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 murder/suicide bombings II

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: More murder/suicide bombings II
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 21 May 2003 12:59 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Continued from this thread:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=28&t=000385


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 21 May 2003 01:10 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Mandos for making an extension anyways here goes

I'm sorry then I didn't understand what you meant please explain about the humiliation.

A strategic hand off??? So they went about a wired way to make peace is that what your seeing. If so we shouldn't look at what happened we should look at the outcome. However I still disagree I still believe Egypt posed a real threat at the time the same goes with Syria and the Golan heights. I'd be completely for returning the Golan heights for peace too. Israel get nothing of value and yet it gets the most valuable thing by returning those areas it get peace and security but all it's neighbors are running on is humiliation, greed and hate.

The Palestinian struggle to survive is not intertwined if they wanted peace and with reasonable standard of living it could have happened already "but noooo first Israel has to be taught a lesson. We'll make them feel shame. We'll make them regret they ever existed."

They could just as easily stop fighting for land and start building up and trying to cooperate with the rest of the world same as the Israelis.


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

posted 21 May 2003 01:23 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith I am old enough to know that anyone who asks as part of a debate:

quote:
How old are you, 12?
can only be a child herself?

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

posted 21 May 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You read the Said article. The lack of Arab power over the fate of the region and the lack of Arab development on scientific and other fronts are intimately connected through interlocking external factors, of which Israel is a part.
quote:
A strategic hand off??? So they went about a wired way to make peace is that what your seeing. If so we shouldn't look at what happened we should look at the outcome. However I still disagree I still believe Egypt posed a real threat at the time the same goes with Syria and the Golan heights.
Yes. It posed a real threat. It was able to extract something out of Israel. So there was some peace...and yet, this is quite ambiguous, so the feeling is ambiguous too.
quote:
I'd be completely for returning the Golan heights for peace too. Israel get nothing of value and yet it gets the most valuable thing by returning those areas it get peace and security but all it's neighbors are running on is humiliation, greed and hate.
And fear. It may make no sense to you, but it does to them. To the Arab and Muslim world as a whole, Israel is the thin edge of a Wedge that must be held back, the Palestinians a microcosm. Only if you assume that Israel and the West are ultimately well-intentioned can you reject this point of view out of hand.
quote:
The Palestinian struggle to survive is not intertwined if they wanted peace and with reasonable standard of living it could have happened already "but noooo first Israel has to be taught a lesson. We'll make them feel shame. We'll make them regret they ever existed."
For the Palestinians themselves, it is also very much a matter of rights and dignity. You make the assumption that the only things worth fighting for are material.
quote:
They could just as easily stop fighting for land and start building up and trying to cooperate with the rest of the world same as the Israelis.
But why is it that they are asked to make the concession?

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 21 May 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Female bombers show shift in thinking

quote:
Hiba Da'arma, who committed Monday's terror attack in Afula, was the fifth woman to become a suicide bomber since the intifada broke out 32 months ago - but she was the first to be employed by Islamic Jihad.

Like Hamas, Islamic Jihad originally raised both religious and social objections to female bombers. The other four female bombers all came from the ranks of the secular Fatah militias.

Even Monday's attack was a joint venture, in which Fatah supplied the bomber and Islamic Jihad supplied the explosives and transportation.

But it clearly demonstrates that the Islamic organizations have overcome their religious and social objections to using women. Even Hamas - which still says it would not use a woman as a bomber - has begun using women in supporting roles.



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

posted 21 May 2003 01:59 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So how Israel a part of these external factors? I really don't get it how is Israel the obstacle of their development?

I don't think it's ambiguous at all the Egyptians were mounting an attack the Israelis made a preemptive response. To insure this never happened again when the Egyptians were offering to negotiate a final settlement Israel gave them a peace of land. there is nothing in international law that says it belongs so the Egyptians. Spoils go to the victor. The Israeli's did this to appease so they wouldn't feel so bad. To me it all sounds quite childish.

Israel only intention is to deafened itself I can not vouch for western nations sometimes they have good intentions sometimes not so good. Funny "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

No unless you think the right to exist is materialistic that is the intrinsic difference between the Palestinians and the Israeli's. The only pose a threat to there dignity they can't accept losing a piece of land yet Israel is willing to give up land to appease them. The can't accept seems to be Israel's existence.

Which brings us to your final remark .concessions what concessions to stop the violent attacks? To compromise with Israel? To make sure that refugees return in such away that would not threaten Israel's existence? Is accepting Israel's existence a concession?

When they Palestinians and the Arabs stop fighting with Israel and start cooperating and building themselves up then there won't be a refugee problem the refugees will have equal rights they'll be quite happy where they are and those that still want to return to there ancestral homes will be able to because they won't care about the government they will want to be a productive part of that society. Others will be compensated for their loss if that as what the wish. Sadly though for everyone including Jews lost in the holocaust lives can not be compensated for.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 21 May 2003 02:15 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So how Israel a part of these external factors? I really don't get it how is Israel the obstacle of their development?
As I noted, the Arab world is placed in a defensive posture on several fronts. A defensive posture is not generally conducive to other forms of development. And if they were take to routes to development that the West took, it would be seen as a threat, as the Said article effectively implied.
quote:
No unless you think the right to exist is materialistic that is the intrinsic difference between the Palestinians and the Israeli's.
But you are claiming, if I understand correctly, that the Palestinians should give up because their material situations would be better.
quote:
The only pose a threat to there dignity they can't accept losing a piece of land yet Israel is willing to give up land to appease them. The can't accept seems to be Israel's existence.
But you haven't answered the question: why should they?
quote:
Which brings us to your final remark .concessions what concessions to stop the violent attacks? To compromise with Israel? To make sure that refugees return in such away that would not threaten Israel's existence? Is accepting Israel's existence a concession?
It is. Accepting Israel's existence under current Israeli terms is a concession of their rights to their land. It is extinguishment.
quote:
When they Palestinians and the Arabs stop fighting with Israel and start cooperating and building themselves up then there won't be a refugee problem the refugees will have equal rights they'll be quite happy where they are and those that still want to return to there ancestral homes will be able to because they won't care about the government they will want to be a productive part of that society. Others will be compensated for their loss if that as what the wish. Sadly though for everyone including Jews lost in the holocaust lives can not be compensated for.
The bold part is precisely the part of the answer that Israel rejects most strenuously, if I understand you correctly.

And yes, the holocaust has helped create a very dangerous chain reaction...but, for all its vastness, it is only a link in the chain. A more important link is Versailles, IMO. The Nazis were contingent on Versailles. Islamic extremists depend on Sykes-Picot, 1948, and so on, and so forth.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
sophrosyne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4070

posted 21 May 2003 02:27 PM      Profile for sophrosyne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Justice:
quote:
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.

I understand what you're saying. But there are many other ethnicities and religious groups out there that have suffered as extensive discrimination genocide etc. and should we (the international community) then give each and every oppressed group its own homeland?

If so, in your opinion, which other ethnicities have "suffered enough" to warrant this treatment?

quote:
Finally after many years of suffering they have returned and they are no longer the victims.

"Returned?" That's an interesting perspective, considering that most Jewish people today aren't descended from the same Sephardim Jews that have lived in the area for some six hundred years now. Most of today's Jews are descended from the Ashkenazim, who originally dwelt (according to Jewish websites) in Northern France and Germany.

How can people who are not native to the area "return" to it? How exactly do you define "native?"

quote:
So my answer is yes I do believe there is threat that genocidal acts will be attempted its not racist

If an Arab said that the Jews were trying to wipe them out, how would you characterize that statement? Would you say it was unfair? Would you say it was based in prejudice? Would you protest?

If you would say yes to any of these questions, then you readily identify your own similar statement for what it is.

You know, I really do sympathize with you, but overall I think that the key to ending this bloodshed is not to favour one group over another whatsoever.


From: British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 May 2003 04:00 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let there be no illusions: Sharon's final goal is turning the whole country, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river, into an exclusively Jewish state. In this vision there is no place for Arabs, whether in the occupied territories or in Israel proper. Whoever opposes this vision is an enemy (if an Arab) or a traitor (if a Jew).

Therefore, paradoxically, the struggle over Sheikh Ra'ed, the religious extremist, is also a battle for the future of Israel as a democratic, secular and liberal state.


The Children's Teeth

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

posted 21 May 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's an interesting question: if first the international peace activists and observers (including the press), and now the IMI, how long before Gush Shalom becomes a target -- for "supporting the terrorists"?

How do Niemoller's great sad lines go? First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so ...


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

posted 21 May 2003 04:21 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

The quotation with a life of its own

Everybody loves to quote Martin Niemöller’s lines about moral failure in the face of the Holocaust: 'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a
Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I
was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for
me.'

But interestingly, people use the quotation to imply different meanings – even altering it to suit their purpose. When Time magazine used the quotation, they
moved the Jews to the first place and dropped both the communists and the social democrats. American Vice-President Al Gore likes the to quote the lines, but
drops the trade unionists for good measure. Gore and Time also added Roman Catholics, who weren't on Niemöller's list at all. In the heavily Catholic city of
Boston, Catholics were added to the quotation inscribed on its Holocaust memorial. The US Holocaust Museum drops the Communists but not the Social
Democrats; other versions have added homosexuals.


From this site.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 21 May 2003 04:38 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excellent. Should be quoted everytime discussions of 'leftist antisemites' arise. Fascism aimed first and foremost to crush the workers' movement (be it Communist, Social-Democrat or trade unionist).
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 May 2003 06:55 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My, but these "More murder/suicide bombings" threads have been instructive.

The Zionist babblers have hitherto for the most part been quite circumspect, and have made the correct noises regarding the Occupation, and in condemning Arik Sharon, even though they were never very convincing. Recently, however, the wolves have been shedding their sheep's clothing. The Occupation is now over "disputed" territories, and not something tactically necessary to "protect" Israel.

I suppose we won't have long to wait for the Zionists here to argue in favour of outright annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the transporting of Palestinians from their homeland.


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

posted 21 May 2003 10:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
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.

skdadl said this, and it made me realize something that had been bothering me because I couldn't phrase it properly:

The crux of my dislike for the argumentation that "Oh well, the Arab countries are all baddies because they didn't take the Palestinian-Arabs" is this:

People are not fungible.

You do not move people around like pieces on a chessboard. You do not tell a man who has lived in a country all his life that some other piece of land in some other country is good enough for him, period, just because he shares the skin color and some cultural traditions with the people in that other country.

If someone told me that I could "just move to England" because gosh darnit, I'm sort of English, I'd tell that someone to go right to hell and stick a sock in it on the way.

Would you expect Palestinian-Arabs to be any different? The Israelis are patronizingly claiming that they should just be happy to move their butts to Jordan (can I call it cis-Jordan? Please? Inside chemistry joke. I'll explain if anyone wants) because, well, they're all brown Arabs and goshdarnedit if any of us Israelis can tell the different.

The Palestinians are, of course, telling the Israelis to go to hell.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 22 May 2003 02:36 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know this is long but please read carefully

This is mostly for you Mandos but hope everyone else responds too

You all left me a lot of work but here goes maybe together we can find Respect and dignity and Justice. Mind you I believe justice and democracy is not getting what you want it's getting what need. Democracy is not just the rule of the majority it's respecting minorities. It is not possible to have a world democracy many minorities would be lost on the vastness of some majorities and none of their rights would be protected. That’s why I'm for every having a country of its own as long as it respects other ethnicities. Its laws should reflect the identity of it's ethnicity but not infringe on human rights including those women and children who share the same ethnicity.

Now that I've finished my exposition let me analyze each of your arguments I hope I will be able to address everyone in a fair and in a credible manor, there is much to be said I believe you are all intelligent, that you will all understand what I'm saying and come up with good replies I look forward to them.

quote:
As I noted, the Arab world is placed in a defensive posture on several fronts. A defensive posture is not generally conducive to other forms of development. And if they were take to routes to development that the West took, it would be seen as a threat, as the Said article effectively implied.

I'm sorry I disagree the reason are as follows: You already implied that the war was out of shame further more there is also proof that those who are fighting the war are doing it out of a very dangerous thing, their religious beliefs. They call it a Jihad (holy war) I maybe wrong about the translation I'm not a scholar in the Arabic language, however I do know that suicide bombers and many terrorist say "Allah Akbar" before committing there heinous murderous acts. For those who claim that the Hezbollah and other organizations are not terrorist, that they are defending their countries, that they have the interest of their people at hand, that they build hospitals and schools and really concerned about the wellbeing of their people. Well my remarks above and some of the ones below should cause some concern about that belief.

Now we all know that fresh recruits in the Israeli swear on the bible when the join and receive their arms. That is if they are Jewish. Druze and Bedouins probably swear on the Koran or something like that. They take an oath to defend the state of Israel it is important to note that the physical dimensions of the state of Israel are not mentioned in that oath. They swear only to protect. Further more in the IDF doctrine there are values and ideals such as "purity of arms" which states that a soldier may only use his weapon to the extent of which he is protecting his country. There are other values as well that are such as, human life and respect. I would not object to soldiers swearing and taking an oath to uphold these values, I would not object demanding that the IDF more rigorously uphold them. I must point however that in a 2 and half month officers course a whole week is spent on emphasizing the importance of these values perhaps a week is not enough and perhaps regular soldiers need more then the 2 hours they get in basic training.

quote:
But you are claiming, if I understand correctly, that the Palestinians should give up because their material situations would be better.

sadly yes however I do differentiate between the terrorist organizations and the other Palestinians which have finally begun to up rise against them something that should have been done long ago. The Israeli and other governments should be not only encouraging but protecting those accused of being traitors or collaborators. It's not enough that the Palestinians don't fear the Israelis it is also important or maybe even a priority that the Palestinians don't fear these terrorist organizations. Further more these terrorist are not fighting for survival they clearly believe it is more important to kill Jews and others. They believe land is more important that it takes priority on life sadly. I don't believe any religion would really promote this. This is a sick mutation of religious ideology. Another example that proves this is that in the past weeks attacks many Muslims died in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. The terrorist didn't care they believed these people deserved to die for collaborating and not resisting. Hopefully this will prove that terrorism is everybody's problem. That it is urgent that these nations in which it exists denounce and uproot it. This will also prevent the Americans and other so called imperialistic countries from getting involved in situations perhaps better left to regional authorities. This should be plenty of incentive for these authorities to crack down on this phenomenon

quote:
But you haven't answered the question: why should they?

This quote most disturbs me. I could easily twist it and ask the opposite. "why should the Israelis accept the Palestinian right to exist or to a homeland". But I openly condemem and rigorously denounce both. It is however a little more complex than. I will answer it in latter part of this post. Let me note at this time that sadly there are many that would support this notion. Let me also show you they types of people that would all of which to me are or evil or ignorant.

*Imperialist and Fascist (Very evil) "They would say: "might it right"
*Anarchist (Very ignorant) they would say: "Who cares, I have to deal with my own problems"
*Religious extremist (quite ignorant and often very evil) they justify themselves by saying "Its gods will"
*Communist (Ignorant and evil) they say: "There should be one international state everyone is equal underneath it no matter how hard I work. Furthermore they deny peoples rights to practice there religious beliefs.
*Socialist (ignorant) they are like the communist except without the infringement on the rights to religious practice. However if everyone is equal no matter how hard they work it retards peoples motivation to work and slows down the worlds progress, this is especially a concern in scientific areas which maybe not only positive but needed. Now you may argue that the communist made many more advancements then the American capitalist during their existence, I think fear is very strong motivator but not always a healthy one further more not all people were equal under communism. I don't support capitalism entirely either I'll explain in my summation.

quote:
It is. Accepting Israel's existence under current Israeli terms is a concession of their rights to their land. It is extinguishment.

That have to agree under current terms however a compromise is still needed I believe the purposed road map is reasonable, That Israel demand that the arabs drop the right their demand for an unconditional right of return is not unreasonable. I do think negotiations should start regardless. Further more even if Sharon is not committed to it he should understand that he won't last very long the majority of Israelis won't allow him to jeopardize Israel's international relations and security. Too prove this point; Israel has had more change in government in the last 10 years then any other country on the face of the earth, aside from Argentina. It changed quite quickly from left to right and back again. Sadly Sharon got elected twice not because the Israelis wanted him. This election turn out was reasonably low compared to most other elections in Israel. Some of it has to do with the internal arguments of labour party. Not all hope is gone though. Shenui became the third largest party in Israel perhaps this is a minor victory on the Jewish religious extremist, most of who are pro settlement, yet this could have a long term positive impact on Israel's internal conflicts, but also on the settlement issue. I think the labor party should have been more flexible and joined the government to further retard the religious extremist power, the growth of settlements and encourage the government to accept the proposed road map. This maybe a bit too optimistic and ambitious, but I definitely believe it would be easier for them to topple Sharon's government from the inside rather then the outside. Just like last election hopefully once and for all destroying Sharon's credibility as a leader.

Let me stress once again Sharon must accept the road map if he is to be remembered as a good leader for Israel not just in the minds of the world consensus, but also amongst the majority of his own people.

You might like to say that the so called Israeli left wing parties which I have always strongly believed in and supported are no good either because of the following:

quote:
[B] those that still want to return to there ancestral homes will be able to because they won't care about the government they will want to be a productive part of that society. [B]

quote:
The bold part is precisely the part of the answer that Israel rejects most strenuously, if I understand you correctly.

Well I'm at it I hope this will also answer the following quotes

quote:
"Returned?" That's an interesting perspective,

quote:
You do not move people around like pieces on a chessboard. You do not tell a man who has lived in a country all his life that some other piece of land in some other country is good enough for him, period, just because he shares the skin color and some cultural traditions with the people in that other country.

Israel rejects an unconditional right return of all refugees it doesn't reject the right of return of some refugees.

To DrConways quote I say I agree that we mustn't move people around pieces on a chess board but that goes in every direction. To sophrosyne I also would like to say that I do support every ethnicity having a homeland as I stated in m exposition. I believe the Palestinians deserve one the Jews, the Kurds; the Armenians got one after much suffering. I believed not just that these ethnicities deserve it, they need because there is no other way that their rights will fully be upheld. They needed countries with laws that will reflect their ethnicity but will respect human rights.

One of the things I criticize the Israeli government for, and they are not the only governments that have down this, is that they forced the Bedouins to settle, it is the Bedouins belief and right to be nomads so long as they do not infringe on others rights. the Israelis as many other nations did this out of convince and it is unjust. It is also not impossible for a nomadic society to have laws that respect human rights. I do commend Israel for bring people in the Bedouin society to justice who have infringed on human rights out of their religious belief, such as killing a women for being seen with man before she is married or for practicing female circumcision. I even support native Americans right to home land. But I would not ask all Canadian or Americans to return to Britain or France or where ever the hell else they came from after they've been where they are for 200 years or so. Further more it would be everyone's responsibility to help finically and in other ways so it is possible for them to create a viable independence autonomy, state, country what ever they wish. It is also important to point out that what choice of governance (I mean whether an ethnic group chooses an autonomy, state or country. Not whether choose democracy or dictatorships. Dictatorships always infringe on freedom and human rights. ) , We should be patient it is a process and they should accept the responsibility with their choice of governance people can't blame all their problems on out side sources, nor can they expect outside help every time there is a problem.

Let me also say that an international government can not represent everybody minorities would be squashed under the interest of larger groups that’s another reason why every ethnicity deserves their own country why the UN doesn't function effectively and this why an international court as necessary as it maybe could not really provide justice. The interests of larger groups always get in the way. True democracy isn't the rule of the majority it's protecting minority rights to since this is practically impossible everyone should have the own sovereign land.

quote:
If someone told me that I could "just move to England" because gosh darnit, I'm sort of English, I'd tell that someone to go right to hell and stick a sock in it on the way.

As you can see I'm not as you described neither are most Jews, Once again though, you can not demand of them what you can't demand of yourself.

Some people also like to argue that Jews don't because too long a time period has lapsed since they left, what they believe is their home land. Once again this argument could be flipped and the Israeli government would only be responsible for 700,000 original refugees many of which no longer exist. Israel would not be liable to accept the right of return of their children or their children's children, in law the law has to apply equally to all. So I don't agree with this point of view either. I believe that certain people need to be compensated this would also include Jews that lost their homes in the last 55 maybe 100 years or so. As I stated in the thread about "Edwards Said" Article, the majority of Jews didn't freely choose to run to Israel. They ran from prosecution, Jews deserve a home land same as any other ethnic group. One they can identify with. I think the road map is a legitimate resolution to the dispute I would even go so far as saying that the UN resolution of 1947 is legitimate.

Hopefully the trend of fighting against terrorist will continue from with in Palestine, the couple 100 people that fought against those who were firing rockets into Israel this week is a good start and the way things should be. Hopefully it will continue. As far Israel is concerned hopefully the task of removing settlements will finally be taken seriously and the Israeli government won't just make a couple hypocritical gestures so that an environment in which the peace process can proceed is created.


quote:
I suppose we won't have long to wait for the Zionists here to argue in favor of outright annexation

To al-Qa'bong

So as I've shown I'm Zionist I can support Israel and yet not be discriminatory against anyone. I can support all human rights fairly to all. That is all I demand from everyone. I even openly criticize Israel as many Israelis Jews and others do too. I would never support out right annexation of Palestine what ever wish to call it so long as you don't turn the term in to some marketing brand like coca cola occupation or in some cases holocaust and genocide these terms have long become cynical propaganda) nor would most Israelis or Zionists. It is racist it is wrong. There is nothing I don't think there is anything wrong with an Israeli state existing along side a Palestinian under the terms I outlined.

How often do you hear self criticism in the PA let alone other Arab States? The situation is improving but there is a long way still to go. When people are no longer afraid to judge themselves and their governments can be critical with out being afraid then road block to the road map will be completely removed the first step in solving a problem is acknowledging its there.


So what values do I believe in? I don't believe in socialism and I don't believe in capitalism. I do believe those who are more fortunate have a responsibility and obligation to help those less fortunate. I'm against any kind of discrimination and yet I don't believe we are all equal, I do believe we all deserve equal opportunity. Everybody deserves the right to the best possible education, those with learning or other disabilities need be accommodated as best we can. Even the poor need free access to tutors when they want and free access to higher education. Every body deserves the best health care system money can buy. Every one deserves family a home a group to identify its O.K. to identify with more the one group, and groups need do not need to be culturally or ethnically based, but I think ethnic groups have priority when it comes to who not only deserves but needs a home land. After all that is settled when it comes to the work place people should be hired strictly on merit not on gender or racial or any kind of discriminatory judgment As I was saying before, those who are more fortunate have to support those less fortunate, this doesn't mean they give everything they have until everyone is equal, perhaps these more fortunate groups need to do more then today. Still those who work harder who take more risk deserve to be reward more for what they do, this means financially an other ways to, if all my ideals of equality will be implemented then there would be no excuse why other then laziness and perhaps a little luck why one succeeds and other don't. I don't know if they are possible to be implementing I maybe dreamer but I try to be realistic too, I believe if we strive for them we can greatly improve the world we live.


I don't think there is a person especially not a rational secular Jew which most Jews are that could argue that my intentions are not only good but justly too. Anyone else who disagrees I believe or has cruel intentions or is not capable of admitting to his/her own mistakes.

I probably missed some things so please point them out and Justice to all

Good night

[ 22 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 22 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 22 May 2003 07:51 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(can I call it cis-Jordan? Please? Inside chemistry joke. I'll explain if anyone wants)


I demand an explanation! (hey where's the fist-shaking & shifty-eyed smily?)


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 22 May 2003 11:13 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"cis-" means "on the same side" in chemistry. "trans-" means "on opposing sides". It comes from Latin: "trans-Alpine" vs. "cis-Alpine".

In French, I understand that the West Bank is called "Cisjordanie," so the name is taken.


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

posted 22 May 2003 11:14 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice: Yes, your post is long, and I doubt I will be able to respond to all of it. However, you have recopied yourself several times over in various places; that and the lack of commas makes it very difficult to read. Could you edit it? It would actually be much shorter if you get rid of all the internal copies.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 22 May 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Holy long post, Justice!

No one is going to read it, Justice.

May I offer a friendly word, Justice? You are conveying the depth of your feeling most clearly, Justice. It is entirely convincing to me. So now that you've got us convinced (of your sincerity), could you calm down a little and restrain both the feeling and the wordiness? You would be easier to read that way, and easier to have a conversation with.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 May 2003 12:07 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mandos: Ah, zut alors, the French WOULD already have called it cis-Jordan. So they got the jump on me but still, I am irresistibly reminded of it every time I think about how Jordan used to be called Transjordan.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 22 May 2003 12:30 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FIXED I hope it's better I hope you all read and reply I think we can all learn from eachother
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 22 May 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm sorry I disagree the reason are as follows: You already implied that the war was out of shame further more there is also proof that those who are fighting the war are doing it out of a very dangerous thing, their religious beliefs.
Shame and humiliation are two different things, IMO. The later I mean to imply powerlessness. It is possible to suffer shame without being powerless. Humiliation to me is quite serious and material and not entirely emotive.

You must also separate two things: what motivates Hamas, etc, personally and what caused them. That they are motivated by a belief says very little about how they reached that conclusion. In another circumstance, they may never have reached that conclusion.

quote:
This quote most disturbs me. I could easily twist it and ask the opposite. "why should the Israelis accept the Palestinian right to exist or to a homeland". But I openly condemem and rigorously denounce both.
Because the Palestinians already had one. We are talking about rights here. The question is, why should the Palestinians agree to accept a state whose establishment deprived them of their rights. There is no symmetry here, unless you wish to fall into the same "moral relativism" that supporters of militant Zionism regularly and spuriously accuse those of us who sympathize with the Palestinian cause of indulging in. The Palestinians deprived Israelis of nothing. The Israelis deprived the Palestinians of everything. Now Israel wants the Palestinians to recognize it as a precondition; what do the Palestinians owe Israel that they should?
quote:
It is however a little more complex than. I will answer it in latter part of this post. Let me note at this time that sadly there are many that would support this notion. Let me also show you they types of people that would all of which to me are or evil or ignorant.
Careful now. You're on a mostly socialist board.

I don't have time to answer the rest in detail, though much of it does indeed deserve a response. Let me add, however, that many Israelis don't even accept a single returned refugee within the borders of the Israeli state. How could they? It puts them in a morally ambiguous position when they have been arguing strenuously for their moral right to extinguish Palestinians rights to the land. And they are correct in this, because the right of return is not a partial right and any partial realization is a full moral concession on the part of Israel.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
sophrosyne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4070

posted 22 May 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for sophrosyne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Justice, I just read your post (I like long posts shows somebody put some thought and effort into their reply). You obviously feel very passionately about this subject. I see I'm coming from a different angle entirely, and it's probably best to agree to disagee politely at this point. FWIW, I think it's very idealistic (in a positive way) to so firmly believe that every ethnicity has a right to self-determination.
From: British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 May 2003 04:10 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Toronto Sun

An excellent column found in the Toronto Sun no less.
------------------------------------------------
Muslims can no longer keep silent
By SALIM MANSUR -- For the Toronto Sun
In June, 2002, some weeks after violence between Palestinian fighters and the Israeli military peaked in the West Bank town of Jenin, an urgent appeal was published in the newspaper Al Quds in Jerusalem.

The appeal read, "We call upon the parties behind military operations targeting civilians in Israel to reconsider their policies and stop driving our young men to carry out these operations. Suicide bombings deepen the hatred and widen the gap between the Palestinian and Israeli people. They destroy the possibilities of coexistence in two neighbouring states. These bombings do not contribute to freedom and independence."

It concluded, "Pushing the area toward an existential war between the two peoples living in the Holy Land will lead to destruction for the whole region. We do not find any logical, human, or political justification for this end result."

There were 58 brave and honest Palestinian men and women who signed this appeal. They included Dr. Sari Nusseibeh, the Palestinian Authority's Jerusalem representative and president of Al Quds University, and Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, the widely respected female member of the Palestinian Legislative Assembly and human rights activist.

The recent spate of suicide bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Casablanca, Morocco formed the bookends of the series of suicide bombings in Israel to coincide with the first meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas as they sat down last Saturday to discuss the U.S. "road map" for final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

SUBVERT THE PROCESS

The purpose of these lethal and terrifying bombings is clear and beyond debate.

It is, as the Al Quds appeal indicated, to subvert any promise of peace and accommodation between Israelis and Palestinians, between Jews and Muslims.

The unsettled political situation and unending conflict in the Holy Land also serves the larger ambitions of Muslim fascists striving for power - which they acquired for a while in Afghanistan - to construct an ideologically pure Islamist society of their own imaginings.

Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization constitute the core contingent of contemporary Muslim fascism and international terrorism. But their supporters, sympathizers and fellow travellers are spread far and wide, while they recruit their foot soldiers among alienated and angry Muslims from societies burdened with grievances, inequities and acute sense of failure in providing for social justice and economic well-being.

Muslim fascists, as were their counterparts in Europe between the two world wars in the last century, are a tiny minority. Yet they have flourished, as did European fascists, by drawing upon support of powerful patrons such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Their religious establishments have promoted across the Muslim world the toxic brew of Wahhabism - a totalitarian ideology of medieval origin set against the modern values of democracy, liberalism and secularism in the West - as Islam.

In Islam, unlike Roman Catholicism, there is no central authority and, consequently, there is no one among Muslims who may speak for all who profess Islam.

Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of Muslims share in a common understanding of Islam as the final divine revelation of peace and coexistence among people, and that any rendition violating this life-giving and life-sustaining message is un-Islamic.

BIGOTRY AND VIOLENCE

For Muslims troubled by the perils of Muslim fascism, and by the extent to which their faith and culture have been abused by bigotry and violence, the time is now long gone for remaining silent.

Muslims around the world need to embrace the appeal of those brave and honest Palestinians speaking out against suicide bombings directed against Israelis and for a just peace, and then take steps to drain the bitterness in the hearts of two peoples contending for land both consider holy.

They can begin by acknowledging without any ambiguity, or delay, that Jews have rights to a secure state in the Holy Land, and Jerusalem is as central to the faith of Jews as Mecca is central to the faith of Muslims.

Muslims know there is much troubled history in the Holy Land.

They cannot, however, allow peace to be held hostage any longer to this history, nor remain silent while fascists among them exploit the troubles of the Holy Land for their violently bigoted purpose.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salim Mansur is a professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario. His column appears alternate Thursdays. He can be reached at smansurca@yahoo.ca.

[ 22 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 22 May 2003 04:48 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have read his columns often. While I have no fundamental dispute with ths particular column, I find it typical. This fellow is essentially apologizes for US imperialism in the region, and you will note, he has no criticism for the policies of Sharon. And I do not mean in this particular column. I mean ever.

It is not for nothing he has been picked up by Der Sun.


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

posted 22 May 2003 04:54 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, none of us should remain silent while ANYONE exploits the troubles of the Holy Land for any shady purpose.

But not remaining silent is not the same thing as feeling that you must recite the words that someone else would put in your mouth. Think critically; and then speak independently.

And always suspect people whose version of not remaining silent targets a specific group.

(Shabby use of the adjective "fascist" there. There is a precise definition: google Mussolini, corporatism.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 22 May 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
An excellent column found in the Toronto Sun no less.

A column that fits Mishei's ideology found in the Toronto Sun. Why am I not surprised?

DrConway, I too am annoyed by the "just move to another Arab country" rhetoric. Israel took in 700,000 Jewish refugees upon its founding; it did that because that is what it was designed to do. Of course it is reprehensible that so many Jews in Arab countries were frightened into flight; of course those Jews ought to have compensation and the right to return to the lands they left; but it seems stupid to especially credit Israel for doing what it was created to do, and blame Arab countries for not doing what they were not created to do. So Arabs do not have a country especially designated as an Arab homeland, to which all Arabs have a permanent right of return; why is this taken as a sign of Arab moral failing?

And I might ask, why are Palestinians who condemn suicide bombings "brave," while Israelis who condemn the occupation are "self-hating" or simply irrelevant?

[ 22 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 22 May 2003 05:51 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I might ask, why are Palestinians who condemn suicide bombings "brave," while Israelis who condemn the occupation are "self-hating" or simply irrelevant?


You are so free with your ideas but when it comes to proof there is little forthcoming. OK Smith, please show me where I or others here have claimed that "Israelis who condemn the occupation are "self-hating" or simply irrelevant". I await your response.

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

posted 22 May 2003 09:21 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thread archaeology.

quote:
Doc, Norman Finklestein is also the child of survivors as am I. Finklestein's views on the Holocaust in my opinion come close to self hating.

Mishei said that.


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

posted 22 May 2003 11:19 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Thread archaeology.

Mishei said that.


I condemn Finklestein not for his position on the "occupation" but for his position on the Holocaust. I stand fully by my claim on Finklestein on this matter.

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

posted 22 May 2003 11:22 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a connection. Finkelstein has castigated the Israeli government and in the process has stated that he believes that pro-Israeli groups sometimes use the hammer of the Holocaust to shut down legitimate debate about the actions of the Israeli government.

In this, you have indirectly called someone a "self-hating Jew".


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

posted 22 May 2003 11:28 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doc this is a stretch in order to try to help[ Smith out.

To me Finklestein's position on the Holocaust is an abomination. He accuses Jewish groups of all kinds of nastiness regarding restitution without a shred of proof. He has been condemned and shown to be a poor researcher at best in this connection. Many Jews deplore him and see him as a self-hater based on his outrageous claims on the Holocaust. Please dont interpret my motivations on this dink. I have been clear.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 May 2003 11:55 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...he believes that pro-Israeli groups sometimes use the hammer of the Holocaust to shut down legitimate debate about the actions of the Israeli government.

And you're saying some (groups and/or individuals) don't?


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

posted 23 May 2003 01:06 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Al, he says much more than that . He is offensive and repugnant and as I stated has been refuted and rejected by virtually all legitimate Holocaust writers, researchers and historians.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 23 May 2003 01:16 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
I have checked out some of the web-sites on suicide prevention. It seems that kindness goes a longway.

http://www.lollie.com/Bkind/Bkind.html


(follow the arrow)


Here is a technical theory on recognizing the suicidal. it is hilarious.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod/PTOArticle/PTO-20030402-000004.asp


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

posted 23 May 2003 01:59 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some people may recognize the names Samuel and Francine Klagsbrun.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 May 2003 03:33 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You sidestepped my question, Mish.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 May 2003 08:57 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

And you're saying some (groups and/or individuals) don't?


To the best of my knowledge no legitimate Jewish group has misused the Holocaust to further Israeli policy. As for individuals, again to the best of my knowledge no Jewish leader has misused the Shoah in this manner.

Finklestein in his God-awful book "The Holocaust Industry" has done more to help the likes of Ernst Zundel and David Irving than they themselves could have dreamed possible. No wonder Finklestein has become the poster boy for the white supremacist Holocaust denial movement.

Omar Bartov a renowned researcher and military historian destroyed Finklestein's ugly theory in his New York Times book review. In part he states:

quote:
What I find so striking about ''The Holocaust Industry'' is that it is almost an exact copy of the arguments it seeks to expose. It is filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust; it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations; and it oozes with the same smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority.

This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that ''The Holocaust'' will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts. Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious. Finkelstein can now be said to have founded a Holocaust industry of his own.


He goes on to note:

quote:
The main culprit, in the world according to Finkelstein, is ''the Holocaust industry,'' made up of Israeli officials and fat lawyers, Jewish agents well placed in American political circles and ruthless Zionists determined to subjugate the Palestinians. Here he combines an old-hat 1960's view of Israel as the outpost of American imperialism with a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' which warned of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Now, however, the Jewish conspiracy is intended to ''shake down'' (his favorite phrase) such innocent entities as Swiss banks, German corporations and East European owners of looted Jewish property, all in order to consolidate Jewish power and influence without giving the real survivors of the genocide anything but empty rhetoric.

Nowhere does Finkelstein mention that the main beneficiaries of compensation for forced labor will be elderly gentile men and women living their last days in poverty in Eastern Europe, or that German scholars like Ulrich Herbert, hardly an employee of ''Jewish interests,'' have been at the forefront of the struggle to gain compensation from corporations that for decades refused to admit their enormous gains from slave and forced labor. From the author's perspective, this is simply a case of organized American Jewry ''lording it over those least able to defend themselves,'' such as, presumably, the Swiss banks it was ''plotting'' to boycott, and ''the United States and its allies'' from whom it ''finagled another $70 million.''


No Finklestein in my estimation is a self hater for reasons only his own psyche can answer.

The full NY Times review can be found here.

NY Times Bartov Review


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

posted 23 May 2003 10:04 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Finkelstein, however, helped expose the Joan Peters "Time Immemorial" hoax, as I recall. So even if Mishei's characterization of Finkelstein's Holocaust views is true, there are plenty of hoaxters to go around.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 23 May 2003 10:57 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I condemn Finklestein not for his position on the "occupation" but for his position on the Holocaust. I stand fully by my claim on Finklestein on this matter.

Oh, my. Now it's not an occupation; it's an "occupation." What is it really? A party? A crusade? A brave shouldering of the white man's burden?


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

posted 23 May 2003 11:02 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Finkelstein, however, helped expose the Joan Peters "Time Immemorial" hoax, as I recall. So even if Mishei's characterization of Finkelstein's Holocaust views is true, there are plenty of hoaxters to go around.
And of course this had zippo to do with the issue at hand.

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

posted 23 May 2003 11:04 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it clearly and obviously does, but I'm not surprised you don't see it that way. This is not, after all, a Holocaust thread, though thread drift is obviously not entirely your fault.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 May 2003 11:09 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:

Oh, my. Now it's not an occupation; it's an "occupation." What is it really? A party? A crusade? A brave shouldering of the white man's burden?



Oh Smith your eager eye always searching for something bad tut tut.

At present, as a result of a defensive war fought in 1967 against a vast array of Arab armies, Israel came into possession of land known as the West Bank that was prior to that time under the control of Jordan.

Today that very same land is being disputed by the Palestinians as their land not Jordan's.

With negotiations and the cessation of terrorism against Israeli civilians, it is hoped and prayed that Israel and the present day Palestinian Authority will come to a peaceful accomodation that will permit the long suffering Palestinian people to call a large portion of the West Bank as negotiated the new state of Palestine.


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

posted 23 May 2003 11:42 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And now back to the thread.

Ain't this helpful???

Hamas to continue terrorism

Hamas rebuffs Abbas, vows to continue terrorism
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

Advertisement

Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip have rejected a request by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to suspend terrorist attacks on Israel.

Abbas met in his office in Gaza City Thursday night with a number of Hamas leaders including Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Mahmoud Zahhar, and Ismail Haniyeh and urged them to accept a temporary cease-fire. It was Abbas's first meeting with representatives of Hamas since he took office three weeks ago.

The meeting was attended by PA Minister for Security Affairs Muhammad Dahlan and other senior PA security officials in the Gaza Strip.
Abbas said he summoned the Hamas leaders to persuade them to suspend terrorist attacks against Israel. But the Hamas officials quickly announced that they had turned down the request.

Haniyeh said Abbas briefed the Hamas leaders on the outcome of his recent talks with US, European, and Israeli officials. "He said the PA cabinet has accepted the road map and is waiting for the Zionist response to this plan," he said.

Haniyeh said the Hamas officials stressed that they would not agree to halt terrorist attacks. "We affirmed that resisting the Zionist occupation is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people for as long as the occupation exists and continues its aggression and war against us," he said.
He said the meeting was not linked to efforts to resume talks between the Palestinian factions in Cairo with the aim of reaching an agreement on a cease-fire.

Rantisi said the gap between the two sides remains as wide as ever. "There are still differences between us on the issue of the resistance," he said. He said Hamas would do its utmost to avoid a bloody confrontation with the PA.

Abbas is scheduled to meet later with representatives of Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip. Muhammad al-Hindi, a senior Islamic Jihad official, said the two sides would exchange views on the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in an attempt to reach an understanding on a joint political and security strategy.

Sources close to Islamic Jihad said the organization would also tell Abbas that it would not cease attacks on Israel.

A senior PA official expressed disappointment at the results of the talks, warning that the new cabinet would not hesitate to take drastic measures against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

"These groups must know that there is only one authority, and we will not accept any attempt to undermine Abu Mazen," he said, noting that Abbas is planning to hold more meetings with the two groups in the next few days.

Meanwhile, PA sources said Abbas and Dahlan are considering appointing Jibril Rajoub, former commander of the Preventive Security Service in the West Bank, to a key security post.

The sources said Rajoub, who was ousted by PA Chairman Yasser Arafat last year, would be named a minister in the Interior Ministry and would be entrusted with overseeing the security forces in the West Bank.

Rajoub returned to his Ramallah home last week after undergoing surgery in Britain for removal of a non-malignant growth.

According to the sources, the move is likely to enrage Arafat, who is said to be strongly opposed to giving Rajoub any role in the PA security establishment.


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

posted 23 May 2003 11:49 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nothing surprising there. They are doing as expected. Just as it is equally expected that regardless of what Sharon's cabinet decides on Sunday, settler activity will continue unabated.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 May 2003 12:00 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Nothing surprising there. They are doing as expected. Just as it is equally expected that regardless of what Sharon's cabinet decides on Sunday, settler activity will continue unabated.
Is that right?

Well not according to this article:

Sharon: Israel is ready to accept the Middle East road map


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

posted 23 May 2003 12:03 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have little faith in either side acceding to the road map. In any case, the road map does little to address the difference in leverage each side has. Essentially, the Palestinians have little other than cessation of violence to trade for concessions from Israel, whereas Israel has basically everything. This is the flaw in all the attempts so far; none of them place issues of power and rights at the heart of any solution, when they are precisely the issue. Instead, they all deal with security, which implies the perpetuation of some form of unequal position.

[ 23 May 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 May 2003 12:07 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, big deal.

Sharon will never address the settler issue citing violence as the reason. Israel has not been able to end violence it is a joke to suggest the PA should.

In N. Ireland the agreed to negotiate despite the violence. It was the only way to ensure extremists could not derail the process.

In Israel, Sharon is one of the extrmists and he will ensure it never gets on the rails in the first place.


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

posted 23 May 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me put it in this most devastating way: if the violence ends, Likudniks will take it to mean that the Jabotinskyish Iron Wall strategy was successful and that they need not concede anything at all. That crushing the Palestinians was enough. And if the Palestinians restart violence after lack of progress, they will be accused of derailing a process that Israel deliberately procrastinated. Israeli policymakers will take that to mean that they didn't crush hard enough, since the crushing strategy has been steadily escalating without an apparent bound. Déjà vu.

Rights before security.

[ 23 May 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


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

posted 23 May 2003 12:35 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In Israel, Sharon is one of the extrmists and he will ensure it never gets on the rails in the first place.


While I disagree with much of Sharon's policies such statements are not only wrong they expose exactly why this problem could continue.

Remember it took Menachim Begin a Sharon predessesor of Likud to make peace with Anwar Sadat.

As a result Israel returned the ENTIRE Sinai and totally dismantled the many established settlements. Im sure Wing you will find some BS to re-post but the truth is evident.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 May 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...as a result of a defensive war fought in 1967 against a vast array of Arab armies, Israel came into possession of land known as the West Bank that was prior to that time under the control of Jordan.

Or an unprovoked pre-emptive strike against its disorganized neighbours...

"came into possession" as if these places just "turned up" in Israels's hands one fine day...

And no, Jordan is not trying to get the West Bank back, but Arabs who live in the West Bank and Gaza are trying to free themselves from a brutal foreign occupation.


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

posted 23 May 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the truth is evident.

Then why do you ignore it?

Read your own article? Sharon has made clear, and apparently has the support of the US (no kidding!) that Israel will make no concessions on settlements until the violence ceases. But he can't stop the violence with the most advanced military in the region (until the latest Gulf War, that is) but he expects the PA to?

This is either stupid or intended to prevent the process from advancing. I don't think he is stupid.

And it is BS. Now show me where I am wrong.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 23 May 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

At present, as a result of a defensive war fought in 1967 against a vast array of Arab armies, Israel came into possession of land known as the West Bank that was prior to that time under the control of Jordan.

And began moving its army and its civilians into that land.

How is this not an occupation?

quote:
With negotiations and the cessation of terrorism against Israeli civilians, it is hoped and prayed that Israel and the present day Palestinian Authority will come to a peaceful accomodation that will permit the long suffering Palestinian people to call a large portion of the West Bank as negotiated the new state of Palestine.

Hoped and prayed? By whom? Sharon? You?

You know, Mishei, I have to hand it to you. I don't think anyone else on this board has done as much for the anti-Zionist cause as you have.

[ 23 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 23 May 2003 02:00 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith, frankly I don't give a shit about your judgements. Such rhetoric belies your immaturity. In other words if you cannot discuss then namecall. Please go back to the schoolyard from whence you came.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 23 May 2003 02:54 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Smith, frankly I don't give a shit about your judgements.

That hurts.

Oh, wait, no it doesn't.


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

posted 23 May 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:

That hurts.

Oh, wait, no it doesn't.


Exactly what I expect from children at play.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 23 May 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

ah, heck. I've lost count. Anyone have an idea how many rolleyes are warranted in this thread?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 23 May 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ah, heck. I've lost count.

Then take your shoes off. LOL


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 May 2003 04:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Smith, frankly I don't give a shit about your judgements.


The shit thread is down here.


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

posted 23 May 2003 04:36 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:


The shit thread is down here.



Now that's funny!!

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

posted 24 May 2003 07:49 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is.

quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------
ah, heck. I've lost count.
-------------------------------


Then take your shoes off.


That's funny too.

You know, it does frustrate me that certain posters feel the need to be so nasty, dishonest and dismissive right off the bat, because honestly, I do think Israel is in a tougher spot than we sometimes acknowledge. I believe the settlement-building is absolutely morally repugnant and wrong, but at the same time, it's hard for them to know what will stop the violence and what will provoke more violence. In the long term it's easier to see, maybe, but in the short term, it's hard to know whether the terrorist organizations would see Israeli concessions as happening in spite of the bombings or because of them, and if they think Israel is weakening under their attacks, that probably will encourage them to attack more, and it's hard to know what to do in that situation. Obviously, Israelis are better off overall than Palestinians, but they're still very frightened. It's a very, very difficult problem. I am with those who believe the UN or another third party should be sent in to help.

Mishei is right; I have no sympathy for him, but that isn't because he's a pro-Sharon Zionist (which he is, although he will deny that); it's because his arguments are illogical, his position unwaveringly sectarian (to promote the interests of one's people is one thing; to promote them above the interests of all other peoples is quite another) and his manner on this board generally patronizing and accusatory. He believes he is the "sole light in the darkness." But the darkness is mostly in his own mind. Most of this board is strongly opposed to and concerned about anti-Semitism; we just don't hear it in every statement we dislike.

One question I keep coming up against when I think about this - how do you protect a minority? The Israeli solution is to make the minority a majority in one part of the world, but that requires "cleansing" and "transfer" and other euphemisms for violence, cruelty and discrimination against the majority population. But how do you ensure the safety of a minority group, particularly one that has for so long been the target of hate? I don't know if we've come up with a good answer for that yet.

I don't know if it's worth it to say anything serious on a board constantly leafletted by the likes of Mishei, but that's my two cents, anyway.

[ 24 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 24 May 2003 10:38 AM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this could be part of the problem

quote:
Hamas Spokesman Admits: No Place For Israel In Middle East "I'm telling you frankly, the attitude of Islam is not to accept a foreign state in this area." So said Hamas spokesman Mahmoud Zahar on Tuesday on BBC - yet he met last night with Abu Mazen to discuss conditions for a "ceasefire."

PA Prime Minister Abu Mazen met with leaders of the Hamas terrorist organization, who laid down some conditions for agreeing to a "year-long ceasefire" against Israel. These included Israel's release of all imprisoned Arab terrorists and its agreement to stop all counter-terrorism activities. By stipulating such conditions, Hamas was essentially understood to be rejecting all calls for a ceasefire.

The "fact" that Hamas was willing to discuss a ceasefire at all, however, can better be understood in light of the words of one of its top leaders, senior Hamas spokesman Mahmoud A-Zahar, just two days earlier. A-Zahar, one of the participants in last night's meeting with Abu Mazen, appeared on Tim Sebastian's BBC Hardtalk show on Tuesday. A partial and unofficial transcript:

Question: You [Hamas] say that if Israel withdraws, then the resistance will stop. [You say:] 'We are calling for just one condition: An end to the occupation and the Palestinian suffering.' Then you would renounce violence totally, is that what you’re telling me - for now and forever?
Zahar: [no], without conditions. We are not the Palestinian Authority that we can give things without discussing them, without agreement...

Q. I'm asking you -
Z. Just one thing [we will give] - a ceasefire. A ceasefire is justified in our religion. Our attitude is that [Palestine] is not a political issue -

Q. Dr. Zahar, I asked you a very simple question: If Israel accepts your conditions - the elimination of the occupation - will you renounce violence, yes or no?
Z. We are going to ceasefire - only ceasefire.

Q. Yes or no to that condition? Yes, or no?
Z. I, I, I, I answered you. It's not the way to say yes or no. We are not going to --

Q. So how can Israel trust your assurances ever? You can’t even give a straight answer to a straight question. How can they trust your answers?
Z. The question is - just a moment. If Israel withdraws from our land, and says that they will not re-attack and reoccupy our country - that's a big if - they are not going to do that, because they did that before: They occupied our country in '48, occupied our areas in '56, and in '67, and Lebanon in '82 - so the history…

Q. You know what you're telling me? That under no circumstances will you give up violence until you've pushed Israel into the sea. That's what you want, isn't it?
Z. Who is saying that?

Q. You're saying that.
Z. I'm telling you frankly, the attitude of Islam is not to accept a foreign state in this area.

Q. So until Israel ceases to exist, you won't lay down your arms. Is that right?
Z. First of all, we are a part of the independent Islamist - this is the attitude of thousands and millions of people…

Q. Why do you keep on with this attitude? You are seen… by many people in the world as a bunch of ruthless killers, fanatics, terrorists. Are you happy with that picture?
Z. We're not happy - [but] these people are seeing Islam as an enemy, as a terrorist, but this is a historical mistake. Because Islam is a supreme power in this area, sooner or later we are going to achieve our power, our moral principles, our virtue, in order to implement a real state. -end-

Arutz-7's Yosef Zalmanson notes that the "ceasefire" Zahar says Islam permits is known as a "hudna" - a temporary cessation of hostilities until one side feels that it is strong enough to resume the fight. In light of the above Hamas position that "the attitude of Islam is not to accept a foreign state in this area," the Israeli Government in fact objects to a ceasefire on the part of the terrorist organizations, which it says will be used to strengthen themselves and prepare for a renewed attack against Israel. Israel demands, instead, that Abu Mazen totally disarm the terrorist groups and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.



From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 May 2003 10:50 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
don't know if it's worth it to say anything serious on a board constantly leafletted by the likes of Mishei, but that's my two cents, anyway.

I always understood that freedom of speech included boards such as babble.

This statement above sadly tries to put a chill on those (like me and others) who practice that concept here.

Suggesting in a nasty way that I am "leafletting" this Board and therefore people should stop posting goes against the core values of democratic free speech.

Smith if you choose not to post that is your perogative. To leave a chill in the air against me and others that are consistant posters for any cause (as many here are ) is anti-democratic.

[ 24 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 24 May 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I did not say that people shouldn't post, and I certainly did not suggest taking away others' right to post (your appeal to the values of "democratic free speech" is spurious). I said I wasn't sure I saw the point with you here leafletting as you do. And you do leaflet; nothing that is said here has any chance of altering your point of view to the slightest degree. You are here strictly to accuse, admonish, and keep us "in line." I simply said I'm not sure it's worth it to participate with you around.

And believe me, if there's a chill in the air around you, it isn't my doing; it's yours.

[ 24 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 24 May 2003 12:47 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
I did not say that people shouldn't post, and I certainly did not suggest taking away others' right to post (your appeal to the values of "democratic free speech" is spurious). I said I wasn't sure I saw the point with you here leafletting as you do. And you do leaflet; nothing that is said here has any chance of altering your point of view to the slightest degree. You are here strictly to accuse, admonish, and keep us "in line." I simply said I'm not sure it's worth it to participate with you around.

And believe me, if there's a chill in the air around you, it isn't my doing; it's yours.

[ 24 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


Actually when you make accusations as you do about "leafletting" what is one to assume? Why exactly can one not "post" as opposed to "leaflet"? Why can I not have a strongly held opinion and YES even try to move people towards that opinion? Must I agree with you or Al or Ol goat in order to be credible here?

You see the idea of debate and discussion is just that. There will be people who have strongly divergent views that you may vehemently disagree with. So then you post your view and so on.

But please the idea of admonishing someone for holding a diametrically opposed view to you then accusing that person of "leafletting" because he/she posts his/her view even often is offensive.

As for this back and forth on the "chill" perhaps this is also better discussed in PMs, though I note with regret that any time I have invited you to discuss this privately you choose against it. I am open to PMs on issues that may cause thread drift and I urge you to be so as well.


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

posted 24 May 2003 01:13 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Having an opinion is fine. It isn't that I find your opinions offensive (although a certain portion of them certainly do offend me); it's your way of putting them across that I dislike.

I see no reason to discuss this further in any form.

[ 24 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 24 May 2003 01:36 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I see no reason to discuss this further in any form.


Why does that not surprise me?

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

posted 24 May 2003 02:56 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Being accused of leafletting is hardly an impingement of free speech. Grow up.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 May 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And asking anyone to "grow up" is offensive. People are permitted their opinions for you to tell them to "grow up" is but another example of an attempt to chill my speech. BTW drop it. It won't work.

Why cant you just forgo the innuendos and ignorant remarks. Leave that for the children.


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

posted 24 May 2003 03:58 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, that is what it is, an attempt to chill your speech.

Imagine the king of innuendo saying that. Maybe it is time for another article explaining how nayone who criticizes Israel while not criticizing Liechtenstein is antisemetic.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 May 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
As for this back and forth on the "chill" perhaps this is also better discussed in PMs, though I note with regret that any time I have invited you to discuss this privately you choose against it. I am open to PMs on issues that may cause thread drift and I urge you to be so as well.

There is an attempt at chill and you do do it often.

Every time someone says something you don't like you bounce up so hard I think you're gonna hit the ceiling and you say "That is dangerous speech! Watch out, you are close to crossing the line!" It's actually excruciating watching you accuse someone of anti-Semitism without directly doing so because you're crying wolf more often than not, and if you keep doing it eventually you'll be ignored.

Then again Bernie Farber admitted to being caught flat-footed about the resurgence of domestic right-wing violence against Jews in Canada, since the CJC has been fixating on Israel, although it is a Canadian, Jewish Congress. The two bold-faced words would seem to imply that its primary focus would be on attacks against Jews within Canada's borders.

But then I am being logical. Apparently sometimes logic does not apply when you write, Mishei.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 24 May 2003 04:35 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's actually excruciating watching you accuse someone of anti-Semitism without directly doing so because you're crying wolf more often than not, and if you keep doing it eventually you'll be ignored.

It is an offensive and painful spectacle for those of us who take such accusations seriously.

[ 24 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 24 May 2003 05:28 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mishei:
As for this back and forth on the "chill" perhaps this is also better discussed in PMs, though I note with regret that any time I have invited you to discuss this privately you choose against it. I am open to PMs on issues that may cause thread drift and I urge you to be so as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is an attempt at chill and you do do it often.

Every time someone says something you don't like you bounce up so hard I think you're gonna hit the ceiling and you say "That is dangerous speech! Watch out, you are close to crossing the line!" It's actually excruciating watching you accuse someone of anti-Semitism without directly doing so because you're crying wolf more often than not, and if you keep doing it eventually you'll be ignored.

Then again Bernie Farber admitted to being caught flat-footed about the resurgence of domestic right-wing violence against Jews in Canada, since the CJC has been fixating on Israel, although it is a Canadian, Jewish Congress. The two bold-faced words would seem to imply that its primary focus would be on attacks against Jews within Canada's borders.

But then I am being logical. Apparently sometimes logic does not apply when you write, Mishei.


OK Doc forgive my stupidity but please indicate to me how asking someone to go to private messages to engage in "personal" issues on Babble is in any way producing chill.

Often we see here on Babble those who engage in thread drift (myself included). It rightly pisses people off. Smith and I have, at best, what can be described as a "troubled" on-line relationship. So when it veers off to the personal I suggested we keep it off a thread. This, you then say is "chilling". I dont get it.

Secondly, I have asked you and others to stop beating around the bush and give me examples as to where I have called someone, inappropriately, an anti-semite or unjustly suggested a line has been crossed.

Perhaps, in your minds I have said it more often than you like, but perhaps also it was well founded.

I know you (many of you) rail when anyone, even from within the ranks of the left, suggest that some on the left may engage hateful or inappropriate speech when it comes to Israel, you all blow a gasket. Such was the case in the past when Clay Ruby and the others wrote their classic piece in the Globe. You guys went ballistic. So Im not surprised, since I am here regularly and point out my concerns when I see them, that I get a similar reaction.

Thirdly waht is this diatribe against CJC and Farber. I recall his statement a while back but hell everyone was caught flatfooted on that one. CJC is not a police agency nor does it have the resourses to keep tabs on the extreme right. Your attack on CJC for doing what the police should do is unwarranted.

As for any Jewish organization in Canada supporting the Jewish State of Israel, what the hell do you expect? CJC, Bnai Brith, Canadian Friends of Peace Now, New Israel Fund, they are all Zionist organizations and have every right to support Israel in Canada. Are you suggesting they don't?

As for you threat to ignore me, well that would be a shame but it is not the first time such a threat (unfortunately) has been uttered here and probably won't be the last. BTW, will Skdadl read your threat Doc and come to my defence as she has with others demanding you not issue such ultimatums? I won't hold my breath.

Either way, you may not like my logic and ignoring me will not make those who target Israel inappropriately immune from confrontation by me and lately others who are more even handed on Babble.


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

posted 24 May 2003 06:04 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, I read here an ultimatum from you demanding that I denounce Doc for issuing ultimatums.

Now, maybe I have skimmed too quickly, but I can't see a sentence to you from Doc that looks like an ultimatum.

Nevertheless, given my failing eyesight and my utter faith in your close-reading abilities, let me just say this:

Doc: quit issuing ultimatums! Got it?

And furthermore:

quote:
Why cant you just forgo the innuendos and ignorant remarks. Leave that for the children.

Mishei, do you have negative feelings about children? Do you have patriarchal feelings about them? Do you begin by assuming that children are ignorant? Because I don't. You keep using the category "children" in such a pejorative sense, and that is beginning to disturb me.

(The bit about innuendo as being peculiarly childlike: now that just plain puzzles me. Innuendo is definitely a learned skill.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 24 May 2003 06:15 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know you (many of you) rail when anyone, even from within the ranks of the left, suggest that some on the left may engage hateful or inappropriate speech when it comes to Israel, you all blow a gasket.

When unsubstantiated generalizations are made, indeed we do.

quote:

Such was the case in the past when Clay Ruby and the others wrote their classic piece in the Globe. You guys went ballistic. So Im not surprised, since I am here regularly and point out my concerns when I see them, that I get a similar reaction.

Clay Ruby was wrong. So are you.

[ 24 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 May 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
As for you threat to ignore me, well that would be a shame but it is not the first time such a threat (unfortunately) has been uttered here and probably won't be the last. BTW, will Skdadl read your threat Doc and come to my defence as she has with others demanding you not issue such ultimatums? I won't hold my breath.

I issued an ultimatum? Looks more like I griped about your tendency to bounce up like a jack-in-the-box and say "You are close to crossing the line! That is dangerous speech! You may be violating Canada's hate propaganda laws!".

I didn't say "Knock it off or I'll come to your house and thump you with a whiffle bat." That would have been an ultimatum.


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

posted 24 May 2003 06:43 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mishei, do you have negative feelings about children? Do you have patriarchal feelings about them? Do you begin by assuming that children are ignorant? Because I don't. You keep using the category "children" in such a pejorative sense, and that is beginning to disturb me.


What a silly and insignificant question. No I happen to love children. I have 3 great kids whom I adore. I have also worked with children much of my life and have written extensively about child sexual abuse.

I also know that chilcdren, as sweet and inoocnet as they are, can be cruel. Sensitivity is a learned behaviour. I do not expect a 10 year old to be as sensitive as a 50 year old. However sometimes the exception here on Babble proves the rule.

quote:
I issued an ultimatum? Looks more like I griped about your tendency to bounce up like a jack-in-the-box and say "You are close to crossing the line! That is dangerous speech! You may be violating Canada's hate propaganda laws!".

I didn't say "Knock it off or I'll come to your house and thump you with a whiffle bat." That would have been an ultimatum.


No Doc when you say either do this or you will be ignored, that is an ultimatum. You do not have to threaten physical harm in order to give ultimatums or warnings. In fact remember this wierd post from Skdadl in which she suggests that I gave her a WARNING?

quote:
I would remind everyone reading: Mishei began his first reply to me with a warning. A warning!!!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be more careful as to who you choose to heap your venom on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bloody cheek. Why should I "be more careful," Mishei? What is the implied "or else"? What kind of civil response do you expect to that kind of bullying?


So if its good for the goose etc.

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

posted 24 May 2003 06:53 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said this:

quote:
Every time someone says something you don't like you bounce up so hard I think you're gonna hit the ceiling and you say "That is dangerous speech! Watch out, you are close to crossing the line!" It's actually excruciating watching you accuse someone of anti-Semitism without directly doing so because you're crying wolf more often than not, and if you keep doing it eventually you'll be ignored.

Please to be noting the bold-faced portion of my quote of myself.

I haven't yet had occasion to make any smartass remarks about your reading comprehension but it seems clear to me that you probably need new glasses if you missed the part where I pointed out that if you do it too often without a good basis for the accusation eventually you WILL say it one day and you WILL be right about it but people will automatically discount what you have to say.

That is not an ultimatum. It is simply a statement of fact - give too many warnings that don't come to pass and you'll lose the attention you need when there comes a time when you'll be right in your warnings.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 May 2003 04:59 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are Zionists so anti-leftist? Should someone start a thread on the topic?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 09:42 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's funny, isn't it, because didn't Zionism start as a leftist movement?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 May 2003 09:48 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
It's funny, isn't it, because didn't Zionism start as a leftist movement?
And for the most part (excluding people here who reject it) Zionism is made up of many leftists. Including many Jewish Canadians who as a result of many (like those on this Board)of their political colleagues are today feeling completedly disenfranchized.

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

posted 25 May 2003 10:04 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, boo hoo. If you expect leftist loyalty to your state, maybe you should pressure your state to have more respect for the principles of the left. Or, you know, not have a right-wing government. That'd be a start.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 May 2003 11:18 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
And for the most part (excluding people here who reject it) Zionism is made up of many leftists. Including many Jewish Canadians who as a result of many (like those on this Board)of their political colleagues are today feeling completedly disenfranchized.
If the cost of healing the divisions between leftists zionists and leftists in general is to turn a blind eye to the right wing military campaign in the West Bank and Gaza, then, sorry.

Zionists on the left should be looking at what Israel has become, at the unholy alliance between right wing zionists and right wing christians, and realizing this is never what Israel was suppoesd to be.


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

posted 25 May 2003 12:24 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is your anti-leftist Zionist.

americans for peace now

quote:
Shalom Achshav believes a secure peace can best be achieved through Israeli withdrawal to safe borders from the West Bank and Gaza; creation of a Palestinian state subject to strict military limitations; negotiation of security and peace accords between Israel and Syria leading to a safe Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights; and a resolution on the status of an undivided Jerusalem that accommodates the national aspirations and religious needs of both Israeli and Palestinian residents.

Security is on the mind of every Israeli. As their husbands, wives, and children move through Israeli society every moment of every day, security is the primary concern of the members of Shalom Achshav as well. This is why they work so hard for peace. They believe that peace is the only road to true security.


Peace Now

quote:
PEACE NOW adheres to the Zionist values upon which the State of Israel was founded, believing that a democratic, Jewish state can and must be secured without subjecting another people. In recognition of the simple fact that there are two peoples in this land, Palestinians and Jews, each with a history, claims and rights, PEACE NOW has called for the recognition of the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination in their own state, alongside Israel.

I support them and you'd be surprised how many Israelis support them too. This movement has had some of the biggest rally's in Israel together with many major political parties such as Labor, Meretez, Hadash.

but most of you would only say Hadash is left right?

Left is being socialist and you can be left with out being radical?

Right ranges from conservative self interested to fascist racist.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 01:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Zionism is made up of many leftists. Including many Jewish Canadians who as a result of many (like those on this Board)of their political colleagues are today feeling completedly disenfranchized.

People of principle work for their principles no matter what anyone else is doing. I can't believe any serious socialist is abandoning her principles and wasting time feeling sorry for herself in the way Mishei claims above.

Principled politics are not fashion, nor are they ego. "Disenfranchised" my foot. That is such a pathetic excuse for self-indulgence.


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

posted 25 May 2003 01:42 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl
Your right a socialist would never abandon his Ideals at least the kinds your talking about.

This leads to the conclusion that they are fanatics and are unable to compromise.

Neither would an extremist right winger.

That's probably why voter turn out shrinks all the time. The moderates don't care anymore just want to live their lives. Let the extremist battle it out between themselves so when a group like Peace Now arises they must be hypocrites and self serving they must have ulterior motives???

It's all a conspiracy!!! Trust no one!!! Fight for what you think is right don't even bother listening to other people if they don't think like they must be wrong!!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 02:12 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who said anything about Peace Now being hypocrites? I don't know a lot about the movement, but what I've read here sounds just fine to me.

quote:
Your right a socialist would never abandon his Ideals at least the kinds your talking about.

Human rights? Opposition to racism? Erm, no.

quote:

This leads to the conclusion that they are fanatics and are unable to compromise.

I don't understand your definition of "compromise." It seems to me that compromise entails both parties bending on the issues they can bend on - not on their core values -to get closer to what they want. To me and a lot of people on this board, the two-state solution is a compromise - not the ideal solution, but the one that has a chance of working. I don't know what you have in mind when you talk about compromise. A kinder, gentler occupation? Or does "compromise" in your book just mean "shut up"? I'm really puzzled here.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Human rights? Opposition to racism? Erm, no.

Those aren't just socialist values socialist aren't the only ones who believe in those values.

quote:
It seems to me that compromise entails both parties bending on the issues they can bend on - not on their core values -to get closer to what they want.

I believe in a 2 state solution is optimum and not compromise to many Israeli's and Palestinians it is a compromise.

There are many out there who's core value is their religion so or no Israel or Israel from the Mediterranean sea to the Euphrates and the Tigris. You don't think those should change?

I'm not talking about human rights or opposition to racism people can have not so righteous values. As for complete equality which socialist believe in sadly for better or worse it will never happen better striving for equal opportunity, social responsibility and healthy society one where we all go home to the same size home and get the same pay check no matter what would retard human progression I believe not encourage. Please notice I don’t support capitalism.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 03:03 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
Oh, boo hoo. If you expect leftist loyalty to your state, maybe you should pressure your state to have more respect for the principles of the left. Or, you know, not have a right-wing government. That'd be a start.
First of all "my state" is Canada> I support the state of Israel as I support the need for a Palestinian state. But you Smith are so blinded by your own negativity that you totally ignore such positions.

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

posted 25 May 2003 04:10 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I support the state of Israel as I support the need for a Palestinian state.

As do I. But your position on this goes far beyond the "two-state solution," and you know it.

quote:

But you Smith are so blinded by your own negativity that you totally ignore such positions.

I don't ignore your position. I reject it as racist and repugnant. As for negativity, I don't think someone who rejects virtually this entire board out of hand (as you did at the beginning of the first thread with this name) should talk.


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

posted 25 May 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I support the state of Israel as I support the need for a Palestinian state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As do I. But your position on this goes far beyond the "two-state solution," and you know it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you Smith are so blinded by your own negativity that you totally ignore such positions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't ignore your position. I reject it as racist and repugnant. As for negativity, I don't think someone who rejects virtually this entire board out of hand (as you did at the beginning of the first thread with this name) should talk.


Please indicate to me and this board any examples to prove that as you put it "your position on this goes far beyond the "two-state solution," and you know it."

You have referred to my position as "racist". This is an offensive LIE. Please indicate to this board any "racist" positions I have taken. Shame on you for such hateful comments without any backing whatsoever. I await your proof. I wont hold my breath.


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

posted 25 May 2003 04:37 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In my heart I believe Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel and principally Jews should be permitted to live anywhere in Jerusalem.

From the thread where you indicated that while Jews should be allowed to settle in occupied East Jerusalem, Palestinians should not be allowed to settle in West Jerusalem - presumably because they are not Jews.

You will not recognize this as racist. I do. That opinion - that Jews have more natural right to be not only in Israel but in "disputed territory" than others - underscores your entire position.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 May 2003 04:55 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
First of all "my state" is Canada> I support the state of Israel as I support the need for a Palestinian state. But you Smith are so blinded by your own negativity that you totally ignore such positions.

If this is your claim, that you are being evenhanded about the whole thing, why do you clearly indicate that you believe Palestinian-Arabs to be 99.9% guilty in the matter of failure of reconciliation?

To you, the IDF can do no wrong. To you, "purity of arms" is something more than an ideal which has been laughably un-adhered to. Et cetera and so forth.

Religion can stop a working mind in its tracks with unbelievable ability and the Middle East is proof positive of this recurring capacity.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 25 May 2003 05:16 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To you, the IDF can do no wrong. To you, "purity of arms" is something more than an ideal which has been laughably un-adhered to. Et cetera and so forth.

I wasn't trying to make the IDF angles but I see your trying very hard to dehumanize them and turn them into Nazi devils

I personally find this insulting. for many reasons some personal but on the not so personal side I never said the IDF was flawless but for the size strength and magnitude and the situation that it is in the Israeli army I think it does a -A job in adhering to these values which more then can be said about 99.99999% of the armies in the world.

There are a lot of armies that don't even have values let alone officially documented ones. Israel started with Just values when it was created some of which were stated in it's declaration of independence. The same with IDF these are time valued values. This is not just propaganda to make Israel look good. The IDF was created to prevent individual groups from taking the law into their hands and committing acts of terror. It made some difficult choices ones that it was criticize heavily for, from it's own people, but so far it's done a pretty good job as I've already shown "Altelana " is a perfect example.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 05:28 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think DrC's comment was directed at Mishei, not at you, Justice, but I'm sure you're right. For such an active and powerful army, the IDF does quite well. Nonetheless, when abuses do happen, they seem to be pretty horrible, and not to acknowledge that deliberate abuses can and do happen - well, it's naïve at best.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 05:35 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith

I was the one who brought up these values so it was important for to reply there are other personal reasons I'll let you guess. Your other points of your last positing are well taken too.

They should be better acknowledge of these unjust actions and more harshly dealt with but once again Israel does a better job then most


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

posted 25 May 2003 05:38 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my heart I believe Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel and principally Jews should be permitted to live anywhere in Jerusalem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the thread where you indicated that while Jews should be allowed to settle in occupied East Jerusalem, Palestinians should not be allowed to settle in West Jerusalem - presumably because they are not Jews.

You will not recognize this as racist. I do. That opinion - that Jews have more natural right to be not only in Israel but in "disputed territory" than others - underscores your entire position.


You are out to lunch. Yes I stated that in the context of a religious debate that has been waged for eons. Jerusalem is sacred to jews. It is spoken of in the Torah hundreds of times. To this day Jews face jerusalem in prayer. Therefore it has always been my contention that Jerusalem is Israel's eternal capital and Jews should be able to livbe there anywhere.

I have NEVER siad that Palestinians cannot live in Jerusalem NEVER. Indeed thousands live there today and are citizens of the State of israel. Thousnds more live in East Jerusalem (AlQuds) and it has been their ancestral homeland for ceturies. Anyone who advocates removal of these people from the city would be promulgating racism. Please demonstarte where I have done so. You won't be able to. You are a LIAR pure and simple.

BTW, what I said was that Palestinians who do not presently live in Jerusalem who are not citizens of Israel and have no automatic right to immigrate to Israel should be permitted to live in East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem has always been in Israeli hands. It is outside the wall and beyond the 1967 borders.


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

posted 25 May 2003 05:50 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 05:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, I think we have a continuity problem here. I suspect that you intended that last post to be a reply to Smith's search on the Hamas thread. But we're here now, eh? So:

Everyone reading that last post of Mishei's can see the catch, yes? A number of people tried to pin Mishei down on that catch on the thread Smith dug up (see Hamas thread), and he just slipped away from all direct questions then. Just watch: he'll do it again.

Mishei: Your last post says that any Jew should be able to live anywhere in Jerusalem because Jerusalem is sacred to Jews. It also says -- craftily -- that many Palestinians live there now, especially in East Jerusalem, and should be permitted to stay.

Ok ... so in East Jerusalem, we seem to have your commitment to freedom for Palestinians. In all of Jerusalem, we have your commitment to freedom for Jews. But Mishei, we do not have your commitment to the freedom of the city for Palestinians, as you claim it for Israelis.

Of course I see your problem. What is shocking is your conviction that Israelis should be able to settle East Jerusalem, in the face of the anguish that you know that is causing even now, when your own politics are founded on saving Israelis from such anguish on their side ...

You are claiming privilege, Mishei. You just plain are.


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But Mishei, we do not have your commitment to the freedom of the city for Palestinians, as you claim it for Israelis.

Of course I see your problem. What is shocking is your conviction that Israelis should be able to settle East Jerusalem, in the face of the anguish that you know that is causing even now, when your own politics are founded on saving Israelis from such anguish on their side ...

You are claiming privilege, Mishei. You just plain are.


Palestinains who are citizens of Israel are free to settle anywhere in Israel they choose including East or West Jerusalem. I agree with you that Israeli Jews are best advised not to settle in East Jerusalem for the reasons you state. But Skdadl, like it or not, East Jerusalem is presently in Israeli hands. It may even stay that way. That means that any israeli citizen , Jew, Muslim, Christian are by law free to settle in East Jerusalem if they so choose.

Why would you demand the right of non-citizens or non- landed immigrants the right to settle in a country that is not theirs to settle in.

Indeed until hostilities are over Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel for the sake of saftey and security should await a peaceful negotiation to border disputes. Why would any country permit those who are not citizens or landed and may indeed be beligerants to settle in their country. It makes no sense to me.


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:36 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think you are an appalling excuse for a human being, Mishei.

Until a day or two ago, I was a strong defender of a two-state solution, Mishei.

Reading this over again ... has made me think again, Mishei.

But maybe it's just you. There's hope in that thought.


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:44 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's appalling about that, that others things be settled such as borders before the dealing with Refugee status??? that Refugee status not be unconditional so Israel doesn't choke to death???
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 May 2003 06:52 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice, love, he is being a lawyer. He is playing with technicalities. He is toying with lives by playing language games.

We call such people politicians, Justice. Their nation is themselves. Their morality is their last self-indulgent impulse. Oh! I felt it so deeply! Thus, it must be true! I am such a sensitive person!

That is Mishei. And that is all the overprivileged North American airheads who are tormenting an indigenous population that cannot possibly defend itself against the machiavellianism of a Mishei. And why? Seriously: why?

Do you enjoy hurting people, Mishei?


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:56 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice, Skdadl gets away with all kinds of crap here and people just think she is beyond reproach.

You are quite right about my position and Israel WILL choke to death otherwise. . So when Skdadl uses an ugly ad hominem attack to claim:

quote:
I think you are an appalling excuse for a human being, Mishei.
you can rest assured that no one will say boo. Even though it is distasteful and she claimed it simply because , as you point out, I want Israel to live. She should re-read what she claims about me because IMHO it suits her much better.

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

posted 25 May 2003 07:00 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do you enjoy hurting people, Mishei?


quote:
I think you are an appalling excuse for a human being, Mishei.
HooKAY Ive had about enough...even from you St. Skdadl of babble...These ad hominem attacks are contrary to Babble regulations and I for one do intend on bringing it to their attention.

Skdadl, you dont have to like me or agree with me...but decent human beings dont bully and call others horrible horrible names...ENOUGH!!


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, like most North American airheads, you have never stopped to consider that your "wants" are condemning millions of other people to death.

"Want" all you want, Mishei.

It just doesn't justify ripping off, hurting, murdering others. One day it is going to hit you, Mishei, what you have been justifying. Poor you.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:08 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:09 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it not illegal to settle one's citizens in occupied territory?

As long as East Jerusalem does not officially belong to Israel and is only occupied territory, no Israeli citizens should have official permission to move there. If it is legitimate Israeli territory, then the people on it should enjoy the full rights of Israeli citizens. If it is not, then they should not. What you are suggesting, Mishei, is a continuation of the situation in the settlements, where some people living in a territory (settlers) have the right to vote in Israeli elections and to travel back and forth into Israel proper and some people living in that same territory (Palestinians) do not, and the distinction is made based on race.

quote:
Even though it is distasteful and she claimed it simply because , as you point out, I want Israel to live.

I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean "I don't want Israel to have too many Arabs in it," say that; if you think Israel's survival depends entirely on not having too many Arabs in it, say that. "I want Israel to live" is much too vague.

quote:
decent human beings dont bully and call others horrible horrible names...ENOUGH!!

I seem to remember you calling me quite a lot of names, Mishei.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:10 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Mishei, like most North American airheads, you have never stopped to consider that your "wants" are condemning millions of other people to death.

"Want" all you want, Mishei.

It just doesn't justify ripping off, hurting, murdering others. One day it is going to hit you, Mishei, what you have been justifying. Poor you.



You are a judgemental and arrogant person. You dont know me other than here. Yet you have the audacity to make such stupid and inane value judgements. You are to be pitied.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:14 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I seem to remember you calling me quite a lot of names, Mishei.


Hmm I dont recall Smith. But if I did I know they were not the disgusting attacks I have been subjected to here as of late. Geeze Im beginning to think you guys dont want me to continue posting here. Naaa from social democrats like yourselves where all should be welcomed and debated.

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

posted 25 May 2003 07:15 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Indeed, I know you here.

I know that you will talk about Israelis in human terms, from the heart.

And I know that you will, in the same post, suddenly talk about Palestinians in tricksome legalisms. Suddenly, you will be denying them the human reality that you grant to the Israelis.

Och, aye, Mishei, but I know you.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:16 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I know that you will, in the same post, suddenly talk about Palestinians in tricksome legalisms. Suddenly, you will be denying them the human reality that you grant to the Israelis.

Och, aye, Mishei, but I know you.


are you on drugs????

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 May 2003 07:22 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why would any country permit those who are not citizens or landed and may indeed be beligerants to settle in their country. It makes no sense to me.

And it makes no sense to many other people why people who are born in a country cannot be citizens of that country.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:24 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Must be. She is still taking you seriously.

But never mind that now,
look, another antisemite.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:26 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS:

Flattered as I suppose I should be, I really do wish that people would stop referring to me as Saint skdadl.

I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a Presbyterian, and as the moderator of my church was once forced to inform Queen Victoria, who was mistakenly assuming that when she was in Scotland, she was the head of the Church of Scotland, Presbyterians don't have earthly hierarchies. ("The Church of Scotland has only one heed, ma'm, and he is Jesus Christ our Lord!")

We are democrats. Seriously.

I have faith, but I don't have saints. Not after the Reformation, anyway. Some of the early guys were interesting.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:31 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
are you on drugs????

Is that a reaction to my "Och, aye"?

Because, if so, I am going to complain to audra about anti-Celticism on babble.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:32 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut

Prof sacks is clearly saying what I've been saying and what most Israelis have been saying for ages. And the article also doesn't specify his feelings on the right of return Israel's existence or the amount of accountability the Palestinians and other Arab neighbors have.

All I can see and agree is that it was a mistake the Isreali goverment didn't settle the West bank and Gaza Issue back in 67.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:38 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And it makes no sense to many other people why people who are born in a country cannot be citizens of that country.

Fine then only the original 750,000 but their children weren't born there. Now that would be hypocritical and in human of me to believe or accept,

How ever as I said before forcing Israel to accept the Right of Return unconditionally would choke it death. You would be denying Israeli rights and there for it would be hypocritical to claim you are for human rights. Unless you don't believe Jews are human. I'm not inferring anything just think about it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 07:44 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How ever as I said before forcing Israel to accept the Right of Return unconditionally would choke it death. You would be denying Israeli rights and there for it would be hypocritical to claim you are for human rights.

Please explain this. I don't understand you at all. Again, I'm not for an unconditional right of return because I don't think it'd work, but I don't see how it "denies Israeli rights." Would Israelis be forced off their land to make room for returning Arabs and their descendants? That would certainly be wrong. But if it were just a case of Arabs moving next door, I don't see how that's a denial of Israeli rights.

quote:

Unless you don't believe Jews are human.

That's not fair.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:50 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Please explain this. I don't understand you at all. Again, I'm not for an unconditional right of return because I don't think it'd work, but I don't see how it "denies Israeli rights." Would Israelis be forced off their land to make room for returning Arabs and their descendants? That would certainly be wrong. But if it were just a case of Arabs moving next door, I don't see how that's a denial of Israeli rights.

To the Palestinians state once borders are decided on no problem. I think though there are many people who believed they should have the right to return to their homes inside Israel it is a valid point but very dangerous. Any person living in Israel deserves the rights of all Israelis including to vote and be represented in parliament. They could effectively have a majority change laws and discriminate against Jews at the most they would change Israelis identity. That doesn't mean they don't deserve their own that why a Palestinian sate is needed.

quote:
Unless you don't believe Jews are human.

your right it's a little over the top but that what essentially an unconditional right of return as I showed you would do.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 09:48 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Any person living in Israel deserves the rights of all Israelis including to vote and be represented in parliament. They could effectively have a majority change laws and discriminate against Jews at the most they would change Israelis identity. That doesn't mean they don't deserve their own that why a Palestinian sate is needed.

See, I think this is where we disagree.

Because the Jewish majority in Israel cannot be maintained without discrimination and force, I don't see it as a goal for the long term. I think it makes sense for the foreseeable future, yes, but I don't think the loss of the majority inevitably spells doom for Jewish Israelis. And thus, when you use over-the-top phrases like "unless you don't think Jews are human," it bothers me, because you seem to be operating on the assumption that if Jews have to live with too many non-Jews, they will inevitably suffer for it. And I just don't believe that that is inevitable, and I don't think you realise how hurtful such suggestions (that we are anti-Semitic or "don't think Jews are human") are.


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

posted 25 May 2003 10:03 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not accusing anyone my objective is just to make them think about the implications of their suggestions.

And if you think it's inevitable that the Jews lose their majority in Israel and not be discriminated against just look at history. Yes we've made leaps and bounds but sadly hate is still far from dying and order to protect people from it I believe every identifiable ethnic group needs to have it's own sovereign land. Its not just chemicals sadly it's human nature too when you start mixing too much reactions begin. I don't want to sound discriminatory I want to protect people from discrimination and hate. Jews, Palestinians, Kurds, Chechnyaians, American natives etc… I feel only by each group having sovereignty over itself it is possible. I also mentioned before on this thread that socialist ideal of one international government is a bad idea because minorities will lose their voices their individuality and inevitably be discriminated against.

You make think I'm crazy but look at history not just at the Jews but every other ethnic group or they were persecuted or effectively assimilated (Essentially a heritage extinct) the Irony of the Jews is they tried to assimilate and still suffered.

The world should accommodate not discriminate or force to assimilate

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 10:12 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am more optimistic about human nature than you are, then. That doesn't make me a bigot.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 25 May 2003 10:19 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Life isn't fair but what I suggested is fairer.

I'm hopeful this tragedy of the Jews and the Palestinians will end. I believe both will overcome and become great nations but I do believe my way is the only way possible and most just.


I said I don't believe history will solve our problems but there is still a lot you could learn from it take a look at what I told you.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 10:47 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That sounds like a nice little argument for racial segregation. In a different context it would sound very ugly indeed.

Again, I don't disagree with you on the specifics of this situation, but I do disagree with your principles.

quote:
I said I don't believe history will solve our problems but there is still a lot you could learn from it take a look at what I told you.

If you don't mind, I'd prefer you didn't make sweeping assumptions about what I have and haven't read.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 11:03 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you don't mind, I'd prefer you didn't make sweeping assumptions about what I have and haven't read.

I don't know what you've read or seen or what your experiences are but if you have then the question is what you think about what the history shows.

[quote]Again, I don't disagree with you on the specifics of this situation, but I do disagree with your principles.[/qoute]

What princple that everyone have their own land and be free?

I don't think it's racial segregation if believe to everyone's right to independence self determination and sovereignty over themselves if I say we all have deserve the same and equal rights how is that racist?

I don't think we should segregate people, but people should be able to and take responsibility for themselves.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 11:19 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What princple that everyone have their own land and be free?

"Separate but equal," you might say?

quote:

I don't think it's racial segregation if believe to everyone's right to independence self determination and sovereignty over themselves if I say we all have deserve the same and equal rights how is that racist?

If you say we shouldn't or can't mix, not just in the short term but as a general principle, that's racist.

quote:

I don't think we should segregate people, but people should be able to and take responsibility for themselves.

That's a nice idea, but what does it mean? There are a lot of different ways of being self-determining.


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

posted 25 May 2003 11:46 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Separate but equal," you might say?

If person wants to become a part of some one else's society he/she should be able to do so but a society has a right to deafened its interest.

If 30 million Americans were to just plunk themselves in Canada saying "its our right its a free world." what do you think would happen?

quote:
If you say we shouldn't or can't mix, not just in the short term but as a general principle, that's racist.

in the long run we should be able mix once things have been settled but it will be gradual and sadly there will probably be limitations.

quote:
That's a nice idea, but what does it mean? There are a lot of different ways of being self-determining.

If people don't want there own country fine they should be able to have there choice of self-determination and self rule for example Nomads such as Gypsies and Bedouins it is wrong to force upon anyone something they don't want. It is perfectly viable for them to have laws that just, that are un attached to country and that represents their identity. That are protective of human rights and don't infringe upon other people or countries that they may room as well they can still be prductive and contribute to the global community.

If people want a certain piece of land they should be allowed to have it. if another group of people are there or wants it too a compromise is need. Here is the crux however if people want their piece of land and need assistance then the international provide that assistance as deemed necessary by an internationally accepted organization such the UN, to be more specific the World Bank or IMF. People can demand indefinitely what ever and should not be encouraged to become leeches. They need to be taught how to be self sufficient. They should cooperate in a global community of fair trade that is protective of its natural environment. I believe everybody has some resource they can trade and it doesn't have to be natural knowledge and man power is also a very valuable resource and people should be fairly compensated for it.

Put in other words feed a man a fish (give him a country) hell have food for a day (or become a leech.) Teach him how to fish he'll have food for a life time (and you will have a good neighbor that will give mutual benefits win, win).

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 11:56 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know I'm repeating myself but here is another way to put this important point across people should not only have equal rights they should take of themselves if they need the help to do so it should be provided in socialist society the motivation to take care of ones self is lost and advancement that could be not only beneficial but necessary would be retarded.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 May 2003 12:32 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Put in other words feed a man a fish (give him a country) hell have food for a day (or become a leech.) Teach him how to fish he'll have food for a life time (and you will have a good neighbor that will give mutual benefits win, win).

...speaking of inhuman (never mind ethnocentric and patronizing) statements...

And as for your comments about the return of those whose land was stolen from them causing the Israeli state to "choke," what? How? Will Palestinians plug the transit systems, the nations plumbing, or is their odour offensive?

Is Israel a democracy? It doesn't look like it. A state whose citizenship is based on racial privelege is racist, PERIOD.

[ 26 May 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


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

posted 26 May 2003 12:50 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Arabs that live in Israel have the same rights. why don't you read everything I said. Better yet let me quote some good points for you.

quote:
To the Palestinians state once borders are decided on no problem. I think though there are many people who believed they should have the right to return to their homes inside Israel it is a valid point but very dangerous. Any person living in Israel deserves the rights of all Israelis including to vote and be represented in parliament. They could effectively have a majority change laws and discriminate against Jews at the most they would change Israelis identity. That doesn't mean they don't deserve their own that's why a Palestinian sate is needed.

There is much more this is a good start. Please read everything before you attack not just what want too. think about all what I said carefully and not just parts, So you can say aha and think you can twist my words upon me.

I have interest which are clear but no ulterior motive and I do take in took account every ones wants and needs. It's more a matter of what people need and deserve not what they want.

[ 26 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 26 May 2003 03:41 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
think about all what I said carefully

Tell ya what. You start, by expressing yourself carefully.

If I start reading every tortured word that every self-important windbag on babble writes ....


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

posted 26 May 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you want to take things words and twist them to sound the way you want don't bother answering because you know perfectly well what I mean and you know perfectly well the Israel is not a country based on ethnic privileges. Many countries have immigration laws.

The Israeli government doesn't want to be in the west bank or Gaza

and as far as the rest of Israel goes whether it was stolen or not I think is irrelevant the people who are there now have a right to be there, the have a right a deafened themselves and have a right to keep the identity of the country the way it is. This doesn't contradict the right to a Palestinian country the way the Palestinians want. If you still want to belabour the point go ahead try it They will have to come to some sort of settlement on borders but unconditional right of return's almost every government in the world knows that.

[ 26 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 26 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 26 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 May 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you want to take things words and twist them to sound the way you want don't bother answering because you know perfectly well what I mean and you know perfectly well the Israel is not a country based on ethnic privileges. Many countries have immigration laws.

How many have immigration laws privileging one ethnic or religiou group over another?

I'm not arguing that it's entirely wrong to have that privilege, in the short term. But it is privilege based on race and religion. It simply is. You can't have a state that puts the claims of one religion above all others and then claim it doesn't discriminate on ethnicity. It simply doesn't make sense.

[ 26 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 26 May 2003 02:43 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You can't have a state that puts the claims of one religion above all others and then claim it doesn't discriminate on ethnicity.
Really? Well in a way the Ontario government has been doing just that for years by giving government funding to Roman Catholic religious schools while denying that same benefit to all other relgious groups. This has been supported, to this day by both the Liberals and the NDP. While the Tories have given some minor tax breaks to private schools it still in no way comes close to rectifying the discrimination. So you see it can happen anywhere in differnt forms.

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

posted 26 May 2003 02:50 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did I say Canada didn't discriminate?

I oppose the continuation of the Roman Catholic public school system. (I also oppose the grants to private schools; that just makes it worse.)


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 26 May 2003 03:07 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Correct me if I am wrong but don't Catholic Schools get funding because they lost the war and it was good faith gesture that we would allow the French Catholics to maintain there traditions and culture in this way? I don't support religous schools, by the by, for anyone, but if my understanding is correct this was decided a very long time ago and with good intentions. Not racist ones. The Government also suplies free tuition to First Nations people, shall we stop that? Is that discrimminatory?
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 May 2003 03:09 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well in a way the Ontario government has been doing just that for years by giving government funding to Roman Catholic religious schools while denying that same benefit to all other relgious groups.

Typical Torontocentric myopia. Ontario isn't a state. It's a province within the state of Canada.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 May 2003 03:20 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee Mishei, I was unaware that Ontario was a Catholic state or province the way Israel is a Jewish state.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 May 2003 03:30 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Gee Mishei, I was unaware that Ontario was a Catholic state or province the way Israel is a Jewish state.
So was I...then why would there be what appears to be an official religion whose schools are completely funded by our tax dollars to the exclusion of all others? That is discrimination no matter how you cut the cake.

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

posted 26 May 2003 03:31 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm a Muslim and I have relatives with young children who wonder why Muslim schools aren't equally funded with Catholic schools...but I understand that there are certain historical contingencies which have led to the current situation that make me a little sympathetic. So I am conflicted on the matter.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 May 2003 03:34 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apples and oranges, Mishei, which you must be aware since your argument is so transparently lame. There's an enormous difference between an otherwise secular state funding one particular religious school system, and a religious state.

[ 26 May 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 26 May 2003 03:36 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, that is Québec, or used to be. However, at least in Montreal, confessional school boards have been eliminated, replaced by French and English language boards, as a result of a long struggle waged by the MEMO (Mouvement pour une école moderne et ouverte, a school-board level party), the secular mouvement here, and union and community groups. Like most progressive people in Quebec, I oppose funding faith-based schools, and any private schools. Education should be public and secular, to promote tolerance and equality.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 May 2003 03:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The funding of Catholic schools in Ontario is on its way out. At the moment, it is true, democrats seem to be facing a rear-guard assault by the forces of reaction -- many forces of reaction, sadly -- but I live in hope.

I think the NDP is taking the stupid position it does by some sort of analogy with affirmative-action strategies, as Scout has mentioned above. Personally, I don't believe that Catholics anywhere in Canada are in that situation any longer, and in the province where it most mattered to make their accommodation with the state clear (Quebec), citizens have clearly signalled that that struggle is over, and that they prefer democracy. Damn good for them.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 May 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm a Muslim and I have relatives with young children who wonder why Muslim schools aren't equally funded with Catholic schools...but I understand that there are certain historical contingencies which have led to the current situation that make me a little sympathetic. So I am conflicted on the matter.

Well, there are historical contingencies for most things. The decision to have a publicly funded separate school board probably made sense a hundred years ago, but a lot has changed since then.

It's good to feel sympathetic, I think, but at the same time, this is a very different country now.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 26 May 2003 04:52 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry everyone. Michelle's not as available right now, moderation wise. I should have kept a closer look at this.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca