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   » Israel in WB OCCUPATION says SHARON

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israel in WB OCCUPATION says SHARON
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 May 2003 11:12 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sharon really seems as though he wants to find a settlement. For him to refer to Israel's presence in the West Bank as an "occupation" is remarkable. But alas I am sure that Wing, Doc and others will again poo-poo this effort as false, a trick, a lie etc etc...am I right?

Sharon WANTS peace


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

posted 26 May 2003 11:14 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or maybe he's just calling a spade a spade for once.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 May 2003 07:52 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Once again, I'll believe it when I see it.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 May 2003 08:22 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
mmmm only willing to think the worst and see the bad. Any words for the PA leadership based on Sharon's historic acknowledgements? Right?? And you wonder why I respond as I do to your neaativity and anti=Israel positions.

BTW at least some are hopeful

Israel's historic vote for peace

Or this.

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]Globe and Mail

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 27 May 2003 08:42 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, when members of the PA have spoken out against suicide bombing in the past, you've always been quick to say "I'll believe it when I see results".

Goose. Gander. Good.

edited to add:
That being said, if he's sincere, this is a very very positive step, particularly coming from someone such as Sharon (versus someone less hawkish).

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: aRoused ]


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 May 2003 08:52 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aRoused:
Hey, when members of the PA have spoken out against suicide bombing in the past, you've always been quick to say "I'll believe it when I see results".

Goose. Gander. Good.


But I always tried to indicate some hope for peace. I supported Abu Mazen's initiative and have constatntly tried to indicate a desire for peace.

Questioning is one thing continual outright rejection of any Israeli overtures to peace quite another.


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

posted 27 May 2003 09:02 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's the problem with "I'll believe it when I see it"? What, because he's on your side I'm supposed to fall to my knees and thank him for these historic words? They're just words. Better than nothing, but still words.

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 May 2003 09:13 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They are just words, smith, and what other words did Sharon utter, mishei? Why so selective in your reporting? He also said, for anyone intersted, that settler activity should continue as before and that he will offer the Palestinians only half of the meagre amount of land offered by Barak.

There is no recipe for peace in those words. Just PR.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 27 May 2003 09:15 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reading beyond the linked Toronto Star article, I find this from the CBC:

quote:
"You may not like the word but what's happening is occupation," he said.

But Sharon also told settlers to keep building on occupied land.


So, promising in its use of the word occupation, but with the other side of his mouth he's apparently urging settlement to continue. I'm curious to know how you view this Mishei: do you think Sharon's supporters are meant to hear him using the word "occupation" and a call for it to end, or are they meant to see that as a smokescreen to the West and the Arab world and take away the message that settlement must continue?


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 May 2003 09:33 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What the hell is historic about it? The Labor party platform for the last two or three elections has called for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Take Sharon literally. What he means when he talks about "occupation" are those lands not already colonized. He will never agree to a viable Palestinian state with at least a portion of East Jerusalem has its capital.

Nice try, though, Mishei.


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

posted 27 May 2003 10:13 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If all the Israeli's are deceitful liars as you guys make them out to be. What proof is there that the Palestinians want to live in Peace with the Israeli's?

How about a challenge? We'll make a list of facts for each side to show intent that they want to make peace.

Point one just for starters but I'll find more after I see your list. Barak's deal clearly showed intent for wanting to reach a finalized peace. Now it's perfectly O.K. to reject it say it isn't good enough but to use violence hmmm and you can claim provoked by Sharon all you want it started even a little but the excuse of provoked is a very sorry excuse because I could use it to justify all of Israel's actions but believe Israel should be accountable for it's miss deeds. So to reject the deal with violence is still illogical when there is something you real want or need. Lets your starving and someone offers you a piece of bread "you can ask for more but I can't understand why you'd bite his hand off???"
If you want to talk about being provoked being attacked or having, military build up a long your borders or threaten "we will kill all the jewish infidels and drive them into the sea" that's what I call provoked or in other words "asking for it"

That’s point don't even try and debunk just show a couple concrete actions that show the Palestinians want peace.

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 27 May 2003 10:27 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There was no direct correlation between the failure at Camp David and the outbreak of violence. As I recall, there was at least a six-week interval between the two. As I am sure you are aware, negotations resumed which led to the near-agreement at Taba.

You also treat the two sides as if they were in an equal power relationship. When one side views the other as an occupier, and itself as occupied, the burden is on the occupier to change the status quo. Finally, you can't lump all Palestinians and all Israelis. Many Palestinians want a Palestinian state from the sea to the Jordan. Many Israelis want an Israeli state to cover all of the same land.


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

posted 27 May 2003 10:38 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If all the Israeli's are deceitful liars as you guys make them out to be.

Yes, because that's what we said. Hello, straw man.

I didn't say it was a lie. I didn't say Sharon had bad intentions, even, although the continued settlement-building speaks pretty loud. I certainly did not say all Israelis are deceitful liars, and I don't think anyone else on this board has said anything remotely like that.

I just said I'd believe it when I saw results. Apparently it's only acceptable to say that about Palestinians. When the Israeli government speaks, you must take it at its word.

quote:
Many Palestinians want a Palestinian state from the sea to the Jordan. Many Israelis want an Israeli state to cover all of the same land.

True. And many Israelis and Palestinians want a just compromise. Justice, why do you think we think so little of "all Israelis"? What of all the Israeli human rights organizations we've quoted?

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


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

posted 27 May 2003 10:41 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right on Josh!!!

First of all most Israelis don't want the same land. You got 250,000 fanatics in the west bank maybe a couple thousand more in Israel. The vote in Israel sways easily as we all know. The reason Likud got voted in is because people thought they could provide better security not because they wanted them keep holding on to the territories I'm sure the majority of Israeli's are encouraged by Sharon steps assuming he's really committed. You can't help but be skeptical of the Palestinians either though.

But more importantly probably what is the biggest issue of the whole mess is the perception of most people is very narrow and they see huge oppressor, the big bad guy versus little victim. They see David versus Goliath. People love cheering the David, they love cheering for the Underdog if only life was that simple but it isn't in this case.

Most wars there are no heroes no good guys no bad guys. There are to sets of Ideals clashing and many casualties. No David's and Goliath. There 2 sides struggling to survive to protect their interest both sides may have both interest that are just and some that are unjust.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 May 2003 10:44 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If all the Israeli's are deceitful liars

Who said that other than you?

I believe Israelis want peace. I do not believe the Israeli government wants peace. Just as I beleive Palestinians want peace but I do not believe Hamas wants peace.

Get past your prejudice. It is not a who is worse than who debate. It is recognition that actions speak louder than words and when you set as a precondition a cessation of violence uncontrolled by you or your negotiating partner you create a self-fulfilling prophesy where,as Sharon put it, "Palestinians get nothing" and the violence continues.


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

posted 27 May 2003 10:44 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In his remarks today, Sharon left himself a way out.

"What will happen if Palestinian terror continues? Nothing. Nothing will happen. The Palestinians will get nothing," he said.

Critics have said Sharon's long-held condition that all violence must stop before peace moves forward is unrealistic and guarantees the stalemate will continue.


This is from the original article posted. I believe the phrase that best describes the statements are "lip service".


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 May 2003 10:51 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
First of all most Israelis don't want the same land. You got 250,000 fanatics in the west bank maybe a couple thousand more in Israel.

Okay, but how many Palestinian fanatics do you think there are? Don't you think it's likely that those are in a minority too?

quote:

I'm sure the majority of Israeli's are encouraged by Sharon steps assuming he's really committed. You can't help but be skeptical of the Palestinians either though.

Agreed, but again, the commitment doesn't matter - on either side - unless they follow through on it.

quote:

But more importantly probably what is the biggest issue of the whole mess is the perception of most people is very narrow and they see huge oppressor, the big bad guy versus little victim. They see David versus Goliath.

True, but they differ on who is who.

quote:

People love cheering the David, they love cheering for the Underdog if only life was that simple but it isn't in this case. Most wars there are no heroes no good guys no bad guys. There are to sets of Ideals clashing and many casualties. No David's and Goliath. There 2 sides struggling to survive to protect their interest both sides may have both interest that are just and some that are unjust.

Okay, but...so?


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

posted 27 May 2003 10:53 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I just said I'd believe it when I saw results. Apparently it's only acceptable to say that about Palestinians. When the Israeli government speaks, you must take it at its word.

First of all I meant the Israeli government so for that I'm sorry but they have done way more actions then Palestinians. How people accuse Barak or Rabin of being deceitful when they were barely given a chance. And yeah that Taba deal you expcet Barak to sign a deal well there is an election going on??? Which was partly the Palestinians fault the, only reason they were willing to accept it 6 months latter is because they knew they messed up and weren't going to get a better one.


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

posted 27 May 2003 11:01 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Okay, but...so?

These perceptions prolong the situation. They cause one side to feel more justified then the other and give it legitimacy for its actions. I'm not going to say which is which it has to go both ways. They also cause people to be frustrated when nobody seems to understand there point of view. When people are asking them to compromise more then they can afford. That 2 goes both ways. If the whole world wouldn't take pity on either then maybe things would be better just said you got stoop doing that this is the way it's going to be and that’s it either wise you're both going suffer. If you want to sanction or divest, sanction both but don't favor one over the other it only causes more problems anyone else who wants to take sides should suffer too.


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

posted 27 May 2003 11:14 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was more then lip service when Rabin was around. And more then lip service with Barak.

Interesting point about the Oslo agreement: In the agreement the Palestinians were allowed to acquire a certain amount of weapons in order to help them take care of internal security (policing) and deal with terrorist they acquired nearly double what was agreed upon. The Israeli's turned their cheek for quite a while they figured if the PA real is serious and that’s what it needs to do the job so be it we welcome in effort too to make order. But then these weapons turn on the Israeli's how do expect Israel to feel after that do you think that the wounds would heal so fast?

If they were in capable or did nothing fine if they were honest about it but no at that time they asked for help they got more then they asked for they promised they'd be able to deal with the problem but instead they stab you in the back. Now I'm hopeful and believe someday there will be peace I support the road map and believe it is good very good start but you understand how incidents like these can cause sever set backs.


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

posted 27 May 2003 11:27 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How people accuse Barak or Rabin of being deceitful when they were barely given a chance. And yeah that Taba deal you expcet Barak to sign a deal well there is an election going on??? Which was partly the Palestinians fault the, only reason they were willing to accept it 6 months latter is because they knew they messed up and weren't going to get a better one.

I'm sorry? The deal set out at Taba was much better. No one expected Barak to sign a deal in the middle of an election; however, it should have been pretty obvious to him that the Camp David offer wasn't going to work.

As for Rabin, I don't know a great deal about him, but I think he was more sincere than Barak and certainly more sincere than Ariel "keep building" Sharon.


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

posted 27 May 2003 11:32 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith, every time this discussion starts up (most especially, a Barak discussion), I think you should re-post your great link to that great map of the Camp David/Taba proposals. (Was it from Gush Shalom?)
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 May 2003 11:40 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Smith, every time this discussion starts up (most especially, a Barak discussion), I think you should re-post your great link to that great map of the Camp David/Taba proposals. (Was it from Gush Shalom?)

And for my understanding what makes this map any more correct than Dennis Ross' version?

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

posted 27 May 2003 11:42 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not the one to answer that question. Perhaps both should be posted.

The Gush Shalom map.


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

posted 27 May 2003 12:23 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
I'm not the one to answer that question. Perhaps both should be posted.

The Gush Shalom map.


OK so it is clear that this is one view. I will see if I can find Ross' view as well.

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

posted 27 May 2003 12:58 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think anybody believes Barak's deal was great but anybody with half a brain would understand that it wasn't the be all and end all of the negotiations and it's not called a "peace process" for no reason it doesn't happen by one quick action.

Palestinians didn't have to be grateful and shut up it is perfectly legit for them to not accept the offer and give a counter offer. To continue negotiations, nobody said that they had to take it, or even if it was accepted that didn't have to be the end. Everybody knows the Palestinians wouldn't be able to run a country like that .How ever a violent reaction is unacceptable. You can't shoot a person and then ask him to negotiate behind a barrel of gun and yes that goes both ways.

quote:
you expect Barak to sign a deal well there is an election going on???

Once again does this make sense???

quote:
Interesting point about the Oslo agreement: In the agreement the Palestinians were allowed to acquire a certain amount of weapons in order to help them take care of internal security (policing) and deal with terrorist they acquired nearly double what was agreed upon. The Israeli's turned their cheek for quite a while they figured if the PA real is serious and that’s what it needs to do the job so be it we welcome in effort too to make order. But then these weapons turn on the Israeli's how do expect Israel to feel after that do you think that the wounds would heal so fast?
If they were in capable or did nothing fine if they were honest about it but no at that time they asked for help they got more then they asked for they promised they'd be able to deal with the problem but instead they stab you in the back. Now I'm hopeful and believe someday there will be peace I support the road map and believe it is good very good start but you understand how incidents like these can cause sever set backs.

I can see how the Israelis may have stabbed the peace process a couple times but this is literally retiling it with bullets. Anybody want to comment on that???


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 May 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Once again does this make sense???

Yes.
When you are drowning you do not dispute the timing of a life preserver being thrown your way. You just take it. Barak is given too much credit. He could have courageously accepted the deal knowing Sharon would have to reject it. But he was more afraid of Sharon and Likud.

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

posted 27 May 2003 01:35 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You see that's the difference it wasn't Barak who was drowning his career may have been a little his people were suffering a bit but you can't compare to the Palestinians you have to look at the wider picture Arafat was sure drowning and he didn't care about his people he knew he needed their credibility but he already lost it, he prolonged their suffering. So he's drowning and asks for Barak a little which may have been given to him if he didn't stick a gun in Baraks face. If I have to choose whether I die or both me and my enemy die I choose both. Not going to give him a helping hand so he can watch me die.

Barak wasn't going to make a deal with out his countries approval. What Arafat had to think about was how his actions affected Israeli approval not only Palestinian.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 May 2003 01:49 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[irony alert]

quote:
You can't shoot a person and then ask him to negotiate behind a barrel of gun and yes that goes both ways.

[/irony alert]


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

posted 27 May 2003 01:55 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What nonsense, Justice. He had teh approval of his people. Are you saying Israelis didn't want a peace deal? That Sharon was speaking for all Israelis when he made clear he would not "honor" what the representatives of the Israeli people had negotiated?

At the time Barak was elected. Sharon was not. Barak betrayed his people.


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

posted 27 May 2003 01:58 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shall I bring the pictures of suicide bombers or Palestinians police using guns they were given by Israel to fight terrorist and end up being used against Israelis.

Common get real.

Did you ever hear the story about the bird that didn't want to fly south for the winter and the cow crapping on him? Well doesn't matter lets cut to the moral

Not everybody who shits on you wants to harm you but when you are in shit don't sing.


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

posted 27 May 2003 02:04 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
At the time Barak was elected. Sharon was not. Barak betrayed his people.

No Arafat betrayed everyone. The Israelis wanted peace that means security Barak didn't deliver nor did Arafat, Sharon is still evolving it seems, he is quite a failure if you ask me perhaps he'll leave soon. Abu Mazzen for him we'll wait and see.

With Barak there was a chance I think Barak was one of the best things that ever happened to Israel and I was very disappointed he didn't get elected twice but I understand. Like I said Arafat through lives down the toilet it's not his refusal it was his reaction.

So what I'm saying is how could he? make peace Arafat only seemed to partially represent his people at least Barak and Sharon were fairly elected and you can see that the Israeli government is dynamic and there are opportunities to change how can you compare to a dictator.

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 May 2003 02:50 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point of my post, Justice, is that you accept violence from one side in the guise of 'security'. Most of the posters here reject the violence perpetrated by both participants. Acts of violence against civilians should never be apologized for or accepted just because the offenders wear uniforms. Arafat is a problem, because he is unwilling or unable to control Hamas and Al Aqsa. But guess what? Sharon is an equal problem, because he actively directs the IDF, and he fails to crack down on militant settlers.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 May 2003 02:50 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What kind of democracy can you have when your people can't move around?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 May 2003 02:55 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So let me understand you Justice, for you, this isn't about peace but about hating Arafat? Is that it? Israelis and Palestinians can die by the hundreds but as long as you can invent some way to blame it all on Arafat, all is well. Right?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 May 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
So let me understand you Justice, for you, this isn't about peace but about hating Arafat? Is that it? Israelis and Palestinians can die by the hundreds but as long as you can invent some way to blame it all on Arafat, all is well. Right?

Wing this is a total misreading and unjustified misinterpretation of Justice's post. bad enough you do it to me but must you do it to all pro-Israel posters?

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

posted 27 May 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First, I don't take you seriously any more. Second, the discussion was not aboout Arafat yet Justice insists in bringing him into it. I don't see why.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 May 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
First, I don't take you seriously any more. Second, the discussion was not aboout Arafat yet Justice insists in bringing him into it. I don't see why.
LOL you don't take me seriously anymore OK I can live with that. I, on the other hand, will continue to afford you the respect due anyyone who wants to engage in this important discussion
despite your tactics.

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 27 May 2003 05:41 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Sharon really seems as though he wants to find a settlement. For him to refer to Israel's presence in the West Bank as an "occupation" is remarkable. But alas I am sure that Wing, Doc and others will again poo-poo this effort as false, a trick, a lie etc etc...am I right?

Sharon WANTS peace


Your peurile attempts at 'prediction' notwithstanding, pointing out that this move may just be the same old cynical manipulation in the absence of deeds to back it up is not 'poo-poo-ing' its being realistic about the past policy of Israeli governments in this regard. Shamir wanted 'peace' too, as did Barak, and Bibi, and so many before. What results were there from all of this 'peace-loving' - more occupation, more settlements, more violence, more Palestinian lives destroyed, more Israeli lives destroyed...

So when a bastard like Sharon says 'peace' out one side of his mouth while telling settlers to keep stealing land out the other, there is certainly cause for pause. Moreover, it is interesting that Sharon uses a kind of exclusivist logic to justify his position. He said that his reasons are simple - there are millions of people in the West Bank and rather than make amends with them now that they have been pushed into a tiny corner of what was once their homeland, it is of course impossible for Israel to take care of them financially - in other words, impossible to assimilate them. It's just the usual ethnocratic separatism at work, again. Take what they have, push them away, and then put up a wall and say, 'laissez faire'...

Lovely.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 May 2003 05:51 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, that didn't last very long, did it?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 May 2003 06:01 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith, that actually re-cofirms for me that Sharon meant what he said. being so heavily critisized clearly means that this was a Sharon position.

There are politics in Israel and coalitions have to be dealt with.

Remember Arafat has never said in English what he states in Arabic. At least Sharon is now on the record. The vote still stands and the few inane words form a nobody in the National Religious Party means little.

I also note that Sharon himself made no clarification but he left it up to some flunky to try to assuage the hard right.


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

posted 27 May 2003 06:14 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
Well, that didn't last very long, did it?

Sharon 'meant what he said', Mishei...

From the article: "During the committee meeting, Sharon clarified a number of the reservations he submitted to the United States on the roadmap. "It would take a miracle for the Palestinians to fulfill the demands listed by Sharon,".

There is more than one way to skin a cat.


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

posted 27 May 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
and you can claim provoked by Sharon all you want

It's already been admitted that the latest intifada was planned before the Sharon incident.


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

posted 27 May 2003 07:02 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's already been admitted that the latest intifada was planned before the Sharon incident.

Evidence?


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

posted 28 May 2003 12:04 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I found this instructive comment article on whether Sharon is real about peace.

Sharon: An act or the real thing?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 28 May 2003 09:01 AM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Evidence?

No problem

quote:
Among the Palestinian leaders who admit that Sharon's walk on the Temple Mount did not cause the widespread violence is Palestinian Communications Minister Imad al-Faluji, who stated March 3, 2001:

"Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa mosque, is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton." (quoted in Al-Safir, March 3).

Faluji had made similar statements in December 2000. Similarly, Marwan Barghouti, the leader of the riots in the West Bank, acknowledged that the uprising was pre-planned since Camp David:

"The explosion would have happened anyway. It was necessary in order to protect Palestinian rights."



From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 May 2003 09:39 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The truth is out:

quote:
"It would take a miracle for the Palestinians to fulfill the demands listed by Sharon," rejoiced Yahalom, whose party voted against endorsing the peace blueprint on Sunday.

Sharon backtracks


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

posted 28 May 2003 11:06 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah yes Wing quote a "nobody" source and hold it up as evidence. Thankfully you are not a lawyer. Hell, with your type of evidence I could quote back to you all kinds of horrendous anti-Israel/anti-peace comments made by a number of Palestinian officals and claim they are the eternal truth.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 28 May 2003 11:17 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agence France-Presse is a nobody source?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 May 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
Agence France-Presse is a nobody source?
No, "Yahalom" is a nobody source.

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

posted 28 May 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah. So in your opinion, Mishei, can the Palestinians meet the demands?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 May 2003 12:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would suggest Yaholom is a more authoratative source than you are, mishei. For one, he is there, for two, he has an interest in seeing the process fail, for three, he is politically involved and his party is part of Sharon's government.

What do you offer but vitriol?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 28 May 2003 12:14 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Evidence?


Nothing personal, but who cares? As if decades of land theft, illegal occupation, water rationing, military curfews, daily deaths, destroyed houses and businesses, and the continued racist policy of the Israeli government weren't enough to justify acting out. It's the old 'do as we say, not as we do'. No one questions the rights of South African blacks to rise up and fight their oppressors, no one questions the right of Jews to rise up in Warsaw Ghetto, but somehow the Palestinians are supposed to just sit back and be nice little 'democrats' and take it up the arse day after day....

F*ck that. It's propaganda, and it does nothing but legitimise the continued violence of the Israeli state against Palestinian Arabs - a violence which has continued unabated for 3 decades.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 28 May 2003 12:16 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I would suggest Yaholom is a more authoratative source than you are, mishei. For one, he is there, for two, he has an interest in seeing the process fail, for three, he is politically involved and his party is part of Sharon's government.

What do you offer but vitriol?


Careful, criticism of Mishei will make you catch 'antisemitism'....


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

posted 28 May 2003 12:27 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nothing personal, but who cares?

Yeah, who cares ? So what if they could of had a peace deal and Arafat screwed it ? What's the big deal ?


From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 May 2003 12:29 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can you prove that he did? Geez, DaddySno between this and WMD's and feeding Africans you sure liketo adhere to lies.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 May 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
Ah. So in your opinion, Mishei, can the Palestinians meet the demands?
I think there is much politics here that will be waded through. My hope is that the "demands" will be eroded significantly. IMHO the only deal-breaker would be an insistance on a "right of return". No matter how you cut it even dovish Israelis and those on the left in Israel cannot accept it. All else is open to negotiation.

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

posted 28 May 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DaddySno:

Yeah, who cares ? So what if they could of had a peace deal and Arafat screwed it ? What's the big deal ?


You privilege this term 'peace' like it means something absent of specific details. As thought the absence of violence were enough to constitute a 'good condition'. Never mind that the 'peace deal' being offered entailed creating Bantustans out of the West Bank (not unlike the current 'Road Map' actually), nevermind that while Barak sat at the table the settlement building continued as before; nevermind that while Barak sat at the table Palestinian houses continued to be bulldozed daily; nevermind that the 'peace deal' meant that Israel would remain in control of nearly half of West Bank territory, would still control movement of Palestinians through uncontigious territory, would still control the water supply, would still control the border with Jordan, would still control the air space above the West Bank, and so on and so on....

Again, perhaps there would have been 'peace' in the Warsaw Ghetto had those darned Jews not been rabble-rousing all the time...and how about the ANC - perhaps had those darned darkies not kept rabble-rousing, everything could have been nice, comfortable, quiet.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 28 May 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
I think there is much politics here that will be waded through. My hope is that the "demands" will be eroded significantly. IMHO the only deal-breaker would be an insistance on a "right of return". No matter how you cut it even dovish Israelis and those on the left in Israel cannot accept it. All else is open to negotiation.

Yup, everything except the fundamental problem is open to negotiation...

Well except for the bypas roads, and the military checkpoints for Israeli security, and the water supply - for security of course - and that prison wall, and most of the settlements, and the fact that much of the West Bank's best farmland is now on the 'other side' of the Prison Wall....

It's nice to say 'peace' and 'have your own state' when you've backed someone so far into a corner that they are left with nothing....


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

posted 28 May 2003 01:51 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a little something I came across...

quote:
I. Language: Consider how language can affect the meaning of a news report, whether by giving false information or by unfairly favoring a certain point of view.

1) First, the article repeatedly refers to “Palestine” as if it were a present day place, stating, for example: “If you think that is an exaggeration, take a look at Palestine, the part of the Middle East mainly occupied by Israel. Palestine, also known as the Holy Land, is held sacred by three religions. . .” In fact, there is no present day place called Palestine. Land currently under control of the Palestinian Authority (which is the government of the Palestinian people) is properly referred to as Palestinian Authority areas. Nor is Israel currently “occupying” what was once Palestine. Israel was legitimately established by the League of Nations Mandate and later by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan on land which had previously been a British Mandate (and before that under Turkish control.) Never was Palestine an independent state, and thus it cannot be said that Israel is in any way “occupying” it. Current Events’ wording reflects the views of the most extreme Palestinian radicals who believe that Israel has no legitimate right to exist.



From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 May 2003 01:54 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From where? Likud Propaganda 101 for Dupes?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 28 May 2003 02:14 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good one Wingnut. Original and witty.
From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 28 May 2003 02:21 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nor is Israel currently “occupying” what was once Palestine.

No, but it is occupying land that does not legitimately belong to it.

quote:

Israel was legitimately established by the League of Nations Mandate and later by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan on land which had previously been a British Mandate (and before that under Turkish control.) Never was Palestine an independent state, and thus it cannot be said that Israel is in any way “occupying” it.

Israel is not said to be "occupying" the land that was legitimately given it under the UN Partition Plan. It is said to be "occupying" the land that was not legitimately given to it. What you call that land is up to you; it's still an occupation.

quote:

Current Events’ wording reflects the views of the most extreme Palestinian radicals who believe that Israel has no legitimate right to exist.

Nice equivocation there. I like how the author (at least in the excerpt you quoted) makes no distinction between Israel proper and the "disputed" territories under Israeli control (happier?), thereby suggesting that to object to Israel's presence in one is automatically to object to its presence in the other, and thereby its existence - Likud Propaganda 101, indeed.


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

posted 28 May 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No source, no respect.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 28 May 2003 02:26 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What you call that land is up to you;


Disputed territories


From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 28 May 2003 02:44 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right, let the Palestinians settle for "42 percent of the 80 percent of the 22 percent of the 100 percent of the original state* of Palestine":

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0527-07.htm

* Independent or not, there is no refuting that there was a state known as Palestine encompassing what is now Israel and the west bank prior to 1947.


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

posted 28 May 2003 02:53 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well given that, maybe DaddySno believes Israel proper is a disputed territory. DaddySno?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 May 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Never was Palestine an independent state, and thus it cannot be said that Israel is in any way “occupying” it.

This is a bogus and dishonest argument.

"Palestine" is the name of the region. It has been known as such since about 130 B.C., when the Romans gave it that name.

This dependence on a 19th century European definition of a nation-state to prove the "argument" that no Palestinians ever existed is appalling.


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

posted 28 May 2003 03:33 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel is not said to be "occupying" the land that was legitimately given it under the UN Partition Plan. It is said to be "occupying" the land that was given not legitimately to it. What you call that land is up to you; it's still an occupation.


I do not mean to be facetious but I do wonder when do we draw the line as to any country "occupying land not legitimately given to it"?

For example the following is a list of some countries "occupying land not legitimately given to it".

1. Syria occupies Lebanon
2. USA occupies Iraq
3. Canada occupies aboriginal land
4. USA " " "
5. Britain occupies Falkland Islands
6. China occupies Tibet
7. USA occupies Guantanamo Bay
8. Morroco occupies Western Sahara
9. Armenia occupies areas of the Kelbadjar district and other areas of Azerbaijan.

What should be done here? Perhaps a thread on babble to discuss this as we do the Israeli occupation might be of interest.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 28 May 2003 03:34 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It has been known as such since about 130 B.C., when the Romans gave it that name.

What was it known as before the Romans gave it that name ?


From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 May 2003 03:49 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.mideastweb.org/palearly.htm

So which map would you prefer?


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

posted 28 May 2003 04:00 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see any borders for the map on the left. Is the end of the map it's borders ?
From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 May 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm no expert, but I would suspect there were not borders so much as there were tribal homelands. You will not on the first map the legend shows cult sites and Philistine cities.

On the second map, Philistine appears to have borders as does Phonecia but the others do not suggesting, to me, tribal areas as opposed to nations.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 28 May 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Really Mishei, that is a weak argument. You're really comparing apples and oranges. The Palestinian situation is unique in that there was a state called Palestine, about half of which was lost without its consent to create another state, and then the created state is now occupying what was left of the original state. None of the examples you cite is even remotely comparable.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 May 2003 04:24 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On top of which (I am writing after just reading josh), Mishei is implying that babblers have never objected to those other occupations, which is hogwash.

And on top of on top of which, I am forced to repeat the question I have often asked Mishei, to which he has never responded: Mishei, did you never have a mother who taught you that two wrongs don't make a right?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 May 2003 04:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And on top of that, in Canada and the US, while not enough is being done to address Aboriginal grievances and land claims, an effort is being made. And Natives are not forced by the military to stay in one small area.

Not quite the same thing.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 28 May 2003 04:29 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More importantly (to me), most Canadians, both politically and culturally, agree that there is a primary moral onus on the Canadian polity to redress these grievances, and that there is no reciprocity involved here. That historical responsibility is relatively easily allocated.

[ 28 May 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


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

posted 28 May 2003 04:35 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think you are all beint too hard on mishei. He is merely demonstrating what he believes to be a consistent argument. He supports the Chinese occupation of Tibet, I assume, as he does the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. The same goes, I am sure, for the occupation of Iraq, etc ...
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 May 2003 04:41 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Palestinian situation is unique in that there was a state called Palestine
Can you indicate to me when in the last 200 years was there actually an independant nation known as PALESTINE!!

quote:
Mishei, did you never have a mother who taught you that two wrongs don't make a right?

This hits very much below the belt. My dear mother died after suffering from Breast cancer and battling it courageously for over 7 years. She was a mentor to many other women suffering with breast cancer and taught me more than you will ever know by her courage and determination.

Please, make fun of me all you wish, be sarcastic and stupid with me all you want...I only ask that you leave my mother out of this. She was a better person than you will ever understand.


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

posted 28 May 2003 04:46 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei: I wasn't talking about your mother: I was talking about YOU.

But you are making assumptions about me, especially with that "more than you will ever know." Know this, Mishei: I live with cancer. I also live with Alzheimer's. So back off on the cheap exploitation of your personal history, Mishei.

[ 28 May 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 28 May 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Can you indicate to me when in the last 200 years was there actually an independant nation known as PALESTINE!!

Excellent point. Let's give the whole region back to the Turks then. Problem solved.

BTW, my father died on an airplane of a heart attack at age 61 , so I'd appreciate you all avoiding the following topics: Fathers. Heart disease. Airplanes. Thanks, in advance.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 May 2003 04:50 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And please: No leukemia (my dad), or mouth cancer (my beloved Oyster).
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 28 May 2003 04:55 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What does it matter whether it was "independent" or not? That it was part of an empire doesn't make it any less of a state. Or are you saying that India was not India because it was not a free and independent state? I mean the Zionists themselves spoke of a "Jewish homeland in PALESTINE."
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 28 May 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And on top of that, in Canada and the US, while not enough is being done to address Aboriginal grievances and land claims, an effort is being made. And Natives are not forced by the military to stay in one small area.

Not quite the same thing.



Neither are native americans walking into malls and blowing up civilians. Forgot that one small point. BTW, Mishei is just asking you not to bring up his mother. You were talking about his mother skdadl. You guys can't even do that, only mock. Lovely. High fives for everyone.


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

posted 28 May 2003 05:00 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Mishei: I wasn't talking about your mother: I was talking about YOU.

But you are making assumptions about me, especially with that "more than you will ever know." Know this, Mishei: I live with cancer. I also live with Alzheimer's. So back off on the cheap exploitation of your personal history, Mishei.

[ 28 May 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]



No YOU BACK OFF!! You were talking about MY mother it is clear. You made a personal assumption and you were wrong to do so. I have NEVER EVER crtisized or questioned your family personally or brought them (even in jest or otherwise) into Babble. I ask you to do the same, especially if you are going to be in any way diparaging. It is a flashpoint for me and while you may not respect me I ask you respect the memory of my mother.

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

posted 28 May 2003 05:05 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
BTW, my father died on an airplane of a heart attack at age 61 , so I'd appreciate you all avoiding the following topics: Fathers. Heart disease. Airplanes. Thanks, in advance.

quote:
And please: No leukemia (my dad), or mouth cancer (my beloved Oyster).
This is as vile as any of you get. Can you be any more cruel? Fuck you all!!!!!!!!!

[ 28 May 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
tyoung
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3885

posted 28 May 2003 05:07 PM      Profile for tyoung        Edit/Delete Post
Time to make an appointment and have the dosage checked on that medication...
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 28 May 2003 05:07 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back atcha oh whinging one...
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 May 2003 05:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow.

Okay, first of all, that "didn't your mother tell you" thing is a common phrase that people just USE when they are making a statement that they believe should be common sense to everyone. I doubt skdadl was trying to say that your mother was a bad person or that she was in some way deficient. It's like saying, "Didn't your mother tell you, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?" It's not a statement about the person's mother, it's a statement about the person's manners. In fact, it could even be taken to mean, don't "shame" your mother by having bad manners or not taking her teachings to heart.

See how much fun it is to analyze a common cliche saying within an inch of its life?

That said, perhaps considering the bad blood between Mishei and skdadl that seems to be getting worse all the time, maybe a special effort could be made by both not to be quite so provocative with each other.

Okay. Now I want to respond to this point:

quote:
Neither are native americans walking into malls and blowing up civilians. Forgot that one small point.

Yes, but then, they're not living with the same kind of horror as the Palestinians, are they? It's true that Native Americans don't have an easy time of it, but their suffering doesn't appear to be as acute as that of the Palestinians. And Mandos' point was excellent - there is the recognition in Canada and the US that it is up to the colonizers to make it up to the colonized and not the other way around.


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

posted 28 May 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Fuck you. Fuck you all."

Wasn't that Ed Harris's parting line in Glengarry Glenn Ross?


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 28 May 2003 05:13 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, but then, they're not living with the same kind of horror as the Palestinians, are they?

No they're not. You know why ? Because native americans aren't blowing up canadian civilians in shopping malls.

[ 28 May 2003: Message edited by: DaddySno ]


From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 May 2003 05:13 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, you guys! I was writing my response when a bunch of other posts were made. Let's drop it, okay? Obviously Mishei is feeling pretty upset, even though I do think he misunderstood skdadl's intention, and there's nothing to be gained by needling him further.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 May 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is there any point in addressing this question to Mishei? I ask you, guys?

I mean, I think there are two possibilities. Mishei really may be so naive as to think that "a mother," in the context of a generic joke about mothers (as in, "as Mother used to say"), means his particular mother.

And further: to be missing the point that anyone making that joke is assuming that indeed he did have such a mother, and is wishing to recall him to the moral purity installed in each and every one of us by our sainted mothers.

The other possibility, of course, is that Mishei is a clever politician, who by definition chooses the easiest way to deflect serious challenges -- which is to take it to the personal or the sentimental, this being, after all, the continent of the soap opera, Disneyworld, and Dubya Bush. Why fight success, eh?

Me, I opt for choice b.

Mishei, I suspect that you are the babbler whose personal life and deep personal commitments are best known in most detail on this board. You use them often enough to divert reasonable arguments. I don't mind saying a certain amount about myself, but I am amazed at how far you will exploit the lives of others close to you. I'm sort of ashamed that you drove me to go one step further than I normally do, although it is done now, and I can't see a reason to take it back.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 28 May 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
[QB]Can you indicate to me when in the last 200 years was there actually an independant nation known as PALESTINE!![QB]

This is quite irrelevent, really. If previous existance (which is highly debatable in the case of Israel too) were necessary for the right to statehood, every state on the map would be 'illegitimate'. States are always historically contingent. As such, apropos of the question of the legitimacy of the Palestinian Arabs' right to make a claim on the basis of the right to national self-determination, this is a red-herring.

Moreover, international human rights law pertains to individual rights, regardless of nationality, legal/civil citizenship status, etc. The existence or non-existence of a Palestinian state is not relevent to the question of human rights abuses against Palestinians.


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

posted 28 May 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That said, perhaps considering the bad blood between Mishei and skdadl that seems to be getting worse all the time, maybe a special effort could be made by both not to be quite so provocative with each other.


I would be willing...Look folks I know it is a common expression but obviously I have some strong feelings about this. I am not asking you to undertsnad them I am only asking tjhat you respect my wishes on this one matter. There was no need for Ron or Skdadl to exaserbate the issue by their response . It was done because they knew it would get a rise out of me and they were right.

In the Jewish tradition, on the anniversary of a parent's death we light a memorial candle, give to charity and go to synagogue to recite the "Kaddish" the prayer for the dead. It is a day of deep emotion and evocative memory. While no one could know, this discussion happened to occur on this day. Hence the raw emotion.


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

posted 28 May 2003 05:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My condolences, Mishei.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 May 2003 05:22 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Michelle. I deeply appreciate your understanding.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 May 2003 05:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And on that note - it's 98 posts and I won't be around when it hits a hundred, so I'm closing the thread now.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca