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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Hamas Prepared to halt murders

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hamas Prepared to halt murders
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 May 2003 05:47 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems that Hamas is prepared to stop murdering "most" Israeli civilians and this is a good sign.

It is disappointing however that it will continue to target soldiers (even if they are not engaged in fighting?...unclear) and more-so settlers.

quote:
Rantisi immediately hedged his statement by saying: "We have made it clear to Abu Mazen that we would not stop targeting Israeli soldiers and settlers."

What settlers? Children, babies ??? Look I do not support the settler extremists who wage war against innocent Palestinians and I do believe that Israel will have to evacuate the disputed territories in order for peace to be reached. But killing settlers and their children is still murder.

Either way it is maybe a sign of change that is a straw we can grasp.

Hamas truce


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

posted 24 May 2003 06:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree: I think it is an important statement.

Well, we can hope.

I feel sorry for the settlers -- for being both vulnerable and ignorant -- but I think that they are all irresponsible to a degree that puts them beyond the help that any rational person could offer them.

It is a principle in law that criminals should not be able to profit from their crimes. And ignorance isn't a defence. Some of the settlers are ideologues, and it is hard to feel any sympathy for them; but some of them are just airheads. Poor stupid spoiled North American brats. And for this, a whole native people suffer.


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

posted 25 May 2003 09:59 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And now more good news. BTW the news that folks such as Wing and others said could never happen as I recall.

]

quote:
Sharon was quoted Sunday by the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth as saying it was time to reach a deal with the Palestinians.


quote:
the time has come to divide this land between us and the Palestinians," the paper quoted Sharon as saying.

Israel OKs Road Map

And now my friends I am off to the CNE grounds where the Toronto Jewish community will be having their "WALK FOR ISRAEL". Over 25,000 people are expected to participate. Hope to see you there.

[ ]25,000 to walk for Israel

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 11:12 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uhm, yeah, sure ...

quote:
Ariel Sharon took immediate advantage yesterday of an offer by Washington which will let Israel accept the US road map for peace in the Middle East without intending to implement it fully ... Mr Sharon opposes a freeze on settlements in the occupied territories, as do his rightwing allies who will vote on the plan. He also insists that there must be a complete end to attacks by Palestinians before he will make any concessions.

PR does not spell progress.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 25 May 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hamas is changing their name?
From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 25 May 2003 11:59 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well you might as well walk straight into fantasy land Mishei. Sharon's whole modus operandi is to pay lip service to a just settlement when he has no choice. Words are easy; actions and results are a lot harder.

And when Sharon speaks of "dividing the land" with the Palestinians, what he means is dividing the west bank, not the land between the sea and the Jordan.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 May 2003 12:33 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I rather suspect as well that Sharon's remarks may be intended for public consumption, since there's a weasel-wordish quality about them that could result in josh's interpretation being correct.
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 12:40 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Josh would you trust anyone on Israeli side??? The Israeli's gave Arafat ten years and his still around. But there is nobody on the Israeli side that is capable of negotiating right???

Or maybe there is nobody on the Israeli side that is capable of surrendering and sacrificing the whole country and people how about that for a theory

Aren't both sides allowed to have reservations? Shouldn't we be patient and hopeful. Anyways even Abbas has a shady background of supporting some of the Fattah terrorist actions. I guess he shouldn't be trusted either???

Point is rather then right denouncing a positive move as hypocritical and "Lip sevice" why not give it a chance. If you want to give peace a chance both side are going to have to give each other a chance to compromise.

At this moment Sharon isn't really doing all he should but don't forget it was the Likud that back out of the Sinai was everybody no their were a lot that weren't but it happened anyway.

anyways it's not just up to sharon he is not a dictator the cabinet voted 12 to 7 with 4 abstentions if he brings it to parliment the gap will be even wider to the positive side. I say the move is a big step even though more needs to be done.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 12:59 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
At this moment Sharon isn't really doing all he should but don't forget it was the Likud that back out of the Sinai was everybody no their were a lot that weren't but it happened anyway.

Sharon is no Menachem Begin.

And as I recall even Begin got trashed by extremist fundamentalist groups for the negotiated return of the Sinai to Egypt, so... *shrug*


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

posted 25 May 2003 01:07 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And "judea and samaria" is no Sinai. Sinai was never considered part of the "land of Israel." So it wasn't difficult for the Likud to return it.

As for trusting someone on the Israeli side, there are a number of figures I would trust. But I would not trust anyone from the Likud.


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

posted 25 May 2003 01:28 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Difficult to return??? the Israelis wanted to return to Judea and Samaria to Jordan back in 67 Jordanians said no it's your problem. Jordan occupied those Palestinian lands at the time funny no one made a fuss about it those many years that Jordan occupied them hmmm

as far as Gaza goes which was controlled by Egypt until 67. When Israel gave back the Sinai it wanted to through Gaza into. Egyptians also said no it's your problem. Talk about not wanting to give back land.

So either these Arab countries don't even care whether Palestinians live or die. Or want to use them projectiles to destroy Israel. In any case still didn't care about the lives of Palestinians.

The same goes with Lebanon and the Palestinian refugees there if the Lebanese were so concerned about the well being of the refugees they would accommodate them but if they accept to accommodate them then they would be accepting Israelis right to exist and wouldn't have an excuse to get rid of Israel.

Once again I also have to make things clear Israel is not a dictatorship you can't just focus on Sharon it's not up to him. There was a 12 to 7 vote with 4 abstentions in the cabinet if Sharon brings it to the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) I guarantee that gap will grow.


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

posted 25 May 2003 01:34 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And Yes Manachem Begin did get trashed. But these fanatics hardly represent Israel. and it was done anyways because it was the right thing to do. The same will happen with Sharon if it doesn't he will be removed by his own people democratically not like Rabin there aren't that many fanatics out there not on the left and moderates in Israel who would be the ones wanting to remove Sharon.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 02:17 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Jordan occupied those Palestinian lands at the time funny no one made a fuss about it those many years that Jordan occupied them hmmm

It was a different time. I don't think you should be making veiled accusations against people you don't know.


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

posted 25 May 2003 02:28 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How was it different they all had jobs and good income they weren't starving???
They weren't being killed by an occupying army???

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

posted 25 May 2003 03:06 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
How was it different they all had jobs and good income they weren't starving???
They weren't being killed by an occupying army???


Justice, this is the common rersponse from people like Smith. Ignore the fact that the WB was never a Palestinain state; ignore the fact that Jordan had control of the WB fro 1947-1967; ignore the fact that priot to 47 it was a British protectorate and before that Ottomon. To many here, only the Israelis are to blame.

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

posted 25 May 2003 03:10 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I fail to see the point each of you are making. There was a Palestine prior to 1947, was there not? What is now called the west bank was part of that state or country, no?
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 May 2003 03:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1. So how was the walk, Mishei?

2. Mishei, that is a load of tripe. There have been many threads on babble going into the deep past of Palestine. Some of us have been through so many that we don't often feel like revving up again for the discussion, but it is simply not true to imply that most babblers are unaware of the long line of predators that the people of Palestine have had to endure.


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

posted 25 May 2003 03:48 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl, the walk was great thanks. My kids had a great time and there was a real sense of community.

quote:
There was a Palestine prior to 1947, was there not? What is now called the west bank was part of that state or country, no?
Actually No. As I recall it was a British protectorate. I do not believe there was ever a country called "Palestine". If my history serves me correctly Palestine was acctually named by the British.

quote:
There have been many threads on babble going into the deep past of Palestine. Some of us have been through so many that we don't often feel like revving up again for the discussion, but it is simply not true to imply that most babblers are unaware of the long line of predators that the people of Palestine have had to endure.

I never said they were unaware...I siad they didnt care.

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

posted 25 May 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Justice, this is the common rersponse from people like Smith. Ignore the fact that the WB was never a Palestinain state; ignore the fact that Jordan had control of the WB fro 1947-1967; ignore the fact that priot to 47 it was a British protectorate and before that Ottomon. To many here, only the Israelis are to blame.

We could argue that point for ages and get nowhere I think it's irrelevant whether there was or wasn't. The fact is that nothing justifies the conditions that the Palestinians live in there isn't. One state can't be more just then another when in killing people. That doesn't mean however a country doesn't have the right to defend itself.

What they are essentially doing is justifying terrorism. Terrorism as I've proven is not self defense and is not justifiable by occupation other wise it should have been justified against the Jordanians (there are many reasons why the Jordanian authorities didn't suffer as much) the British (Which they did suffer both from Jews and Palestinians eventually left, this won't happen in the case of the Jews there are actual people living there not just soldiers and they have nowhere to go) and the same would go against the Ottoman Empire. If they want equality then hold everybody to the same standard doesn't excuse it or be apologetic for it.

I'm not and I guess you're not for the incursions in west bank and Gaza. We believe in a 2 state solution and I'm pretty sure we would both accept and even like a unilateral withdrawal. That is all difference.

Yet they seem to think that Israel deserves and Jews need to be held to different standards this short history proves so. They can't hold Israel to different standards that what they are doing by ignoring the point. Essentially what they are doing is manifesting literally what is said in the bible. I don't want to believe that I want to believe that all people even if they have different identities, skills, capabilities, hopes and dreams. That their humanity is the same and we are all human no one is chosen by god. I believe in god but god doesn't tell me what's right or wrong. God doesn't tell me if my actions are justified or not. It's the outcome its how other people feel and my feelings count too.

The great Rabbi Hillel in his interpretation of Judaism said it best and hope and believe most Jews and all decent human beings believe this way "Do on to others as would like done on to you"

Josh I would still like an answer on the Jordanian occupation of Palestine I'm justifying Israel or the British and Ottoman empires I'm simply trying to make a level playing field and find standards we can all accept. Don't ignore don't excuse anybody don't make different sets and standards for different and be critical of everyone equally.

Skadal so O.K. the Palestinians same as the Jews had to endure a lot then why only after 67 didn't they really start to fight all out especially after 93 that is the question? I could offer a couple different possibilities but I think irrelevant it's not going to help find a solution and it's going to help justify them any more.I'd still be interestead though in hearing your answer.

I believe in a 2 state solution Period. The Palestinians need more then to say they feel there identity now and they feel that’s where they belong I don't need historic facts and the same goes to any nation including the Jews who live in Israel.


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

posted 25 May 2003 04:23 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I meant that it was a different time in the West, and priorities have shifted to some degree.

quote:
I'm not and I guess you're not for the incursions in west bank and Gaza. We believe in a 2 state solution and I'm pretty sure we would both accept and even like a unilateral withdrawal. That is all difference.

Mishei claims this; however, he will not accept that anything Israel is doing at this point is immoral, unnecessary, or wrong. His support for Israel is unconditional. That, to me, is hypocritical.

quote:

Yet they seem to think that Israel deserves and Jews need to be held to different standards this short history proves so.

Excuse me, but when Jordan was occupying Israel, I wasn't born yet. I don't know that segment of history particularly well; I'm happy to learn. But I don't see how that delegitimizes modern-day criticisms of Israel. "Other people did the same thing" is not an excuse for bad behaviour.

quote:

They can't hold Israel to different standards that what they are doing by ignoring the point.

So, because other regimes have got away with behaving badly, Israel must have carte blanche to behave badly too?

I am all for understanding and sympathy; however, being asked to understand and being ordered not to criticize or comment are quite, quite different things.

quote:

I don't want to believe that I want to believe that all people even if they have different identities, skills, capabilities, hopes and dreams. That their humanity is the same and we are all human no one is chosen by god.

Mishei has stated on this very board that he believes that Jews have more natural right to be on that piece of land than anyone else does. If that isn't a theory of election - and a self-serving corruption of the doctrine of "chosen people" - I don't know what is.

I hope the march went well; the cause seems worthy. However, I refuse to accept that Mishei's brand of Zionism represents the Jewish people as a whole. Jewish opinion on the subject is and always has been heterogenous; the Jews are not a monolith in any way, and the minute one pretends otherwise, in my opinion, one opens the doors to real anti-Semitism, which is quite a lot scarier than Mishei's "crossing the line" bugaboo.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 25 May 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, that Palestine may have been a British colony, a la India, does not mean there was no "Palestine." Didn't the Zionists want a Jewish homeland in Palestine? I'm not sure what your point is.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 May 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mishei claims this; however, he will not accept that anything Israel is doing at this point is immoral, unnecessary, or wrong. His support for Israel is unconditional. That, to me, is hypocritical.

Smith this is another one of your blatant LIES. Please show proof on this Board that I will not accept "anything Israel is doing at this point is immoral, unnecessary, or wrong.".

quote:
Mishei has stated on this very board that he believes that Jews have more natural right to be on that piece of land than anyone else does. If that isn't a theory of election - and a self-serving corruption of the doctrine of "chosen people" - I don't know what is.



This is your biggest LIE yet. Have you absolutely no shame? Do you live in a fantasy world? I challenge you to prove to this Board that it is my belief "...Jews have more natural right to be on that piece of land than anyone else does.".

Surely such continual lies against babblers have to be contrary to babble policy. I will check and if so ask Audra for a ruling. This is nuts.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 04:48 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Smith this is another one of your blatant LIES. Please show proof on this Board that I will not accept "anything Israel is doing at this point is immoral, unnecessary, or wrong."

How can one prove a negative? If you come up with a criticism of Israel - a genuine criticism, not a "if only the Palestinians would let us be generous" waffle - I'll apologize.

quote:

I challenge you to prove to this Board that it is my belief "...Jews have more natural right to be on that piece of land than anyone else does.".

For a start, you have stated that "primarily Jews" should have the right to settle in Jerusalem, both the Israeli west and the occupied east, and that Palestinian Arabs should not have an equivalent right.

quote:

Surely such continual lies against babblers have to be contrary to babble policy.

I'm sure they are when they're actually lies.


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

posted 25 May 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
This is your biggest LIE yet. Have you absolutely no shame? Do you live in a fantasy world? I challenge you to prove to this Board that it is my belief "...Jews have more natural right to be on that piece of land than anyone else does.".

Have you not termed Israel a "Jewish state"?

Logic dictates that this, perforce, indicates a desire for the Israeli population to be of predominantly Jewish character and for its government to guard the Jewish faith.

And has not the entire basis of Zionism been predicated on the claims in a 2000-plus-year-old book of dubious accuracy that the Israelites (of which the Jews are predominantly descendants due to lack of extensive conversions and a lack of an evangelical tradition) owned that land?

Seems to me that Israel isn't termed the "Jewish homeland" for nothing.


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

posted 25 May 2003 04:55 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei: You have claimed that the Israeli claim to Jerusalem is privileged. You have. I remember that discussion.

josh's post above is, of course, the principled position. People were there. It was their home. Who here wishes to model her moral self after the Versailles British, or the Turks before them? And appealing to technicalities against josh's deep human, moral claim -- ooh, tacky tacky.


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

posted 25 May 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith

I'll let Meshi answer for him self but I do believe he openly criticizes Israel when need be. Making things equally balanced. You see many more Palestinians unconditionally support the Palestinian cause then Jews that unconditionally support the Israeli cause. I also criticize Israel and believe Israel has to take a fair amount of responsibility on its self stress on the fair.

On another thread you said you to support a 2 state solution but if you believe that Israel must accept an unconditional right of return then that too is hypocritical I don't know about you but many people on this chat board believe so. The right of return has to be done gradually and certain rules need to be set in order to secure safety and security of everyone. I do admit many people in the Israeli government oppose the right of return out right. I oppose an unconditional right of return out right. As the situation improves and times change so will the opinion of people and government and the people that running the government change too. Israel can justifiably accept partial rights of return with out automatically accepting unconditional rights of return as some people on this board believe so. As well the accepting of the right of return will not automatically improve their quality of life there for it does not take priority to improving their human rights in places such as Lebanon. The Lebanese authorities fear that if they take responsibility for the refugees in their boards they forfeit their demand for an unconditional right of return and there chance to destroy Israel. I don't think improving the Palestinians refugees' quality of life changes things that much. Maybe a few less will be adamant about the right of return but if that is truly what they want they won't give it up. I still think it is of urgency and priority that they get the humanitarian aid and rights they deserve from the Lebanese's government and in another country there maybe refugees.

quote:
Mishei, that Palestine may have been a British colony, a la India, does not mean there was no "Palestine." Didn't the Zionists want a Jewish homeland in Palestine? I'm not sure what your point is.

Josh

lets not all get into this please my point was not to unjustify their right to a state as I said I don't need much convincing to accept anyone's right. I was simply trying to point out that the terrorist attacks were hypocritical and therefore ulterior motives such as destroying Israel lie below them. They are not self defense or out of despair I can bring many points to prove this. The responsibility has to be spread fairly.


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

posted 25 May 2003 04:59 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doc Israel is a Jewish state but this has nothing to do with the WB. The WB shouild be the area for a Palestinian state. I have said that all along. And for you to suggest otherwise you know is wrong.

quote:
For a start, you have stated that "primarily Jews" should have the right to settle in Jerusalem, both have the right to settle in Jerusalem, both the Israeli west and the occupied east, and that Palestinian Arabs should not have an equivalent right.

quote:
Mishei: You have claimed that the Israeli claim to Jerusalem is privileged. You have. I remember that discussion.
Please prove this. While I believe that Israel has the right to Jerusalem as its capital, I have said that East jerusalem should be the capital of a PA state. I have NEVER said a thing about "priviledge".

And Smith is a LIAR pure and simple.


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

posted 25 May 2003 05:04 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 May 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bravo, Smith. Either you have a better memory than I, or you are more adept at using babble's bricklefritz search machine.

Ha ha ha. Prove it, Mishei says. Try searching for what you wrote yesterday in the Middle East forum. Ha ha ha. The horror, the horror.

But Smith remembered.


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

posted 25 May 2003 05:46 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
Oh?

quote:
And Mishei, every part of Jerusalem should be open to every Palestinian, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: robbinsville, new jersey | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Mishei
rabble-rouser
posted 08 April 2003 03:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once a peace is negotiated no problem. Till then Palestinians should have acess to Jerusalem after security clearances.


quote:
Josh, personally I dont know why Israelis would want to live in East Jerusalem. That said, I think it would behoove both Israelis and Palestininas not to take any precipitous actions (IE moving for the sake of provocation) until a peace deal is negotiated.

quote:
No I answered the question. In my heart I believe Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel and principally Jews should be permitted to live anywhere in Jerusalem.
Palestinians already live in East Jerusalem and no one has a right to change that.

As for the future I believe as I stated that it behooves everybody to maintain the staus quo until a peace is neghotiated.


quote:
my preferance is that the issue of where people can live and settle along with how this is to be accomplished be part of the overall negotiations involved in a peace treaty.

Hmm here are all my thoughts on Jerusalem from the thread Smith linked.

I have been clear. While hostilities are raging the issue of who should live where should be on hold. That to Smith (and others) but mostly Smith is racist??? Smith is clearly a LIAR.


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

posted 25 May 2003 05:55 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I had a look I couldn't see where Meshi explicitly made that claim. Or maybe I just didn't understand the way things you how about you cut and paste and give an explanation. I saw Meshi expressing the fact that Jerusalem needs to be divided and the settlement should be removed. The question of whether the settlers have a right to be where they are is Irrelevant on both sides. The Palestinians need a viable state the Jews have one. The population isn't spread evenly the settlers moving to the Negev could help this.

quote:
I couldn't agree with you more, Mishei. So now, when are you going to recognize the right of return for those 750,000 Palestinians (and their millions of descdendents) who were weren't allowed back to their homes after 1948?

Because, um, Palestinians already lived in the area. And no one had the right to change that.


I just have to comment on this one though. "Once again whose first is right???" We could argue that for ages.

What's left of the original 750,000 would be possible for Israel to swallow but to accept unconditionally the right of return of 3.5-5 million Palestinians and give them rights like any other Israeli citizen is like telling Israel to choke to death. Therefore it's denying the Israelis the same rights you want to give the Palestinians. Why are the Palestinians more deserving then Jews and as I already said don't use the argument they were their first you'll never get out of it?


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:03 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
UM. As I noted on the Murder/Suicide thread below, I think Mishei posted there the response he really should have put here ... But whatever.

I honestly can't follow the logic leading to Mishei's charge above that Smith is racist and a liar, so I will be in touch with audra. Mishei: I think you are thrashing. And the claim to privilege is so clear to anyone who reads the (now most confused) threads below.


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:10 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, skdadl, Mishei didn't call me racist. The liar comment, yes, but the "racist" thing is just an ill-placed parenthetical statement.

quote:
No I answered the question. In my heart I believe Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel and principally Jews should be permitted to live anywhere in Jerusalem.
Palestinians already live in East Jerusalem and no one has a right to change that.
As for the future I believe as I stated that it behooves everybody to maintain the staus quo until a peace is neghotiated.
-------------
Hmm here are all my thoughts on Jerusalem from the thread Smith linked.

I have been clear. While hostilities are raging the issue of who should live where should be on hold.


That's not all you said. You know that. You quoted it yourself.

quote:

Smith is clearly a LIAR.

If there's a liar here, Mishei, I don't think it's me.

quote:
What's left of the original 750,000 would be possible for Israel to swallow but to accept unconditionally the right of return of 3.5-5 million Palestinians and give them rights like any other Israeli citizen is like telling Israel to choke to death.

Why?

I agree with you that it's not feasible at this time, and to tell you the truth, I don't know what the best way is to protect a minority like the Jews. But is Israel simply the sum of its Jewish citizens, its Jewish majority? Does it have to be that way forever?

quote:

Therefore it's denying the Israelis the same rights you want to give the Palestinians.

I don't see that. If the Palestinian Arabs had the right to live in Israel, Israeli Jews would somehow automatically cease to have that right?

quote:

Why are the Palestinians more deserving then Jews and as I already said don't use the argument they were their first you'll never get out of it?

They're not more deserving than the Jews. But they're not less deserving either.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 May 2003 06:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the "racist" thing is just an ill-placed parenthetical statement.

Aha. I see now. If I go back and read very closely, I see what you mean. Well, whew, eh?


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:15 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry skdadl

It was my mistake spreading thin. My last post should have really been here. I don't see anywhere that Meshi denied the Palestinians equal rights in the case of Jerusalem that, that it was said Jews should have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem doesn't mean the Palestinians should have equal rights.

I personally believe a compromise such as dividing Jerusalem or making it an internationally controlled zone would be better or else things would get messy.

So if your going to say Meshi is inferring otherwise please bring a quote and explain.

I also I'm trying to stick to the topic of Jerusalem, Israel and the Palestinians. I don't want to get involved in the name calling argument I think it's pointless and beyond most of us, although if someone calls me or a group that I support such things I will show how things aren't always what the seem and make sure people take a close look at themselves.


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:18 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't see anywhere that Meshi denied the Palestinians equal rights in the case of Jerusalem that, that it was said Jews should have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem doesn't mean the Palestinians should have equal rights.

Mishei has argued that Jews have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem. That includes moving into any part of Jerusalem they want.

In Mishei's scenario, Palestinians have the right to live in Jerusalem if they already live there. But they don't have the right to move to Jerusalem. Who has that right? "Principally Jews."

This is privilege. I realise that there is a reason for it, and I certainly would not suggest that that privilege be erased overnight, but it is privilege nonetheless. Not to acknowledge that is offensive.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 May 2003 06:24 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice, love, there are two issues here.

Mishei has made it very clear that he believes that Jews should be given the freedom of Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem (and of course we know that there are aggressive moves being made to settle Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem, to take over entire neighbourhoods -- see threads below). He has also made it sneakily clear that he would allow the Palestinians the freedom only of East Jerusalem, unless they also happened already to be living elsewhere in the city and to be citizens.

Why the inequity? (Yes, he keeps ducking admitting the inequity, but it is implicit in what he has written on that other thread.) Well, because he feels it in his heart. Jerusalem is sacred to Jews. Palestinians may be claiming that it is sacred to them too, but he doesn't quite feel that in his heart, not in quite the same way, obviously.

Smith is right. Mishei thinks his feelings are privileged. He really does. That is the pathology that has been tying up babble for over a year!!!


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:38 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I personally believe a compromise such as dividing Jerusalem or making it an internationally controlled zone would be better or else things would get messy.

Well that's what I believe it will be really hard to change if at all a built these beliefs through the experiences I've lived and seen in my 25 years of life. I think that's quite along time to observe and read history to experience and come to conclusion you also know my feelings differ on the rest of the conflict. They too will be hard to change if at all. Anyways I think things develop and evolve but not a right change. I also don't think Meshi's comments differ much from my statements but I'll let Meshi explain himself.

Jerusalem is a part of it yet a separate part of the much wider issue because it's a much smaller piece of land and both sides feel strongly towards Jerusalem and not only them hence my belied in the above proposal.


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

posted 25 May 2003 06:50 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, because he feels it in his heart. Jerusalem is sacred to Jews. Palestinians may be claiming that it is sacred to them too, but he doesn't quite feel that in his heart, not in quite the same way, obviously.
Historically, theologically and religiously Jerusalem is sacred to the Jews and Judaism. It has been its eternal Capital for thousands of years. Please show me anywhere in the Koran where Jerusalem is sacred to Islam. If you can I will apologize to the Board for my misuinderstanding of Islamic theology.

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

posted 25 May 2003 07:18 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
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 07:19 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see how that's relevant. I suppose because my people do not pray facing Toronto, I have no right to live there?

It's one thing to say that the Jews have a right to be in Jerusalem; I agree wholeheartedly with that, and Jewish holy places in the city absolutely must be respected (as must Christian and Muslim holy places, of course). It's the argument that Jews have more right to be there, intrinsically, than other people; I can't accept that.

quote:

Historically, theologically and religiously Jerusalem is sacred to the Jews and Judaism. It has been its eternal Capital for thousands of years. Please show me anywhere in the Koran where Jerusalem is sacred to Islam. If you can I will apologize to the Board for my misuinderstanding of Islamic theology.

I thought Jerusalem was where Mohammed ascended to heaven or something of that sort. I'm pretty sure Muslims used to pray facing Jerusalem before Mohammed's flight to Medina; after that, they prayed facing Mecca.

My knowledge of Islam is extremely spotty so I shall hand this over to someone more educated.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:23 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Will all of you please get out of the historical and religious rights were not going to get out of it.

Any denial of Israel's right to exist as a denial of the Jew/Israelis right to exist.

Any demand that Israel accept an unconditional right of return is a denial of Israelis right to exist.

Israel's existence is not a denial of the Palestinians right to a state or existence.


Thats things simplified.


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

posted 25 May 2003 07:33 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Check it.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 May 2003 07:41 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Any denial of Israel's right to exist as a denial of the Jew/Israelis right to exist.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that a denial of Israel's right to exist is a denial of Jewish people's right to exist (yikes, certainly not), but certainly I would not deny Israel's right to exist. I don't think it should exist forever in its current form, but in the foreseeable future, I can see why that is necessary.

quote:

Any demand that Israel accept an unconditional right of return is a denial of Israelis right to exist.

I don't see that. I agree that it's not feasible, but I don't see the equivalency there. Allowing Arabs, even a large number of Arabs, to live in the same land as Jews, does not automatically mean the Jews will be pushed into the sea. It may mean that at this time, I don't know, but I don't accept that it means that automatically.

quote:

Israel's existence is not a denial of the Palestinians right to a state or existence.

Agreed.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 25 May 2003 08:04 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
web page

just look there I explained it


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

posted 26 May 2003 07:00 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay.

quote:
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 don't think a lot of people would agree with you that a Jewish-majority state in all that area is a "core value" of Judaism, or that the absence of one is a "core value" of Islam.

quote:

I'm not talking about human rights or opposition to racism people can have not so righteous values.

But would you ask for compromise on those too?

quote:
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.

This part is just tripe. Not your basic values, but your impression of socialism, which is a complete straw man.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca