrate from Arab and Moslem countries in the late 1940s and early 1950s, leaving behind their personal property and their ancient communal institutions.

However, while disputing elements of Resolution 194, Israel has always voluntarily complied with the resolution’s humanitarian dimensions.

Jewish refugees
One cannot speak of the Middle East refugee problem without acknowledging the suffering encountered by the nearly 700,000 Jews who were forced out of Arab and Moslem lands around the time of Israel’s establishment. Rather than leaving them to linger in squalid refugee camps as a reminder to the world of Jewish victimhood, Israel immediately offered these refugees the protection of the state and absorbed the vast majority of them in a few short years. As Nicole Brackman has observed:

“The Arab states’ treatment of the Palestinian refugees ... was in stark contrast to Israel’s absorption of more than 600,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries after the state’s birth. Those communities, many over 2000 years old, were subjected to virulent anti-Semitism, pogroms and expulsion. Their wealth was confiscated by the Arab governments. Israel, newly independent and virtually cut off from international aid, took in these Jews, made them citizens and gave them opportunities. Israel attempted, and in most cases succeeded, to integrate them into a young and struggling society despite the vast economic, social, political and religious difficulties inherent in such an overwhelming task.”

Brackman continues: “Israel has long asserted that Palestinian refugee claims be juxtaposed with those of the Jewish refugees, and that any compensation owed by Israel should be offset by the massive expenditures shouldered by the Jewish state in absorbing the refugees from Arab lands. The Palestinians categorically reject this position.”

The World Jewish Congress in late December 2000 placed a figure of approximately $6 billion (US) owed to Jews who were forced to flee Iraq and Egypt alone. If the assets left behind in all the other Arab and Moslem countries from which Jews were forced were added to this figure, it would certainly be far higher. Indeed, former MK and government minister Moshe Shahal, who currently chairs an organization of Jews from Arab countries, claims that between 1922 and 1952 Jews who emigrated from Arab countries left behind an estimated $30 billion in assets. Since the vast majority of these Jews were forced to leave the Arab/Moslem Middle East after Israel’s creation in 1948, the vast portion of this $30 billion figure can be attributed to that period. Shahal and others correctly note that any compensation that might eventually be paid to Palestinian refugees for property lost in present-day Israel must be balanced by compensation paid to Jews from Arab and Moslem lands.

Refugees and the Peace Process
In the September 1993 Declaration of Principles (Article 5) Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agreed that the refugee problem would be among the issues deferred until the permanent status talks. In May 1994, a continuing committee comprising Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Jordan was established to consider ways of dealing with West Bank and Gaza Palestinians displaced by the June 1967 war. At the Moscow peace conference (January 1992) a multilateral working group (gaveled by Canada) was mandated to develop and implement practical solutions for improving the lives of the refugees pending the completion of bilateral negotiations over their final status. This working group continued to meet and to implement practical measures for alleviating the suffering of the most destitute among the refugees, even as the bilateral track of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations became derailed.

The Palestinian demand for a “right of return” to pre-1948 Israel is an unrealistic expectation. However, even Palestinians who acknowledge that Israel will never accede to this “right” in practice still demand that Israel accept the right of return in principle. This, too, from Israel’s perspective, is a non-starter. Indeed, even liberal Israelis and strong proponents of Israeli concessions at the negotiating table, such as Labour’s Yossi Beilin and Meretz Party leader Yossi Sarid, openly acknowledge that the right of return is “the reddest of Israeli red lines”.

According to informed sources, it was Arafat’s insistence on the “right of return”, along with his stance on Jerusalem, that scuttled the Camp David talks (July 2000). While prepared to stretch the limits of the prevailing Israeli popular consensus concerning concessions to the Palestinians, Ehud Barak simply could not accede to a Palestinian demand that would have Israel a) accept moral responsibility for a refugee problem that it did not cause, and b) accept a plan that would effectively bring about Israel’s demise as a Jewish state.

The “bridging proposals” suggested by President Bill Clinton in late December 2000 dealt extensively with the refugee issue. It suggested that the majority of refugees would have to be permanently resettled in their countries of current residence or in third countries. (There is some speculation that Canada has expressed a readiness to accept some refugees within the context of a permanent Israeli-Palestinian agreement).

According to Clinton’s formula, some refugees would be able to relocate to the future West Bank-Gaza Palestinian state, conditional on the state’s absorptive capacity. A very limited number would be permitted to enter Israel on an individual, humanitarian basis under the principle of family reunification, but only after passing security clearance. An international fund would be established at the instigation of the United States, and with Israeli participation, to help fund the resettlement programme.

However, Clinton was very explicit in emphasizing that there would be no Palestinian “right of return” to Israel. As he declared on January 7, 2001: “We cannot expect Israel to make a decision that would threaten the very foundations of the state of Israel, and would undermine the whole logic of peace. And it shouldn’t be done.” Indeed, the essence of the Clinton formula rested on the idea that, in return for Israel’s making enormous concessions regarding Jerusalem (see separate section) the Palestinians would drop their demand for a “right of return.”

This compromise, however, was unacceptable for the Palestinian leadership and their supporters in the Arab world. On January 4, 2001, Arab foreign ministers, meeting in Cairo, defined as “sacred” the “right” of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. Emboldened by such pan-Arab support, Arafat continues to insist on Israel’s acceptance of an absolute right of return of Palestinian refugees as a precondition for ending the current violence and for resuming the diplomatic process.

The uncompromising public position articulated by the current Palestinian leadership vis-à-vis the refugee issue in general and the “right of return” in particular, remains the significant obstacle to the achievement of meaningful progress toward a substantive Israeli-Palestinian agreement. The Palestinians cannot publicly declare their support for a >two-state’ solution while simultaneously by insisting on a “right of return” to Israel indicating that what they are really aiming for is one binational state with a Palestinian majority B which means Israel’s disappearance."


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 21 May 2003 08:56 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:

I don't think anyone but you needs to have that explained, and I'm not going to get into it with you, because although there have certainly been genuinely anti-Semitic posts on this board, I have yet to see such a post made without being contested repeatedly - by multiple posters, not just by you.

I expect your next move will be to insist that you simply wanted to offer us a "fresh perspective" on the situation by linking to yet another article claiming that the bulk of criticism of Israeli policy is anti-Semitic. I expect you will receive many private messages thanking you for this humanitarian effort of yours, but few if any public ones.


I see, so while you dont't like me critisizing anti-semitic postings its OK if everyone else does. Fine Smith I understand. Meanwhile I do note that you refused my request to demonmstrate even one time where I wrongly suggested a post was antisemitic. That of course speaks for itself.

As for my links, you don't have to like them or God forbid agree with them, but, yes on a discussion board one should provide various points of view. Seems to me that is what a discussion board is all about n'est pas?


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

posted 21 May 2003 09:15 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
WMD's were never a pretext for the war with Iraq in my book,

Really? Funny, that. Considering WMD's were the only issue raised by Blair and Bush as presenting a clear and present danger and a reason for war. Mass graves were never presented as a reason.

Also, will we find out how many of those mass graves were as a result of the western supported 10 year war with Iran? The results of the 1,5 million deaths directly due to illegally enforced sanctions? The thousands of deaths caused by the 400 per cent increase in cancer as a result of DU weapons of mass destruction? As a result of people being led to rise up against Iraq's tanks and then being abandoned when they did? Or does your book Justice, omit all relevant truths not quite fitting with imagined story?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 May 2003 09:20 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Meanwhile I do note that you refused my request to demonmstrate even one time where I wrongly suggested a post was antisemitic

That is a tall order. How many posts have you accused of being antisemitic? Do you know?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 May 2003 10:46 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just read over last night's discussion, and, my goodness, it is an eye-opener.

Suddenly, people who I thought were behind the two-state solution are retreating from that position. After all, one cannot logically insist on downgrading one of the states in question to mere "disputed" territory without calling into doubt one's commitment to the independence of that state.

And once again, the nasty spectre of ethnic cleansing raises its head. Why can't the other Arab states take in the Palestinian refugees? They're all Arabs, you know; what difference does it make where we put them ... etc etc etc. Shame.


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

posted 21 May 2003 11:00 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe the reason, skdadl (and I am guessing as I am still with you on this one) is that the two state solution seems impossible and when one option becomes impossible, then the only remaiming option becomes the only possible one.

And I can certainly sympathise with those who believe the two state solution is folly. Settlemnet activity has not decreased but increased. The Israelis, under Likud and most likely labor, will never abandon the settlements. They demand control over the resources. The only Palestinian nation Israel will allow will either resemble a Bantu or a reservation. And the citizens will have the same rights.

That leaves what options?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 21 May 2003 11:25 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"once again, the nasty spectre of ethnic cleansing raises its head".

Skdadl that is hardly a good argument they don't have to be Arab to have equal rights. Israel has taken in many Russian and Ethiopian refugees many which the Rabbi's love to question whether they are Jewish or not. But the Israeli government especially in the case of the Ethiopians went ahead even if there was only spec of evidence that there was a connection to save the Ethiopians from a humanitarian crisis. Not all the refugees that come to Canada are Canadian in the beginning? It's not just about whether there is a relation or not. It's more about treating people like human begins shame Israel doesn't but it's O.K. for us.


WingNut you know perfectly well that the mass graves I'm talking about was out right murder that solely lays on the hands of Saddam Hussein. In the Iraq Iran war the Americans are to blame for not having enough foresight to see what was coming but it isn't like the forced Saddam to do what he did. With out the sanctions there for sure would have been a much bigger problem and anyways do you think the situation of the innocent Iraqi civilians would improve? Not much I guarantee it. I've said once and I'll say it again. War kills, Sanctions kill but dictators kill the most.

Settlements are only part of the problem and are being used as an excuse if the PA really wanted peace it would take care of these demands. Israel even under the Sharon government took apart a couple settlements. Sure it's hardly enough. But even more so the IDF has tried to back out many times each they do Israel gets attacked again and again and again.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 21 May 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Skdadl that is hardly a good argument they don't have to be Arab to have equal rights. Israel has taken in many Russian and Ethiopian refugees many which the Rabbi's love to question whether they are Jewish or not. But the Israeli government especially in the case of the Ethiopians went ahead even if there was only spec of evidence that there was a connection to save the Ethiopians from a humanitarian crisis. Not all the refugees that come to Canada are Canadian in the beginning? It's not just about whether there is a relation or not. It's more about treating people like human begins shame Israel doesn't but it's O.K. for us.
Skdadl's argument is perfectly fair. The Arab countries are berated for not taking in Palestinian refugees because they are Arabs. How many times have I heard that "the Arabs have a gazillion times more land than the Jews, why can't they take in the refugees"? What does it matter how much land "the Arabs" have? Why, then, can't the Palestinians settle right back into their homes pre-1948? Two words: "ethnic cleansing."

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 May 2003 11:41 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Precisely, Mandos.

Presumably immigrants to Canada or to Israel wished to come here, go there (although I believe lagatta has some interesting things to say about many Eastern European Jews diverted from immigrating to North America).

But Justice, you are arguing that it does not matter where some people are PUT! Bad enough in itself-- ! -- but beyond that, your notion of where they should go is based entirely on their ethnicity.


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

posted 21 May 2003 11:47 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me just say that while I believe the one-state solution is the optimum one, I recognize that it is not a realistic solution. Therefore, I would certainly support a viable two-state solution.

And my view on this is not limited to Israel-Palestine. I also believe the India-Pakistan (where a religious state also was carved out of an existing state) partition was a mistake. I simply do not like states formed based on religion. It's the democratic secularist in me.

As I have pointed out before, if a Jewish state had to be created after the Holocaust, it should have been established on territory taken from Germany.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 May 2003 11:57 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
War kills, Sanctions kill but dictators kill the most.



This is patent nonsense. The war with Iran, supported and funded by the US including our friend Rumsfeld, cost millions of lives on both sides. The uprising encouraged and abandoned by the US cost tens of thousands of lives. The sanctions cost 1.5 million lives in ten years. Nobody gave a fuck as to how many Iraqis were dying year-over-year until it became good propaganda. And only then. Good old Rumsfeld was in Iraq as Kurds were gassed. It was okay then. Not a single CNN reporter was dispatched to the region and not one neo-con shed a tear. Rather, they increased assistance and trade. Don't tell me this war was about human rights as the pretext of WMD's is exposed as the lie it always was.

Amnesty International said Iraq's secret police were killing hundreds every year. Not even close to matching those killed in war and by sanctions.

You can read Amnesty's reports here: http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iraq/


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 21 May 2003 12:03 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The sanctions cost 1.5 million lives in ten years.

All because of Saddam.


From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 21 May 2003 12:03 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am sympathetic to the reasons why some Jews would have longed for Israel and founded it when the opportunity arose. If it could have happened some other way, I would support it. But the way that it happened is not a way that I can support, and its effects in the longer term are evident.

I am sympathetic to Israel because I am also sympathetic to Pakistan, actually, for other reasons. It's hard to be a despised minority. But Pakistan did not require as a necessary condition the events that Israel required to reach its present form. In the future, we can only hope that internationalism will prevail and there will be no more need for borders.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 21 May 2003 12:07 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
DaddySno: Specious. He didn't ask for them. Those who imposed them are likewise responsible for the consequences. Chances are they had a good idea of what the sanctions meant...
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 21 May 2003 12:13 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Jews no more about being refugees and ethnic cleansing then you can imagine. Just read what I wrote here: Edward Said on Arab Weakness

Yes the Jews choose to go to Israel after 3000 years of suffering in every other place. They tried to fit in and at times there was nothing to complain about but always in the end you're a slimy manipulative Jew you exploit everyone and everything. Marxist was a Jew which many socialist and communist Ideals are based but that doesn't. The Jews worked hard and became successful and contributed to every other place the lived in but it never mattered in the end they were Jewish they were only successful because they abused other people right??? The same goes with Israel they didn't develop it so what if they turned deserts green they stole it all of it from the natives. That was there for how long??? When were the Jewish ancestors kicked out???

Another reason that it's not ethnic cleansing is because in vast majority of cases the Jews didn't push the Palestinians out just read what I posted. It's not about ethnic cleansing it's about security and Identity. The Jews aren't denying from the Palestinians to have there own Identity. They are not to blame for the for the fact that all the other Arab countries are not democratic do you think that if Israel were under Arab rule that a Christian or Jew from anywhere in the world would be able to visit the temple mount at will? You can't compare the offers Israel gave to Bantustans even Baraks offer it never had to be the end of negotiations. Still it can't be expected that they will get all there demands unconditionally.

Sadly mandos we will always needed borders sure as we need houses and families.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 21 May 2003 12:15 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So Mandos, after the Gulf War, what would have you done to contain Saddam ?
From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 May 2003 12:17 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This has been stated over and over again. The sanctions were not the problem. The problem was the illegal manner in which the sanctions were enforced. Now troll someplace else.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 21 May 2003 12:19 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sadly mandos we will always needed borders sure as we need houses and families.

Too bad you don't feel the same way about Palestinian families.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 May 2003 12:20 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is such nonsense, Justice.

No one argues that the Jews have not been a persecuted people along the road of history. But surely they if any people know the horror and humiliation of being victimized which then begs the question: if it is so horrible why do it to another?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 21 May 2003 12:23 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Jews no more about being refugees and ethnic cleansing then you can imagine.
Unfortunately, more often than not that knowledge is used to legitimize repeating some of these sins.
quote:

Yes the Jews choose to go to Israel after 3000 years of suffering in every other place. They tried to fit in and at times there was nothing to complain about but always in the end you're a slimy manipulative Jew you exploit everyone and everything. Marxist was a Jew which many socialist and communist Ideals are based but that doesn't. The Jews worked hard and became successful and contributed to every other place the lived in but it never mattered in the end they were Jewish they were only successful because they abused other people right??? The same goes with Israel they didn't develop it so what if they turned deserts green they stole it all of it from the natives. That was there for how long??? When were the Jewish ancestors kicked out???


A long time ago. 2000 years. By the Romans. Not by anyone who lived there at the time of Israel's creation. The Palestinians and their ancestors had been living there for generations now, and to me this is more important.
quote:
Another reason that it's not ethnic cleansing is because in vast majority of cases the Jews didn't push the Palestinians out just read what I posted.
This is a matter of historical record. I happen to believe that the nascent Israeli state did mount campaigns to expel Palestinians or frighten them off and not allow them to return. But it doesn't really matter. Those are their homes, why should they not want to go back? What do they owe Israel?
quote:
It's not about ethnic cleansing it's about security and Identity. The Jews aren't denying from the Palestinians to have there own Identity.
But they are denying them their land and telling them to go to Arab countries, because they are Arabs. Saying it's about "identity" is a terribly dangerous thing to do. Identity is used to legitimize so many awful things when used in that context.
quote:
They are not to blame for the for the fact that all the other Arab countries are not democratic do you think that if Israel were under Arab rule that a Christian or Jew from anywhere in the world would be able to visit the temple mount at will?
I guess we'll never know. The situation in the Arab world is connected to how Arabs feel that they have been treated by the rest of the world.
quote:
You can't compare the offers Israel gave to Bantustans even Baraks offer it never had to be the end of negotiations. Still it can't be expected that they will get all there demands unconditionally.
Some of those demands are for their rights. You want them to trade away their rights. Barak wanted them to sell cheap, and proclaimed it as a Great Concession. When something so cheap is sold as a Great Concession, it seems that there is a lack of good faith.

You will not agree with me, but I think that the Arab world would tolerate Israel better if it were to suffer a substantial humiliation as a state. But it never has. When we are all equally humiliated, then maybe we may not need impregnable borders.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 21 May 2003 12:38 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now troll someplace else.

Piss off officer wingnut.


From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 21 May 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Humiliated, humiliated you got to be joking. What by a military defeat by a failure to contribute something meaningful scientifically. When Israel was attacked in 1948 they struggled to survive. In 1967 and 73 they didn't go out to conquer or occupy they intended to return these land immediately to those who had control before the wars. They didn't want they knew they could make Israel suffer in other ways. Humiliated in the context of Israel they humiliated themselves and completely underestimated the self determination and faith of some people. That is the reason why the Palestinians are not succeeding in their fight against Israel. They are fighting against Israel because they feel humiliated not because they are struggling to survive. It's not all Israel's fault it's partially the PA's fault and mostly the other Middle Eastern countries that was the Palestinians as pawns to destroy Israel.

Read what I had posted about the refugees and you will see really how Israel is trying to expel the Palestinians the Jews aren't denying them land things simply don't happen automatically or unconditionally sure Israel has interest to protect but they're not imperialist or economic as I've shown and can bring many more examples to back it up.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 21 May 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zionism's choice: Two-state solution now, or suffer the Afrikaners' fate later:

http://tinyurl.com/cb54


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 21 May 2003 12:50 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Humiliated, humiliated you got to be joking. What by a military defeat by a failure to contribute something meaningful scientifically.
If you read carefully you will see that I had already connected these matters.
quote:
When Israel was attacked in 1948 they struggled to survive.
I believe the Close Shave Theory of 1948 is vastly overrated.
quote:
In 1967 and 73 they didn't go out to conquer or occupy they intended to return these land immediately to those who had control before the wars.
Really now. Then why has there been a settlement enterprise all this time? Strategically it became convenient to hand off Sinai to Egypt...but that only proves my point re humiliation.
quote:
They didn't want they knew they could make Israel suffer in other ways. Humiliated in the context of Israel they humiliated themselves and completely underestimated the self determination and faith of some people.
Does ... not ... parse ... system ... ooovvverrloooad ...
quote:
That is the reason why the Palestinians are not succeeding in their fight against Israel. They are fighting against Israel because they feel humiliated not because they are struggling to survive.
At the moment, the two are intimately connected.
quote:
It's not all Israel's fault it's partially the PA's fault and mostly the other Middle Eastern countries that was the Palestinians as pawns to destroy Israel.
Fundamentally, the conditions were set by the ideologies that spawned the events of 1948, by who has influence over history and who doesn't, and so on and so forth.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 21 May 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I see, so while you dont't like me critisizing anti-semitic postings its OK if everyone else does.

How old are you, 12?


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 May 2003 12:57 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well would you look at that. 104 posts. Darn, I hate to do it, folks, but you know how it goes...
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca