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   » Sharon government agrees to peace plan

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Sharon government agrees to peace plan
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 25 May 2003 11:59 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israeli cabinet approves peace plan

Finally, it looks like Israel is on it's way to peace. There will be some snags that will occur, of course, but this marks a beginning to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

And to those who thought peace would never ever be acheived without removing Sharon from office:


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

posted 26 May 2003 12:07 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gir you haven't been following the other threads here. The gang has already poo-pooed this move as meaningless. What else is new you may ask?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 26 May 2003 12:22 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Even with a 12 to 7 vote with 4 abstentions and the fact that it will probability go to parliament where the gap will widen. Guess democracy means nothing these days.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 May 2003 12:40 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, sure.
quote:
From the Israeli perspective, the approval of the From the Israeli perspective, the approval of the road map passes the ball to Abu Mazen: the political excuse is gone, and now he has no choice but to fight terrorism. His chances of success seem slim, and the blame will fall on the Palestinians.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/296678.html



Peace and democracy is what it is all about.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 26 May 2003 12:50 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Sharon government also rejected, out of hand, the possibility of any Palestinian refugees returning to their former homes in Israel.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 May 2003 07:01 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I prefer to think it's still a step forward.

Still. No Nobel Peace Prizes for anyone yet, I hope.


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

posted 26 May 2003 08:45 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WHOA!! Hold the phone!!! Smith and I in complete agreement? Maybe the Messiah has come let me check out my back window.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 May 2003 09:15 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't disagree with you on the issues nearly as strongly as you think I do.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 26 May 2003 09:23 AM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It doesn't matter if Sharon accepts the peace plan. It won't work. Arafat and other arab dictators will make sure there is no peace because it's not in their best interests.
From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 May 2003 09:37 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure Gir, Sharon will agree to a contiguous Palestinian state in the west bank when WMD are found in Iraq, when the Bush Adminnistration stops lying and when pigs fly.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 May 2003 09:50 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It doesn't matter if Sharon accepts the peace plan. It won't work. Arafat and other arab dictators will make sure there is no peace because it's not in their best interests.

And it is in Sharon's, of course.

What do you think keeps Israel voting for right-wing parties like Likud?


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 26 May 2003 10:09 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What the Knesset cabinet really thinks...

quote:
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Likud said in remarks broadcast Monday that in granting qualified approval to the road map peace plan, the cabinet had not ratified a binding legal document, rather a "declaration of diplomartic intentions."

...

"We did not vote on an international agreement. In fact, this is not a legal document, there is no sort of commitment here, rather this is a declaration of diplomatic intentions.

"In my view, this is a reality in which we are saying 'yes' to the process, even though the chances are not necessarily high - certainly not [in view of the] period of time that has transpired since the Abu Mazen government was established - but we are prepared to go into the process positively."

Mofaz voiced trust that Washington would address Israel's security and other concerns, as embodied in the list of 14 reservations the government has sent to the Bush administration.

"The Americans stated that they are relating to all of Israel's comments 'fully and seriously,' and from this it can be understood that there is very profound commitment with respect to Israel's comments."


I hope that the Knesset can move beyond the cynical interpretation of Mofaz, and does seriously implement the suggestions in the Road Map (I'd hope that they'd go beyond, but every peace agreement requires some first steps). Given the statements of Mofaz, and the fact that Likud is a settler party and must appease that segment of the population, I'm going to wait to see if Sharon is serious about peace. Actions speak louder than words. Recalling the IDF from the OT would be a very loud action. Dismantling the wall and giving back the lands beyond the green line would be a very loud action.

[ 26 May 2003: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 26 May 2003 10:20 AM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What do you think keeps Israel voting for right-wing parties like Likud?


I just want to be clear in what you're implying. That Likud wants this war to go on so Israelis will vote for them because they promise security ? Is that it ?


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

posted 26 May 2003 11:09 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
I don't disagree with you on the issues nearly as strongly as you think I do.

Maybe we both need to take a deep breath and reassess abit.

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

posted 26 May 2003 01:12 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've already reassessed, thank you.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 May 2003 02:45 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
I've already reassessed, thank you.
Im not sure what you mean by that. I am hoping it was not malicious given the fact that I was trying to hold out an olive branch.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 27 May 2003 06:08 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DaddySno:


I just want to be clear in what you're implying. That Likud wants this war to go on so Israelis will vote for them because they promise security ? Is that it ?


Yes. Ideology doesn't have to be logically cogent, in fact it rarely, if ever is. 'Failed Security Measures' are easily spun into a need to be 'more aggressive' or 'build a wall' or 'if you think this is bad, wait and see what leftist 'appeasement' will do. Fear is a more powerful political tool than 'logical cogency'.

Moreover, this is just more of the same really. Historically, the right in Israel has always used war and occupation as a means of keeping the left at bay. How many times have we heard how the 'latest suicide bombing has discredited the left'. Do you think these kinds of statements aren't made with political intentions? This policy has been openly enunciated by a number of high-ranking right-wing Israeli politicians over the years. Not the least of which being Moshe Dayan, Nahum Goldmann, etc. It's been in use so long that it is barely enunciated any more - it is somewhat of a reflex on the part of right-wing politicians. I remember a few years ago when PeaceNow (which was funded and maintained as a propaganda tool, actually) was growing in importance and was threatened with being taken over by many who really wanted peace - suddenly with every act of Palestinian violence, the 'peace camp' was blamed for 'encouraging' groups like Hamas. Their patriotism was constantly put into question, and eventually through the narrative of 'appeasement' they were crushed by Likudniks with the 'discredited by the suicide bombings' cudgel...

Some of us remember.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 27 May 2003 06:33 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage, something doesn't make sense to me. If they want the war to go on and the suicide bombings continue, then the Israeli government hasn't given them security. But if the put an end to the war, wouldn't that prove their point ?
From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 May 2003 07:32 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If they want the war to go on and the suicide bombings continue, then the Israeli government hasn't given them security. But if the put an end to the war, wouldn't that prove their point ?

They don't have to provide security; they have to provide - or get the populace to believe they provide - more security than the left. The right-wing strategy of being "tough on crime" doesn't require that the people trust the Palestinians at all - and the more violence there is, the less likely the people are to trust the Palestinians or to want to make concessions to them. It's a downward spiral.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 27 May 2003 08:47 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
I don't have a crystal ball to forsee future events in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but I'm feeling strangely optimistic. It took four wars over a quarter-century for Israel's immediate Arab neighbours to recognize that they had to learn to co-exist with a mainly Jewish state in their midst. It has taken almost another quarter-century for the political mainstream in both Israel and Palestine to recognize that they must learn to co-exist either in a single state or, as is more likely, in two separate and (hopefully) secular states.

The fact that progressive elements (I use the term advisedly) in the Bush Adminstration and the Sharon Likud government now recognize that the Palestine people cannot live under occupation forever and require their own state is progress.

I am as cynical as the next person about U.S. motives (e.g. the need to provide after the fact justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq), but the road map deserves to be judged on the results it achieves or fails to achieve for the people of both Palestine and Israel.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 May 2003 09:14 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hope you're right.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 May 2003 08:50 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A telling article.

quote:
Even when Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein
pointed out that "occupation" is not in our
lexicon and the proper terminology is "disputed
territories," even when Uzi Landau and his pals
howled, Sharon stood his ground. You may not like
the word, he said, but that's what it is:
occupation. A genuine Sharon in Beilin's
clothing.

A horse is out of the stable


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

posted 30 May 2003 09:27 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

"People did not understand me," a parliamentary source quoted Sharon as saying during a meeting of the committee on defence and foreign affairs.

"Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein called me yesterday and confirmed that the official word used for the territories is 'disputed.'"



src: Click

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 30 May 2003 10:08 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is extremely hopeful

quote:
Following the meeting Thursday between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Palestinian
counterpart Mahmoud Abbas, which both leaders
described as "very positive", Sharon said that he
would order the IDF to pull out of the center of
West Bank cities and scale down its presence in
the territories.

Israel Radio reported Friday that Sharon also intends to give permanent permits for Palestinian officials to travel between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, increase the amount of tax money transferred to the PA by NIS 150 million a month, allow 25,000 Palestinian laborers to work in Israel, and ease restrictions on humanitarian organizations working in the territories.


Has Sharon actually seen the light? Has Abbas? I'm still skeptical (actions speak louder and all that), but I'm much more hopeful for peace than I was a month ago. The peace won't last if the settlement issue isn't resolved. Nor will it last if Hamas reneges and resumes suicide attacks. Likewise, if the humiliation checkpoints remain in place after the IDF withdraws from urban centres. But this is an important step...perhaps more will follow.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 May 2003 10:57 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is my question, why is it Wing (and Im serious I do not mean any disrespect) that you can ONLY look for the negative when it comes to Israel?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 May 2003 11:07 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I appreciate the question, mishei. I would like to see a possibility of peace. I really would. But I do not trust Sharon. Not at all. Israelis once siad that Arafat spoke one thing in english and another in arabic. I think he same is true of Sharon.

But I will not remain cynical. I promise. When I see concrete action on the ground I will begin to believe.

Until then, I reserve the right to my skepticism.


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

posted 30 May 2003 11:26 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well apparantly Sharon is pretty much on the record now and I heard on CBC that the IDF is already pulling out of some key WB towns including Jenin.

quote:
Sharon said that he
would order the IDF to pull out of the center of
West Bank cities and scale down its presence in
the territories.

IDF to pull out of key areas et al

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

posted 30 May 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I heard that too. But that has all happnede before. Look, you argue, and I will accept, that a prerequisite for peace is for the PA to drop the demand for "right of return." I think it is also a prerequisite that the settlements either be dismantled or settlers, if they choose to stay, know they will will fall under the sovereignty of the new state.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 30 May 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yeah, I heard that too. But that has all happnede before.


Sadly though a short while after each time the IDF pulled out there are attacks. So they had to go bank in and then it's back to square not even a chance to get to the next step of removing settlement.

The settlement have to be moved there is no excuse but it's going to take time and each time there is an attack it's going to take that much longer.

quote:
I will accept, that a prerequisite for peace is for the PA to drop the demand for "right of return." I think it is also a prerequisite that the settlements either be dismantled

Thank you Wingnut thats all we ever wanted and all we've been saying all along. And settelments should be dismantled because most of them don't want peace.

[ 30 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 30 May 2003 11:49 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes I agree that the vast majority of settlements must be disbanded. There are some suburbs of Jerusalem that may have to be incorporated during negotiations on a peace deal but this too there will have to be land given by Israel to equalize the problem.

All this stated let us look at the glass being half full for a change.

Just found this superb article that in many ways reflects my feelings.

Who is Ariel Sharon?

[ 30 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 30 May 2003 12:53 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, a Marcus Gee column that doesn't totally suck.

Not bad.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 30 May 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am hopeful, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Sharon is the right guy for this. A fair amount of skepticism tops off my hopefulness, because of Sharon's bloody and brutal past.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 31 May 2003 06:00 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a staement by MP Professor Irwin Cotler. You may recall that Cotler acted for Nelson Mandela during his struggle with the white racist South African governemnt.

He is one of Canada's most respected civil libertarians and Human Rights experts. A Professor of Law at McGill University he represnts Mt. Royal riding (Trudeau's former riding) in Parliament.

quote:
In the House of Commons May 28, 2003
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

Israel


Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 55th anniversary of the State of Israel should be seen as a cause for celebration and for hope.

For Israel is not just a CNN clip or what passes for the Internet image of the day. Rather, Israel has to be seen and understood as a first nation of humankind; the reconstitution of an ancient people in their ancestral homeland; the juridical embodiment of the Jewish people as an aboriginal people, partaking of an aboriginal Abrahamic religion together with Christianity and Islam, and living in the aboriginal land of Israel, shared with another indigenous people, the Palestinian people.

In a word, the Jewish people are among the only peoples in the world today who still inhabit the same land; embrace the same religion; study the same bible; speak the same aboriginal language, Hebrew; bear the same name, Israel; and dream of the same peace, as they did 3,500 years ago.

While anti-Semitism has been an enduring hatred, almost as old as the Jewish people itself, the Jewish people have been an enduring aboriginal people. That is a cause for hope as well as celebration and for the enduring peace for which Israel still dreams.


[ 31 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 May 2003 06:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DaddySno:
I just want to be clear in what you're implying. That Likud wants this war to go on so Israelis will vote for them because they promise security ? Is that it ?

I do believe that's just about it. Just like Bush and co. would like to keep the terror hype going as long as they can so they can keep getting voted in.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 31 May 2003 06:05 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is evident that Jews would not have survived for 2000 years had their survival been dependent on habitation of a particular plot of land. So there must be something more that; that being, that Judaism is a religion. Religion does not need a particular plot of land to survive. Only a nationality does.

Moreover, there is nothing in the cited comment which excludes Jews living on the land in question as part of a single, secular state.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 31 May 2003 10:12 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For Israel is not just a CNN clip or what passes for the Internet image of the day. Rather, Israel has to be seen and understood as a first nation of humankind; the reconstitution of an ancient people in their ancestral homeland; the juridical embodiment of the Jewish people as an aboriginal people, partaking of an aboriginal Abrahamic religion together with Christianity and Islam, and living in the aboriginal land of Israel, shared with another indigenous people, the Palestinian people.

In a word, the Jewish people are among the only peoples in the world today who still inhabit the same land; embrace the same religion; study the same bible; speak the same aboriginal language, Hebrew; bear the same name, Israel; and dream of the same peace, as they did 3,500 years ago.

While anti-Semitism has been an enduring hatred, almost as old as the Jewish people itself, the Jewish people have been an enduring aboriginal people. That is a cause for hope as well as celebration and for the enduring peace for which Israel still dreams.


That's fine and great, and I don't think anyone on this board would question the statement that Jewish people have a right to live in their ancestral homeland. What we DO question is the idea that they have an exclusive right to live there. And the statement you have quoted doesn't answer any of our questions.


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

posted 31 May 2003 10:21 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's fine and great, and I don't think anyone on this board would question the statement that Jewish people have a right to live in their ancestral homeland. What we DO question is the idea that they have an exclusive right to live there. And the statement you have quoted doesn't answer any of our questions.

Nobody has the right to live exclusively anywhere. People should be free have the right to live where they want. people should also have the right to be free from harm.

[ 31 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 31 May 2003 10:26 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Many of you are probably going to say "but what about the refugees there suffering" and I'll say "yes they are Israel should unilaterally withdraw from the west bank and Gaza" "And the rest of the refugees in Lebanon and cross the middle east should start being treated as human beings as have the same rights as all citezens in the countries they are in. You know like landed immigrants."

Once there is absolute peace. And proven security and safety, And good infrastructure there should be no reason why as many refugees from any decent shouldn't be allowed in Israel.


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

posted 01 June 2003 12:21 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And the statement you have quoted doesn't answer any of our questions.

Well actually, I didnt post it to answer your questions.

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

posted 01 June 2003 05:11 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then why did you post it? To take up space?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 June 2003 09:51 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
Then why did you post it? To take up space?

Silly me I thought this was a discussion Board. I thought that we can discuss issues here. Silly me, I thought that by posting such pieces others here might want to analyse it in regards to the thread and make comments. Silly me.

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

posted 01 June 2003 10:47 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a bit of a tangent (but then: how does Cotler's statement relate to the original topic of the thread, anyway?), and I mean it to be because I don't believe it has serious implications for any rational, just settlement in the Middle East.

However, going where angels fear to tread: I am no ethnographer, anthropologist, archaeologist, or other relevant kind of scientist, but I know just enough about what they have to say about the histories we have written to know that the entire subject of "ancestral homelands" -- or, indeed, aboriginal peoples -- is an intellectually vexed one.

On ceremonial occasions, people say ceremonial things, and that's ok by me. You should see some of the nativist rituals I join in with great glee -- and with genuine respect, too, knowing that I am honouring cultures that deserve to be honoured in their own terms.

But that's sort of where I would place Mr Cotler's statement. Justice in the Middle East must now be based on some more generally and firmly humane foundations.

I think that the serious claim Israelis have to remain where they are is the three generations now native to that land. That's the claim I take seriously, anyway.

It exactly parallels the claim that many of European descent have to be Africans. We've all been thinking about that conundrum for a long time; and, no matter what one believes about colonialism, I think most people who know Africa well accepted long ago that many of European descent honestly must be accommodated there now.

Life is for the living.

[ 01 June 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca