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   » Abbas quits Fatah

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Abbas quits Fatah
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 July 2003 09:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Palestinian PM quits Fatah

quote:
At the root of the crisis is Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's refusal to release thousands of Palestinian prisoners and Abbas's failure to force his hand.

Yasser Arafat, head of Fatah, appointed Abbas prime minister in April.

When Fatah declared a six-month halt to attacks against Israelis on June 29, it called on Israel to release all of its 6,500 Palestinian prisoners. Israel freed only a few hundred as a goodwill gesture.

The Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which declared three-month truces, have threatened to renew their attacks unless Israel frees all the prisoners.



From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 09 July 2003 10:08 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
How can the Fatah be expected to keep their word when Israel does not?

If the violence starts up again, I can see the headlines already, "Fatah breaks cease-fire vow"

ugh


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 July 2003 10:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did Israel give their word to release all the prisoners, though?

From the way this article is worded, it sounds like Fatah only called upon Israel to release prisoners when they declared their ceasefire, not that they had an agreement with Israel that all of their prisoners would be released.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 09 July 2003 10:23 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure if Israel gave their word or not. Good point. Certainly the declaration to maintain a cease fire for six months on the part of the Fatah is dependent on the release of the prisoners.

If this is the case, I'm just wondering why Israel wouldn't release them all to have this six month cease fire. Don't they think a cease fire is a good thing?


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 July 2003 10:26 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Before we jump to conclusions I would be interested in seeing the terms relating to cease fire and prisoner release. With two terrorist shootings and a suicide bomb in which Islamic jihad and Al Aqsa took credit for since the "ceasefire", we have to wonder who broke what.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 July 2003 10:29 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought we weren't jumping to conclusions?

quote:
Members of the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad had claimed responsibility for the explosion. But leaders of the organisation based in the Gaza strip said they knew nothing of the attac

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_W_914640,00.html



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

posted 09 July 2003 10:36 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I thought we weren't jumping to conclusions?


Well Wing two can play at this game and it now appears (that is why I did not jump to a conclusion) that in fact it was a planned terrorist attack.

quote:
An Islamic Jihad cell in Jenin yesterday claimed
responsibility for Monday night's attack on Moshav
Kfar Yavetz, which killed 63-year-old Mazal Afari,
and announced that the attacks would continue
until Israel frees all Palestinian prisoners.


Attacks will continue

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

posted 09 July 2003 10:40 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Mishei, a local cell acted independently.

"Senior Jihad officials in Gaza, including
Mohammed al-Hindi, said the attack had not been
coordinated with them and that the organization
is still committed to the cease-fire."

So, with your logic, an attack on innocent Palestinians by extremist, Israeli settlers is an attack by the Israeli government?


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

posted 09 July 2003 12:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Yes, Mishei, a local cell acted independently.

"Senior Jihad officials in Gaza, including
Mohammed al-Hindi, said the attack had not been
coordinated with them and that the organization
is still committed to the cease-fire."

So, with your logic, an attack on innocent Palestinians by extremist, Israeli settlers is an attack by the Israeli government?


It is still a "cell" of the movement. The settlers or more specifically a deranged Israeli extremist might act in a singular fashion with no obvious ties to anything or anyone in governwemnt. A cell has obvious ties.


BTW I say "might act" because the Israeli extremist who has acted ...well they are few and far between . Tragically you cannot say the same for Al Aksa et al,,local cells or otherwise.


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

posted 09 July 2003 12:17 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A cell may have obvious ties, but if the parent organization doesn't know about their action, then I wouldn't think that you could consider it an action on the part of the organization.

I mean, the settlers have obvious ties to the Israeli government too (through funding, etc.) but if they take on a violent action of their own without the consent or knowledge of the government, then you can't say it was done on behalf of the government.


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

posted 09 July 2003 12:21 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As we all know , and as the Americans have obviously been advising the Israelis, if the ceasefire is to work, people on both sides will have to be tough and recognize that loose cannons may continue to roll about all decks.

Abbas is the one figure who, we are sure, accepts that logic, because he must. That logic is structured into his position and the (tentative) support he has right now from the U.S.

Of no other powerful player are we so sure.


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

posted 09 July 2003 12:21 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Michelle, funding does not mean "ties". With that definition anyone who receives welfare anywhere in the world is ideologically tied to the governemnt? I dont think so sorry.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 July 2003 12:34 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see. The settlers exist without any knowledge about their activities by the government, which provides them with no money, nor with the hundreds of troops that allow them to continue these clandestine acivities.

Just about forgot -


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

posted 09 July 2003 12:37 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
I see. The settlers exist without any knowledge about their activities by the government, which provides them with no money, nor with the hundreds of troops that allow them to continue these clandestine acivities.

Just about forgot -


Geeze I looked all over this thread and guess what??? I never said any such thing!!

In fact the governemnt and police in Israel have taken on the settlers and more specifically the odd extremist who breaks the law.

More wrong words put into my in my mouth by others that will become fodder for others

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 09 July 2003 12:45 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He didn't say that you said those things specifically. He was giving a counter-argument to your claim that the government is not supporting the settlers. Good grief, does everything have to turn into this kind of bickering? Nobody was putting words in your mouth. For heaven's sake.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 July 2003 01:12 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Michelle.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 July 2003 01:19 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
He didn't say that you said those things specifically. He was giving a counter-argument to your claim that the government is not supporting the settlers. Good grief, does everything have to turn into this kind of bickering? Nobody was putting words in your mouth. For heaven's sake.
Michelle it ammounts to the same thing. It is an intimation and will be seen as the same.

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

posted 09 July 2003 01:23 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee: I thought I was on topic there.

Doesn't seem to improve things though, does it?


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

posted 09 July 2003 01:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No it doesn't. It amounts to a rhetorical device of drawing a possible logical conclusion from your claim, in order to refute your claim. People use it all the time in debate. It's not putting words in your mouth to draw a possible conclusion from what you've said.

What generally happens following that, is that you would explain to him where he was wrong in drawing that conclusion rather than crying foul over having been contradicted. And that way we can avoid throwing threads off track. The way this one has been.

Yes, skdadl, it's very frustrating. Sorry. It's hard to know how to moderate these threads knowing that even an attempt to get the discussion back on topic and out of a personal slinging match will then lead to a big metadiscussion about how I've intervened on top of it all. Geez.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


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

posted 09 July 2003 01:30 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I beg your pardon!
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 July 2003 01:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Haha!

Skdadl, my post fits well after yours in that it sounds like it follows conversationally, but it was actually in reply to Mishei's post just before yours. I hadn't seen your post while composing mine.

Only the last paragraph that I tacked on at the end by editing my post was directed to you.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 July 2003 01:32 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
No it doesn't. It amounts to a rhetorical device of drawing a possible logical conclusion from your claim, in order to refute your claim. People use it all the time in debate. It's not putting words in your mouth to draw a possible conclusion from what you've said.

What generally happens following that, is that you would explain to him where he was wrong in drawing that conclusion rather than crying foul over having been contradicted. And that way we can avoid throwing threads off track. The way this one has been.

Yes, skdadl, it's very frustrating. Sorry. It's hard to know how to moderate these threads knowing that even an attempt to get the discussion back on topic and out of a personal slinging match will then lead to a big metadiscussion about how I've intervened on top of it all. Geez.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


Sorry I fully disagree but will drop it for the sake of trying to get thethread back online

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

posted 09 July 2003 01:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Mishei.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 July 2003 01:35 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, good.

So now. I know that it was a modest post, just a wee insight, a poor thing but mine own, but I wondered, Mishei and others, what you thought of what I coughed out there?

Just so's I don't feel as though I'm talking to m'self, y'understand? Humour me.


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

posted 09 July 2003 01:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I think that's a point that everyone has to take into account. But I have noticed that the Israeli side often refuses to make that distinction, between "loose cannons" and organized policy.

That's why I get frustrated when I see Israeli political leaders blaming the Palestinian Authority for stuff that is carried out by extremists.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 09 July 2003 02:55 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
No Michelle, funding does not mean "ties". With that definition anyone who receives welfare anywhere in the world is ideologically tied to the governemnt? I dont think so sorry.


Yes. It makes sense. You can't take a handout and say you are 'against' the ideology of giving handouts and remain consistent. Besides your analogy is relevently dissimilar anyhow. We're talking a handout which is expressly labelled: for settlement (i.e. colonisation of illegally occupied land). Second, the analogy to Islamic Jihad (IJ) relevently similar - the settlers (like this cell of IJ) only exist because of the ideology and power of the Israeli state. They would not exist without either of these stancheons of support (in fact they are but one stancheon, but more on that later).

For you to claim that there is no "ties", i.e. no ideological affinity between the settlers with the overall notion of settlement (i.e. Israeli state policy, which is the institutional expression of the Israeli state) is flat out absurd. Moreover, to make the same claim when the settlements are payed for and protected using Israeli state institutions is disingenious. What? Do they exist in some nether region? Are they part of the Moon? Did they get there by accident? The answer is simple: No. The settlements (settlers) are there because the Israeli State puts them there and maintains them there. They cannot be de-linked from the Israeli state.


Your argument is based on a definition of 'ideology' as an epiphenomenal agreement of opinions. Such a notion is too shallow to understand the functioning of ideology in society, as all the main theories of ideology have been at pains to point out. Ideology 'functions' not just as a consensus of intellectual opinion on everyday matters, but at the level of behaviour, at the level of ideological reproduction through institutions like, for instance, settlements. Whether a settler openly disagrees with certain aspects of Israeli state policy in mind and word, IN DEED he/she has become a functioning, living, breathing cell of the state and the ideology that animates that state. By becoming a settler and accepting state monies for that position he has become and ideological actor. For without the state (ideology), his position is impossible.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 09 July 2003 03:10 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
IN DEED he has become a functioning, living, breathing cell of that ideology by becoming a settler and accepting state money's for that position, for without that state, his position is impossible. Cause - effect.

No you are wrong. Barak for example began tearing down settlements as did Begin in teh Sinai despite earlier policy.

I know friends that have been on Social assistance from the Eves governement who wouldnt have voted Conservative if their lives depended on it . Surely you wouldnt call these people Tories?


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

posted 09 July 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No you are wrong. Barak for example began tearing down settlements as did Begin in teh Sinai despite earlier policy.


Yeah, so has Sharon. The real question is how many new settlements were built and at what rate did the settlements expand?

Deeds speak louder than words and the deeds of the Israeli government has always ben more settlemenst and more settlers and harsher treatment of Palestinians whose homes and livelihoods have been destroyed.


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

posted 09 July 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
[QB]No you are wrong. Barak for example began tearing down settlements as did Begin in teh Sinai despite earlier policy.

Actually, according to ideologically acceptable (to you) sources such as PeaceNow, settlement building increased markedly under Barak. In fact, under Barak there was a sixty-two percent increase in settlement builds acc. to PeaceNow. Much of this went on under the propagandic cover of 'natural growth'. But surely we won't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

quote:
I know friends that have been on Social assistance from the Eves governement who wouldnt have voted Conservative if their lives depended on it . Surely you wouldnt call these people Tories?

No. But, again, your model assumes that ideology is only skin-deep; that it merely pertains to the largely cosmetic differences of opinion over certain principles. What I am arguing is that it is the principles themselves which are the operation level of ideology. These people may not be 'Tories' but they certainly are, indeed, beholden to the ideology of the social-democratic welfare state. It would be something different altogether if you were saying that there are people not living in settlements who are ideologically against them. There is an interesting debate there. But as far as settlers go, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Likud or Labour, it doesn't matter, the settlements continue as a prime feature of Israeli state policy.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 09 July 2003 03:25 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You cant blow and suck at the same time.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 09 July 2003 03:28 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
You cant blow and suck at the same time.

On this we agree. Actually, on second thought, it isn't true in a couple of cases. One can suck with the mouth and blow with their arse quite simply. Moreover, in the case of ideology, people do it all the time. Say one thing, do another. That's how ideology works.

You want to believe that someone can take a welfare payment and not be ideologically part of the state which provides them. How? You want to believe that someone can live in a settlement and not be 'tied' to the Israeli state that not only pays for their lodging, but occupies and protects the land they are on in contravention of international law and basic morality. How? You want to believe that someone can take the spoils of a system without being part of the system. How?

It's on the HOW that your argument exhibits its greatest lack.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 09 July 2003 03:49 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do not think welfare ties a recipient to the states ideology any more than an allowance ties a teenager to the ideology of his or her parents. However, I do agree he is trying to suck and blow at the same time when he argues an independent cell is part and parcel of a parent organization but settlers are not part of Israeli government policy. This link posted by Josh demonstartes the importance Israel's Sharon places on the settlers as an extension if Israeli policy: "Back in the early 1970s, when Sharon engineered the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, he was always clear that they were permanent, and that their primary function was military. 'They guard both the birthright of the Jewish people,' he told the newspaper Ha'aretz, 'and also grant us essential strategic depth to protect our existence.'"
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 July 2003 03:50 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage, are you saying that strong lefties I know who were down on their luck and accepted social assistance from the former Harris government must become ideological "Harrisites" or they are hypocrites?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 09 July 2003 04:52 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hammas and such groups received money from Arafat and there was assumed to be a "tie" . . . Saddam gave money to the families of dead suicide bombers and there was assumed to be a "tie" . . . settlers get money and military support from the IDF and the Israeli government and there can be no assumption of a "tie"????????

Ever hear of a little thing called a mirror Mishei?? Might I suggest you get yuself one and have a good long look into it!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 09 July 2003 05:05 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Courage, are you saying that strong lefties I know who were down on their luck and accepted social assistance from the former Harris government must become ideological "Harrisites" or they are hypocrites?

Are you slow, Mishei?

I repeat, AGAIN, that ideology is NOT epiphenomenal. It does not operate primarily at the level of everyday political discourse. It's strongest function is below this level in the production and reproduction of basic economic political and social institutions which provide the backdrop for everyday political discourse. By everyday political discourse I mean the (quite narrow, actually) array of opinion which constitutes the mainstream 'political spectrum'.


For example, 'Harris-ism' (if there be such a thing) is epiphenomenal - as is 'NDP-ism'- to the social-democratic ideology which sustains the Ontario and Canadian governments and Canadian society as a whole. The differences between these groups is cosmetic when we consider that the fundamental principle of, for example, welfare payments is not questioned by any of them. None of them would say that there should be no welfare payments, or that the government ought to be totally out of the business of wealth redistribution. They would however argue about the particulars of adminstering those payments: how much, to whom, for how long, under what requirements, etc. However, there is no fundamental ideological difference between the Harrisites and the NDP on the basic coordinates that shape our society: free-ish markets, welfare state apparati for wealth distribution, democratic elections, etc., etc. The basic coordinates of the system are out of question - it is only small adjustments within the status quo which are the topic of politics.

In regard to settlements, it is a fact that settlement building has been Israeli state policy under successive governments, be they Labour or Likud. The occupation has continued regardless of so-called 'ideological differences' between successive Israeli governments. The racist attitudes of many Israeli leaders, from Weizmann to Ben-Gurion, from Meir to Ya'alon have remained the same regardless of purported 'ideological differences'. It seems that these things are 'beyond question', and as such dwelling in that realm of operative ideology that animates settlement building and the continued discrimination against Palestinian Arabs both in and out of Israel proper.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 09 July 2003 05:19 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
[QB]I do not think welfare ties a recipient to the states ideology any more than an allowance ties a teenager to the ideology of his or her parents.

Sure it does. They are ideologically bound to the idea there ought to be allowances, that allowances are a normal state of affairs, etc.

Ideology is largely the domain of the unquestioned assumptions. Moreover - and this is Zizek's particular addition to the theory of ideology - ideology is even moreso operative in the domain of questioned assumptions and unchanged behaviour. One can see that it is only ideology, but one does it anyway. Ideology, then acts primarily in the realm of deeds and actions, not in the way usually envisioned; that is, in the realm of words and speech acts.


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

posted 09 July 2003 05:34 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uhm, yeah. And so then you would share the ideology of capiatlist system as they subsidized your education and, for that matter, your birth?

I don't pretend to be a philosopher, and I really don't want to be disagreeing with you, but on one hand you argue teenagers share their parents ideology because "they are ideologically bound to the idea there ought to be allowances," but on the other hand welfare recipients do not necessarily because ... well, I'm not sure why.

However, welfare recipinets might accept welfare becasuse thay have no choice and teenagers might accept an allowance because it is offered yet have no real "belief" in it.

I agree with you with regard to settlers because both the settlers and the Israeli government share a vision which is advanced in tandem by action on the ground and action in parliament.


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

posted 09 July 2003 05:37 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you slow, Mishei?


I sincerely hope this was not meant as a jibe regarding any disability I may have. If so it was hurtful.

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

posted 09 July 2003 05:39 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any disability you may have? I am sure it was. I have some bald jokes in the event you may be follicle challenged.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


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

posted 09 July 2003 05:46 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
[QB]Uhm, yeah. And so then you would share the ideology of capiatlist system as they subsidized your education and, for that matter, your birth?

Yup. I am part and parcel. I, like many, know full well that money us just a representation of social relations, a consensus of opinions, etc., and yet act as though it has independent value in-and-of-itself. Regardless of what I might THINK about capitalism, each time I go to the store and buy a commodity, I am ENACTING capitalist ideology. My action gives capitalism life in the world as social fact. Again, ideology does not just operate in the realm of ideas - it is primarily at the level of acts and behaviour.

quote:
I don't pretend to be a philosopher, and I really don't want to be disagreeing with you, but on one hand you argue teenagers share their parents ideology because "they are ideologically bound to the idea there ought to be allowances," but on the other hand welfare recipients do not necessarily because ... well, I'm not sure why.

Sure they do. I bet there isn't one person on welfare that doesn't think their ought to be welfare payments...

quote:
However, welfare recipinets might accept welfare becasuse thay have no choice and teenagers might accept an allowance because it is offered yet have no real "belief" in it.

This is the trick - ideology functions in the enactment - the giving the ideology life by participation. This is the effective act which shapes our social reality, not whatever misgivings we might have about it later. Moreover, ideology often includes what is called 'the fetishist's split' in psychoanalysis. I can say, "oh yeah, money isn't anything but arbitrarily valued snips of paper," in one breath, but when I participate in the economy, I act as though it had independent value. The prop holding up your 'disbelief' is the idea that we are psychologically 'ONE' - that we are a unity which acts in a completely consistent manner. Once we accept what most people know - that we can say one thing and do another - we start to see how ideology functions.


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

posted 09 July 2003 05:50 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
I sincerely hope this was not meant as a jibe regarding any disability I may have. If so it was hurtful.

I don't know you from Adam. It was simply rhetoric. If you were, sincerely, hurt, then I apologise.


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

posted 09 July 2003 06:00 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

I don't know you from Adam. It was simply rhetoric. If you were, sincerely, hurt, then I apologise.



Much appreciated

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

posted 09 July 2003 06:02 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have some bald jokes in the event you may be follicle challenged.
I urge care when jesting about anyone's disability. No matter how unimportant or trivial it may seem to you, to those facing its consequences it can be extremely difficult.

For example my sister-in-law is struggling with cancer that has made its way into her lungs. The chemotherapy treatment she must undergo results in the loss of her beautiful long curls. She is devestated by it and is working to deal with its effects. The loss of hair to a cancer sufferer is terribly demoralizing. So I for one would not appreciate such jokes.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 09 July 2003 06:47 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, mishei, I don't knpw you from Adam either. I am sorry for your sister. But there are thousands of users on these boards and I will not temper my speech or comments because of what somoene may be suffering. We all experience triumphs and tragedies. If there are words or ideas that might cause you suffering then I suggest you turn off your computer, lock your doors and don't answer the phone. You will find life not much worth living but very, very safe.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 July 2003 07:57 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How did we go from Abbas, to Mishie's baldness, and then to his sister?

So how are the wife and kids, Mish?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 July 2003 08:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, how bout them Blue Jays?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 09 July 2003 08:58 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
So, how bout them Blue Jays?

They're too white...


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

posted 09 July 2003 09:05 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Abbas is in a tough spot. He's had to bend over backwards just to get to the table, but all that bending is making him look weak to those he is trying to represent.
From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 July 2003 09:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is that now true, Courage?

I remember being so struck, sometime maybe in 1984, the one time I got to sit maybe three rows back from the visitors' dugout, watching the White Sox plod back from the plate as we struck 'em out one after another -- they were all blond!

It was striking then because the Blue Jays then were heavily Dominican, and black Dominican.

It made me wonder. Why would Chicago hire all blonds? I mean, it was odd.

Mind you, one of those blonds was Carlton Fisk. *major swoon*


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

posted 09 July 2003 09:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was thinking you were responding to Courage's last post there and I was extremely confused for a moment.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 July 2003 09:20 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He got prolific while I was composing. You know how these things happen.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 July 2003 09:54 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why would Chicago hire all blonds?

"White" Sox?

Or, heck, maybe they wanted Aryan purity.

*hmmm, the "Chicago Blond Beasts*...naaah.*

So how about that Conference at Nicea?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 09 July 2003 10:00 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Is that now true, Courage?

Haven't you heard? Some nitwit at the Toronto Star decided to make a Sports frontpage 'expose' out of the fact that the Blue Jays had the most 'white' players in the league...

I don't usually go for the Post, but someone over there did a rebuttal (tongue firmly in cheek) about the Maple Leafs being too white...


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

posted 09 July 2003 10:02 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
He got prolific while I was composing. You know how these things happen.

Don't ever, ever turn your back on me. Prolific? Oh yeah...


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

posted 09 July 2003 10:42 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
You know, mishei, I don't knpw you from Adam either. I am sorry for your sister. But there are thousands of users on these boards and I will not temper my speech or comments because of what somoene may be suffering. We all experience triumphs and tragedies. If there are words or ideas that might cause you suffering then I suggest you turn off your computer, lock your doors and don't answer the phone. You will find life not much worth living but very, very safe.

But Wing you asked me a direct question as to whether or not I would appreciate jokes about people who were bald. Im sorry you didnt like my answer. Next time dont ask the question.

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

posted 09 July 2003 10:57 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again with your baldness? Come on, we're trying to talk baseball here.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 July 2003 11:02 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Again with your baldness? Come on, we're trying to talk baseball here.
Excuse my thread drift.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
4t2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3655

posted 09 July 2003 11:07 PM      Profile for 4t2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More baseball (and puzzlement about football) is going on over here, if you wanna join in.
From: Beyond the familiar... | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 July 2003 11:11 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But Wing you asked me a direct question as to whether or not I would appreciate jokes about people who were bald. Im sorry you didnt like my answer. Next time dont ask the question.

I didn't ask you a question, at all. So next time try not answering the unasked.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3154

posted 09 July 2003 11:12 PM      Profile for Cart     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh...Mishei is like the son of the deceased Folk Agent who organizes the pbs folk show in A Mighty Win.

Concrete is unsafe, you could fall and scrape your knee...


From: Camp X-ray | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 July 2003 11:18 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I didn't ask you a question, at all. So next time try not answering the unasked.

MMM true it wasn't in the form of a question. But it was a statement directed at me. See below.

quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Any disability you may have? I am sure it was. I have some bald jokes in the event you may be follicle challenged.

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


Utilizing the word "you" refers directly back to me. You suggest you have some "bald jokes" in the event that "I" am follicle challenged. I responded to what was directed at me. You didnt like it. Next time do not intimate something to which you really dont want a response.

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

posted 09 July 2003 11:20 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cart:
Gosh...Mishei is like the son of the deceased Folk Agent who organizes the pbs folk show in A Mighty Win.

Concrete is unsafe, you could fall and scrape your knee...


Not only is this unecessary, it was, IMHO, dumb.

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

posted 09 July 2003 11:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Should I be moving this to a different forum perhaps? Like, say, the babble bicker forum? Oh wait, we don't have one of those, do we?

Oh Auuuudra...


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 July 2003 11:30 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Should I be moving this to a different forum perhaps? Like, say, the babble bicker forum? Oh wait, we don't have one of those, do we?

Oh Auuuudra...



Hey I like that idea...anyone here old enough to remember "The Bickersons"?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
4t2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3655

posted 09 July 2003 11:34 PM      Profile for 4t2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Who wants to be in the picture?

(taken from Bickersons.com)

[ 09 July 2003: Message edited by: 4t2 ]


From: Beyond the familiar... | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 July 2003 11:39 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gotta love it
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3154

posted 10 July 2003 03:13 AM      Profile for Cart     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Not only is this unecessary, it was, IMHO, dumb.

[mishei]I hope that slander was not directed at me for if it was I am forced to suffer egregious harm to my self-image and mental capacities as a human.[/mishei]

I think a bicker forum is pointless, it would just end up being the usual suspects carrying it out all the time using up bandwidth and space that could just as well be saved for private messages or preferably, emails.


From: Camp X-ray | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 July 2003 07:11 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I was being sarcastic about the bicker forum, Cart.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 July 2003 09:13 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Utilizing the word "you" refers directly back to me. You suggest you have some "bald jokes" in the event that "I" am follicle challenged. I responded to what was directed at me. You didnt like it. Next time do not intimate something to which you really dont want a response.
It still wasn't a question so don't be stupid. Further I wasn't so much offended as surprised at your use of emotional blackmail. I couldn't imagine being a member of your family. The therapy costs would be enormous.

Edited to add: Note a no time, in the original post, or in this one, does a question mark appear. But I bet Mishei can find another "question" to answer. Maybe this time we wil hear about his emotionally disturbed cat.

[ 10 July 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 July 2003 11:07 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I love you all. I really do.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 10 July 2003 11:07 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
It still wasn't a question so don't be stupid. Further I wasn't so much offended as surprised at your use of emotional blackmail. I couldn't imagine being a member of your family. The therapy costs would be enormous.

Edited to add: Note a no time, in the original post, or in this one, does a question mark appear. But I bet Mishei can find another "question" to answer. Maybe this time we wil hear about his emotionally disturbed cat.

[ 10 July 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


The fact that I am open and honest about my feelings basically means that theraapy is one thing I do not need. Perhaps you should try it.

Edited to add: BTW, I do take umbrage at bald jokes for the reasons stated. I'm really sorry you quite obviously did not like reading it. However people sometimes (usually without thinking or without malice) engage in such humour. It can hurt whether you think its funny and wish to compare it to my "cat" is your business.

[ 10 July 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 10 July 2003 11:13 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All my cats are neurotic (I have five). What's more, they are neurotic in different ways. Even the siblings (I have two sets) are completely differently neurotic one from t'other.

Others have often remarked on how strange all cats seem to become when they live with me, and it is hard for me to deny that.

I have just accepted it, though. They all love moi, after all.

Now, the husband was odd by the time I met him. You can't hold me responsible for that. True, we seemed to suit each other well.

Here's to happy mutual maladjustment!


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

posted 11 July 2003 01:14 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is really helpful.

Arafat: Abbas a traitor


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 11 July 2003 12:30 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All Palestinians know that Abbas is a traitor. What's funny is hearing that coming from another traitor, Arafat.

quote:
On Tuesday, in response to these attacks, Abbas
resigned from the central committee and also
offered to resign as prime minister if his
positions were unacceptable to Arafat and the
Fatah movement. Both Arafat and the panel
rejected the offer, but the power struggle has
continued unabated.
A bunch of treacherous thugs powerless to do anything but squabble. The PA is joke.

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

posted 11 July 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is helpful too:

The Council of Yesha Rabbis has decided to change
its tactics in the struggle over the settlement
outposts: Instead of advocating a stubborn fight
for every outpost, like those that occurred at
Mitzpeh Yitzhar and Havat Gilad, it proposes
agreeing to evacuation, but then immediately
establishing an alternative outpost.

And those are the few, mostly uninhabited sites they dismantle for the cameras.


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

posted 11 July 2003 01:09 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
This is helpful too:

The Council of Yesha Rabbis has decided to change
its tactics in the struggle over the settlement
outposts: Instead of advocating a stubborn fight
for every outpost, like those that occurred at
Mitzpeh Yitzhar and Havat Gilad, it proposes
agreeing to evacuation, but then immediately
establishing an alternative outpost.

And those are the few, mostly uninhabited sites they dismantle for the cameras.


Wing, forgive me if I am wrong but aren't you the one who usually reems me out for doing "tit for tat" argumentation. Or was that Smith, or Courage or Blind-Patriot or Dr. Conway....?

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

posted 11 July 2003 02:50 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Wing, forgive me if I am wrong but aren't you the one who usually reems me out for doing "tit for tat" argumentation. Or was that Smith, or Courage or Blind-Patriot or Dr. Conway....?

Abbas has been put in a bad spot by Arafat, but an even worse one by Sharon. Abbas went to the table and got an agreement that real evacuations of occupied territory would take place. What did he get? A few cosmetic changes - naturally played up for the international media - and more outposts than there were before. For every one that has been torn down, another has popped up elsewhere. Abbas then looks weak, and Palestinians lose confidence in the negotiations: which, I suspect, is exactly what Sharon wants. In order to once again embark on the brutal military solution being put into effect over the past year or so, he must first discredit the negotiation process. Unfortunately for Abbas - a man I think wants genuine compromise - his interlocutors do not.

As for Arafat, this is just par for the course with him - he's as predictable as the sun, and Sharon, for that matter. Sharon knows that Arafat will cling to any vestige of power he can, and so making Abbas look weak is to his advantage. Unfortunately Arafat is doing just what Sharon wants him to. Clearly there is a need for a changing of the guard in the PA, and Abbas actually looked like he might be it: A nice, Western looking guy, open to compromise, and skilled at articulating the Palestinian cause in terms of secular nationalist 'liberal' language. This is why Sharon is making every effort to isolate him. He knows that Abbas is under pressure from Hamas and others who advocate the 'armed struggle' and frankly, Sharon knows he can win on that front. The losers in all of this are the Palestinian people.

If Israel really wants peace, they will rightly fulfill the obligations of the Road Map and start dismantling settlements immediately - not only would this prop up Abbas and give him legitimacy (take support away from Hamas, etc.) but it woudl sideline Arafat and give Israel the man they say they've been looking for for some time. However, their behaviour belies this desire, as it is clearly aimed at ensuring that the old fart Arafat and Hamas are the only voices coming out of the PA. Having already managed to effectively delegitimise both parties in international eyes, they have then left the door open to a more aggressive solution - more occupation, more settlements, an increased effort to 'convince (the Palestinians) in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.'


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  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