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   » Mob disagrees with Palestinian majority

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Mob disagrees with Palestinian majority
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 14 July 2003 11:08 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems that there is a vested interest amongst a few extremists to force the issue of Palestinian refugee return to Israel.

Mob attacks pollsters who found few Palestinians want their old homes in what is now Israel


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 11:17 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As much of a right or even more of a right to their homes as the Jewish people claim they have.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 14 July 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
As much of a right or even more of a right to their homes as the Jewish people claim they have.
Sorry but this is a total non-sequiter.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 11:47 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder what's in it for the 585 or so people who want to wait till Israel disappers. I mean what is to be gained by constant opposition against something that will not disappear?

What happens if this becomes a Palestinian civil war?


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 11:53 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:
I wonder what's in it for the 585 or so people who want to wait till Israel disappers. I mean what is to be gained by constant opposition against something that will not disappear?

What happens if this becomes a Palestinian civil war?



Israel would love to see a civil war. The right to return is possible without the disappearance of Israel.

P.S. Mishei your so predictable in your replies. No dialouge, just shoot downs.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 11:57 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The right to return is possible without the disappearance of Israel.

Not for 13% according to the poll. Why make a sweeping generalized statement about Israel wanting Palestinian civil war?


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

posted 14 July 2003 11:59 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PEH, I am confused.

I read through this thread, and it seems to me that you were the first to make a sweeping general statement about a Palestinian civil war. (How does the original link raise that issue?)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 12:13 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It didn't actually say that. It did say that 54% would choose a Palestinian state. 13% would not choose anything other than waiting for Israel to be gone.

100 people rioted and smashed things and people up just for asking how the 4500 refugees felt about it.

Granted it's an assumption on my part but doesn't it stand to reason that should a slight majority vote for statehood that the other half would have some members that would not allow for that statehood without a bloodbath? Hence civil war.

So nothing but speculation on my part. Is there something I missed that would point to ward a peaceful creation of a Palestine state with a slight majority in favour of it?


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 12:21 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

Not for 13% according to the poll. Why make a sweeping generalized statement about Israel wanting Palestinian civil war?


Should we let 13% ruin it? That was generalizing too. My apologies for my generalizing statement. Let me rephrase that "Israeli Hawks" or "Zionists". I also never said "wanting" a civil war. But I'm sure they'd welcome it, it would be to Israel's Hawk best interest.

I don't want a Ferarri, but if someone dropped one on my front door, I'll take it!


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 12:23 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
Should we let 13% ruin it? That was generalizing too. My apologies for my generalizing statement. Let me rephrase that "Israeli Hawks" or "Zionists". I also never said "wanting" a civil war. But I'm sure they'd welcome it, it would be to Israel's Hawk best interest.

I don't want a Ferarri, but if someone dropped one on my front door, I'll take it!


That's better thank you.


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

posted 14 July 2003 12:26 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PEH, I still don't understand. The original link makes quite clear that five times as many refugees would prefer to live in a Palestinian state as would wish to return to Israel. Large minorities choose other options.

Where is the potential for civil war in those numbers? Why do you raise the issue in this context?

The Grope and Flail article I read this a.m. made it clear that that 13 per cent goes down even further when refugees realize that they would have to have Israeli citizenship to return to Israel.

It seems generally accepted that the right of return is not so much an issue any longer of people literally returning to their old homes as it is of recognition and compensation.

Of course feelings are still raw. But you wouldn't want to aggravate them, would you, PEH?


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

posted 14 July 2003 12:29 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

Not for 13% according to the poll. Why make a sweeping generalized statement about Israel wanting Palestinian civil war?


Extremist opinions can often be deradicalised by the prospects of an actual settlement. While the occupation continues, with its concomintant abuse, torture, and humiliations, extremist positions will have more lustre. Pull the tanks back, knock down the settlements, and then poll again, I suspect you'll get a highly different result.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 12:33 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because I think that should a slight majority choose the path for the whole, then those who feel that statehood means they don't get what they want, and all kidding aside here, some what Israel gone, then they will no be able to accept the creation of the Palestinian state.

They will choose a side in opposition to the state and push others to choose whose side they are on.

Maybe it will be little more than a few squirmishes and some arrests but some how I doubt that.

Why do you think there would not be a civil war, if that is what you think?


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

posted 14 July 2003 12:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The 13 per cent, of course, may be the people who are watching the "fence" go up, and can see what it is going to create ... not exactly a contiguous Palestinian state.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 01:36 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
The 13 per cent, of course, may be the people who are watching the "fence" go up, and can see what it is going to create ... not exactly a contiguous Palestinian state.

Do you mean the 13% who want nothing less than the state of Israel gone?


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

posted 14 July 2003 01:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(An aside, PEH: Does the Hogg in your handle refer to the great Scottish writer?)
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 01:57 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

Do you mean the 13% who want nothing less than the state of Israel gone?


I'm sure that the percentage of Israeli's that want to see Palestinians eraticated and Israel expanded is much higher than 13%.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 02:01 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
I'm sure that the percentage of Israeli's that want to see Palestinians eraticated and Israel expanded is much higher than 13%.

What does that have to do with it?


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 02:09 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

What does that have to do with it?


Perspective is everything!

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 02:35 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you mean that if you think someone wishes you dead then it is justified that you wish death on them, regardless of how they actually feel? And that this is how things are and should be in the occupied territories?
From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 July 2003 02:52 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:
Do you mean that if you think someone wishes you dead then it is justified that you wish death on them, regardless of how they actually feel? And that this is how things are and should be in the occupied territories?

Actually, you've steered into a bizarre equivocation: the end of 'Israel' as a state = wishing death on Jews.

This is a standard propagandist ploy to conflate criticism of Israel with Jew hatred. While there may be some overlap, the two aren't the same thing.

Second, you are glossing over the conditions in the occupied territories, and the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli state. Sure, it would be better if people didn't want to destroy Israel, but after 50 years of Israel trying to destroy the Palestinians claim to national self-determination, your 'shock and awe' is absurd. An apologetic masquarading as 'moral indignation'.
It's like being suprised that some blacks in South Africa might want to destroy the Apartheid state the enslaved and abused them.

Frankly, this 13% isn't a big problem for creating a just settlement compared to the conservatives, fascists, and others in Israel who believe the settlements to be a simple matter of Jew's 'right' to live on the land G-d gave them.

Again, pull out the tanks, dismantle the settlements and tear down that horrible wall, then try the poll again....

[ 14 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 02:56 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:
Do you mean that if you think someone wishes you dead then it is justified that you wish death on them, regardless of how they actually feel? And that this is how things are and should be in the occupied territories?
No and No.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 July 2003 02:59 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
No and No.

Good job. Don't fall for the equivocation. He's already gone headlong into propagandist territory with this first equivocation/strawman. I suspect we'll soon see more of the same.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 02:59 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So then explain "perspective is everything".
From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 14 July 2003 02:59 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm sure that the percentage of Israeli's that want to see Palestinians eraticated and Israel expanded is much higher than 13%.

Why do you think that?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 July 2003 03:03 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:
So then explain "perspective is everything".

Say we see the figure of a man lying on the ground - we see only his face from close up, and he is shouting, "I wish Israel were destroyed!" Then the camera pans out and we see that there is an IDF soldier standing on his chest with a gun in his face. Behind the soldier we see bulldozers knocking down Palestinian homes while in the middle distance we see new settlements being built. The camera pulls out further and in the distance we can see a massive concrete wall being constructed as olive groves are pulled up to make room for the next section....

Make sense now?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 03:06 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by leftylicious:

Why do you think that?


That's easy, the people re-elected Ariel Sharon.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 03:09 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is there some reason that neither Blind_Patriot nor Skdadl are answering the request for clarification on what they meant? Why do you feel the need to answer for them?
From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 July 2003 03:11 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:
Is there some reason that neither Blind_Patriot nor Skdadl are answering the request for clarification on what they meant? Why do you feel the need to answer for them?

Last I checked, this is an open forum. If I can help clarify something I read, or I feel I have something to say on an issue, I will. If you don't like it, tough bananas...


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

posted 14 July 2003 03:13 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please now expect Pathe Eton Hogg to try and change the subject to the issue of Blind Patriot and Skdadl not answering him yet. This may evolve into a general conversation about how the 'left' don't give straight answers, that there is a pack mentality here, etc...

Or maybe we won't now...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 03:14 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

Say we see the figure of a man lying on the ground - we see only his face from close up, and he is shouting, "I wish Israel were destroyed!" Then the camera pans out and we see that there is an IDF soldier standing on his chest with a gun in his face. Behind the soldier we see bulldozers knocking down Palestinian homes while in the middle distance we see new settlements being built. The camera pulls out further and in the distance we can see a massive concrete wall being constructed as olive groves are pulled up to make room for the next section....

Make sense now?


Are you trying to say that this poll was conducted while each of the 4500 polled was on his back with a IDF soldier standing on his chest with a gun in his face and he answered that he wishes Israel was destroyed. And then his answer was changed to reflect those posted in the article?

Or would that be a kind of a propaganda thing you are accusing me of.


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 03:17 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:
Please now expect Pathe Eton Hogg to try and change the subject to the issue of Blind Patriot and Skdadl not answering him yet. This may evolve into a general conversation about how the 'left' don't give straight answers, that there is a pack mentality here, etc...

Or maybe we won't now...


Actually I was thinking that you have some control issues. by the looks of things you want to push everyone back so you can take on the bad bad man yourself. Much like the last time.

Why not show a little Courage and let people answer for themselves. I promise I won't hurt them ok?


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

posted 14 July 2003 03:19 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

Are you trying to say that this poll was conducted while each of the 4500 polled was on his back with a IDF soldier standing on his chest with a gun in his face and he answered that he wishes Israel was destroyed. And then his answer was changed to reflect those posted in the article?

Or would that be a kind of a propaganda thing you are accusing me of.


You are really bad for the strawman thing, aren't you. Actually, there is a little thing in this world called 'being figurative'; using an illustration to get across a point.

There is a large difference between calling attention through an allusion to the perspective which takes stock of the daily realities of the occupation and how this might effect opinions in the occupied territories and the absurd equivocation/strawman of claiming that wanting Israel to stop existing is a call to genocide.
Your moral questioning was based on this latter proposition, which had nothing to do with what was being argued.

Note that my answer bears some relation to the issue at hand, whereas yours did not.


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

posted 14 July 2003 03:23 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:


Actually I was thinking that you have some control issues. by the looks of things you want to push everyone back so you can take on the bad bad man yourself. Much like the last time.


I'm not stopping them from responding. In fact, it doesn't matter to me. Again, this is an open forum, if you want to have a private conversation, please avail yourself of the PM function provided by rabble.ca.

quote:
Why not show a little Courage and let people answer for themselves. I promise I won't hurt them ok? [/qb]

Because this isn't about 'personal' conflicts, it's about the arguments you are using which have a general political import. Furthermore, you are making these arguments in a public, open, political forum designed to foster debate on these sorts of arguments. Your personal need to needle either Skdadl or Blind Patriot is not important to me, except as it reveals a general tendency on your part to divert the subject away from the arguments you made to the issue of their personal credibility.

Now, have the Courage to stand behind your ridiculous equivocation/strawman...

[ 14 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 14 July 2003 03:26 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:
Please now expect Pathe Eton Hogg to try and change the subject to the issue of Blind Patriot and Skdadl not answering him yet. This may evolve into a general conversation about how the 'left' don't give straight answers, that there is a pack mentality here, etc...

Or maybe we won't now...



quote:
Actually I was thinking that you have some control issues. by the looks of things you want to push everyone back so you can take on the bad bad man yourself. Much like the last time.

Why not show a little Courage and let people answer for themselves. I promise I won't hurt them ok?


Right on schedule.

Your feeling about my 'control issues' is little off base. You have layed down a guantlet on several occaisions on these boards. I being a good swordsman, have decided to take you up on your self-assuredness. If your kung-fu is weak, don't bring it...

[ 14 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 03:31 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

You are really bad for the strawman thing, aren't you. Actually, there is a little thing in this world called 'being figurative'; using an illustration to get across a point.

There is a large difference between calling attention through an allusion to the perspective which takes stock of the daily realities of the occupation and how this might effect opinions in the occupied territories and the absurd equivocation/strawman of claiming that wanting Israel to stop existing is a call to genocide.
Your moral questioning was based on this latter proposition, which had nothing to do with what was being argued.

Note that my answer bears some relation to the issue at hand, whereas yours did not.


You seem to skip a few deatails. DO you think Israel would just one day not exist? Or that some one could just up and say Israel is no longer a state? And that if this in fact happened that all the Jews would just wonder off leaving only a few thousand or so?

Meanwhile some Palestinians say they have had enough fighting and agree to a state and all those who have died fighting against the state of Israel will get over all of that and settle down for a good long season of farming and selling what not in the market?

Why does Hizbolah and Hamas want to keep their guns and threaten a fight should anyone try to take them away?


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 03:40 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kung Fu? Swordsman? I see. You have a small penis and you want to make up for that by being the big man to the rescue. (Rescue who from what?)

You strike me as someone whose bravery is linked to that wonderful feeling of being out of range.


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

posted 14 July 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:
[QB]

You seem to skip a few deatails. DO you think Israel would just one day not exist? Or that some one could just up and say Israel is no longer a state? And that if this in fact happened that all the Jews would just wonder off leaving only a few thousand or so?


No, I don't. I don't think that the 13% we are talking about have that much power and influence - and they would have even less if Israel dismantled settlements, pulled the tanks back and pulled down that stupid wall.

You are trying to get me to agree that your equivocation is a valid one by employing a slippery slope argument. Furthermore, you are trying to suggest that the 'destruction' of the Israeli state, NECESSARILY implies an ethnic cleansing of sorts. This too, is a whole lot of hoopla. It doesn't logically follow except under the conditions of your slippery slope. The Apartheid state of South Africa was effectively destroyed - are there still Whites in South Africa? You bet.

quote:
Why does Hizbolah and Hamas want to keep their guns and threaten a fight should anyone try to take them away?

Because they have staked their legitimacy on their opposition to the occupation. There are going to be a certain number of radicals in any population that has been treated as the Palestinians have been treated. This is a population that has been ethnically cleansed, shoved into a smaller and smaller area, under military occupation for decades, economically exploited without political representation by the occupying state, and so on. That there are a few (not even all of Hamas supporters if the numbers in this poll are accurate) that still preach maximalist solutions, we should not be suprised. The next task is to decide whether or not there are conditions under which these extremists might be sidelined. Further, we need to decide how much real material possibility there is of their 'idea' being carried out (about 0%, actually) and decide whether they are that politically relevent.

There are extremists in the occupied territories - some go to Mosques, some to Synagogues. These extremists have slowly come to resemble each other in ideology and technique. The difference is that one set has the weight of a massive state and military infrastructure on its' side, while the other does not. Which set of extremists, then, is the bigger problem?


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

posted 14 July 2003 03:57 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:
[QB]Kung Fu? Swordsman? I see. You have a small penis and you want to make up for that by being the big man to the rescue. (Rescue who from what?)

You made the bet. I'm just calling your bluff. Either way, I'm mostly interested in your poor arguments about MidEast politics, why don't we stick to that.

quote:
You strike me as someone whose bravery is linked to that wonderful feeling of being out of range.

Nice try, Freud. Again, you are slipping off-topic. If you would like to discuss the general niceties of psychoanalytic theory, we can do it in the Body/Soul or Ideas sections. You strike me as someone who has made a bad argument, has been called on it, and now wants to change the subject...

There was a poll, and an equivocation, and....


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 14 July 2003 04:12 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Kung Fu? Swordsman? I see. You have a small penis and you want to make up for that by being the big man to the rescue. (Rescue who from what?)

I'd like to comment that I find such remarkings insulting and offensive.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 14 July 2003 04:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Israeli Hawks" or "Zionists".
These are not necessarily one in the same. Would you call Yossi Beillin a hawk? Would you call Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun magazine a hawk? Would you call Michele Landsberg of the Toronto Star a hawk? Yes they all call themselves Zionists.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The next task is to decide whether or not there are conditions under which these extremists might be sidelined.

I think we both know what conditions those would be.

My point was ans still is that there are most likely going to be those who have influence, conbined with those who have lost all hope and are only interested in revenge and those who are bringing their own agenda, that would see the benefit of civil war.

I don't see many reasons why those extremists on the Israeli side would not actively support and promote a civil war should there be the creation of a Palestinian state.


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 14 July 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You have a small penis and you want to make up for that by being the big man to the rescue. (Rescue who from what?)
You strike me as someone whose bravery is linked to that wonderful feeling of being out of range.

MEOW!


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 04:25 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Out of gas already? Someone must be looking for Audra then.
From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 14 July 2003 04:31 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or perhaps people have lives and aren't sitting at their computers waiting to exchange witty banter with you.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 14 July 2003 04:34 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure that the percentage of Israeli's that want to see Palestinians eraticated and Israel expanded is much higher than 13%.
(from Blind Patriot

When asked why he thought that he answered as follows:

quote:
That's easy, the people re-elected Ariel Sharon.
So there you have it . The penultimate analysis of the Middle East. With such nonsense being spewed is it any wonder Jews feel hard done by from those like BLIND who feel they know it all???

Blind sees the world and in particular Israel and Israelis in black and white. No nuance no shades of grey and absolutely no historical or political analysis of place and time.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 14 July 2003 04:49 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Or perhaps people have lives and aren't sitting at their computers waiting to exchange witty banter with you.

What timing. Yes I can see now by the number of posts made by a few of the posters here they must lead some very interesting lives away from the computer.

I suppose you having something interesting to say on the topic is not in the cards is it.


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 14 July 2003 04:49 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's easy, the people re-elected Ariel Sharon

This just makes me sad to see Blind_Patriot. I've noticed an ongoing attempt going on in the Palestinian threads on Babble that attempt to "dumb" down the conflict to being about Israeli racism. No doubt that anti-Arab racism exists and thrives in many parts of Isreali society. But that is not what the conflict is about. It's a symptom of the problem, not the root cause.

Don't buy into the propaganda! Israeli's are not all racist monsters who hate Palestinians and want to see them killed or enslaved. And Arabs are not all anti-semetic fanatics who want to drive the jews into the sea.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 July 2003 04:55 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Or perhaps people have lives and aren't sitting at their computers waiting to exchange witty banter with you.

Bingo! It's a beautiful day, and he's hardly witty...

Off for now.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 14 July 2003 05:20 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know how this poll was conducted or what kind of questions were asked, but the truth is the right of return is a basic human right belonging to each individual refugee. Whether a refugee chooses to excersice that right it is up to them to choose freely.

The activists involved here were were not disagreeing with the Palestinian majority they were fighting for their own individual rights to return to their homeland.

The question is when will those who do wish to return to their homes fianlly be allowed to do so? So long as there are Palestinians being denied their basic rights in Israel the conflict will not end.

quote:
It seems that there is a vested interest amongst a few extremists to force the issue of Palestinian refugee return to Israel.
This is racist filth. You should be proud of yourself Mishei.

As for civil war, I doubt that. The European and American backed terrorist groups including the PA are the only ones allowed guns, and it seems the US and Europe, or at least the UK, are coming to some agreement on Israel/Palestine. However so long as a just solution is not reached no doubt major powers will use the people's anger for their own interests and civil war will still be a possibility.

quote:
Israeli's are not all racist monsters who hate Palestinians and want to see them killed or enslaved. And Arabs are not all anti-semetic fanatics who want to drive the jews into the sea.
I only believe that because there is still a courageous minority of Israelis who, despite years of racist indoctrination, would still like to see refugee rights recognized, and that many Palestinains, after years of dehumanization, still want to return to their homes in Israel and live in peace with Jews.

[ 14 July 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


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

posted 14 July 2003 05:50 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that there is a vested interest amongst a few extremists to force the issue of Palestinian refugee return to Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is racist filth. You should be proud of yourself Mishei.


Let's see if I have this straight.

A respected Palestinian think tank wants to publish a poll showing that a large majority of Palestinians do not find the "right of return" as important as, you, satana and some others may actually think it should be. Although you of course have done no research as has this Palestinian research group so you are speculating while they have the facts.

Then a group of what I called "extremists" (no racial intent that I could see ) attack the offices of this respected Palestinian reserach centre because they dont want the study released. They even assault the head of the research group. I then suggest that these extremists want to force an issue that the majority of Palestinians do not seem interested in.

Then you claim that this is racist filth.

I'm really confused. What is racist filth? The fact that a Palestinian research group didnt find factual evidence to suggest that the "Palestiniana right of return " was important to the average Palestinain?

Or the fact that extremists tried to stop the publication of the facts?

Or that I posted this in the first place?

Satana your view of what is or is not racist is truly wierd.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 July 2003 06:14 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Couldn't this poll, if taken seriously (as it seems to be by so many here, including the Pro-Israel/Anti-Palestine side) also show that Israeli fear of the "right of return" is something that could be given, and no great harm would come from such an allowance??

And as Courage points out, if there were real progress towards a real Palestinian state, the numbers would likely be even smaller . . . if such a small cost could help bring about peace, them what are so many people afraid of??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 06:15 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:
So then explain "perspective is everything".
We should be looking at both sides of the conflict and the wrongs that the so called extreme minorities are committng. Yes I know this thread is about the "Mob" (13%) and people like mishei are quick to point out and say "See, see, see... Anti_Israeli's!" (Whatever he means by that).

Show me an orange, and I'll show you one too.
----------------------------------------

Sorry, I had major network problems, and I want to get my reply in even before I catch up on the 50 messages on this thread.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 14 July 2003 06:26 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Calling Palestinian refugees fighting for the recognition of their internationally recognized rights "extremists" is racist. I explained at the beginning of my previous post why.
I'm not supporting what they did. And I haven't seen the poll. But according to the BBC "95% of respondents insisted that Israel recognise the right of return as a moral principle".

So what do think of this Palestinian majority?

[ 14 July 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 14 July 2003 06:30 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given that the vast majority of Palestinian refugees would not return to pre-1967 Israel if given the chance what's the harm in granting Palestinian refugees the right of return? It's clear that doing so would not destabilise Israel as opponents fear.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 06:30 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by leftylicious:

This just makes me sad to see Blind_Patriot. I've noticed an ongoing attempt going on in the Palestinian threads on Babble that attempt to "dumb" down the conflict to being about Israeli racism. No doubt that anti-Arab racism exists and thrives in many parts of Isreali society. But that is not what the conflict is about. It's a symptom of the problem, not the root cause.

Don't buy into the propaganda! Israeli's are not all racist monsters who hate Palestinians and want to see them killed or enslaved. And Arabs are not all anti-semetic fanatics who want to drive the jews into the sea.


you want to talk about root cuases now leftylicious? I don't think you want too even go there. I never said that Israeli's are all racists and I never said that all the fed-up Jews who elected Sharon are all racists either. But surely most of them (Sharon followers) are and the deciding votes probably came from those wanting security.

quote:
So there you have it . The penultimate analysis of the Middle East. With such nonsense being spewed is it any wonder Jews feel hard done by from those like BLIND who feel they know it all???
Blind sees the world and in particular Israel and Israelis in black and white. No nuance no shades of grey and absolutely no historical or political analysis of place and time.

Wrong Mishei! Nice comeback from when I told you that you regurgitate the crap you read in the Post here on babble. I'm well informed for about the Middle East and that's why I can dispute or argue much of the crap coming from your keyboard. Mishei, you are a hardliner and it's very obvious, I surely hope that you will never be involved in peace negotiations.

You say Black and White is how I see things. Show me an example of how black and white I am! Unfortunetely there is no grey for you, because the minute that someone critizise Israel, or say that they need to make consessions, you come back with anti-semetic accusations and fail to debate the issue. Try again.

[ 14 July 2003: Message edited by: Blind_Patriot ]


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 06:37 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Couldn't this poll, if taken seriously (as it seems to be by so many here, including the Pro-Israel/Anti-Palestine side) also show that Israeli fear of the "right of return" is something that could be given, and no great harm would come from such an allowance??

And as Courage points out, if there were real progress towards a real Palestinian state, the numbers would likely be even smaller . . . if such a small cost could help bring about peace, them what are so many people afraid of??



Thanks, No Yards!

Mishei, you obviously know what I think. What do you think?


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 14 July 2003 06:40 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An interesting editorial in today's Globe and Mail on the 1948 refugees:
quote:
Today, 55 years later, solving the refugee problem is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. It remains the most contentious of the roadblocks to peace. Yet there are paths forward that, while not satisfying either side entirely, could form the basis of an agreement: family-reunification programs to allow a limited return to Israel, relocation to Western nations and to the newly created Palestinian state in the occupied territories, recognition by Arab countries that many of the refugees will stay and must be granted the rights of citizenship. There would be, too, a multi-billion-dollar international fund to compensate those who lost their property in 1948, and some admission by Israel of responsibility or regret for the dispersal.

quote:

There are critical differences between the Palestinian experience in 1948 and that of these Jewish refugees. Many Jews did want to emigrate to Israel, and those who were forced to leave were welcomed by the fledgling Jewish state. None remain in refugee camps today. In contrast, millions of Palestinians remain unwanted guests in neighbouring Arab countries, with few rights and little control over their future.

Some Israeli politicians and Jewish leaders abroad have suggested a kind of equivalence between the two refugee experiences: in effect, an exchange of populations. This is specious. The Jewish refugee problem was solved. The Palestinian refugee problem remains a gaping wound separating Israel and the Arab world, and still needs solving.

But beyond the issue of the resettlement or naturalization of Palestinian refugees, there is the issue of compensation for what was lost in 1948 and admission of culpability for a grievous wrong. Here there is comparability.

Arab nations should express remorse for wrongs committed against their Jewish citizens decades ago, just as Israel should do for the Palestinian community. And there should be compensation for what Jews lost, just as for Palestinians. This might be far less than fair value, but the symbolic effect would move mountains.



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 06:46 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But as talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders are once again launched, attention should be paid to another tragedy of the 1948 war that has for too long been ignored. This is the fate of the 850,000 Jews who fled their homes in Arab countries.

They left without compensation, as did Palestinian refugees. And they fled amid an atmosphere of anti-Jewish incitement and violence. Discriminatory laws were passed restricting ownership of property and participation in the civil service. Bank accounts were frozen. Jews were designated as "enemy nationals," stripped of their citizenship, imprisoned and expelled.


Ah... the days when they lived together in peace.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 14 July 2003 06:47 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I never said that Israeli's are all racists and I never said that all the fed-up Jews who elected Sharon are all racists either

My apologies, Blind_Patriot, if it came across that I was calling you a racist. I wasn't and I don't think you are. I just get frustrated with the accusations of racism on both sides of this debate that are constantly being thrown around.

Peace


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 14 July 2003 06:51 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it was a political response to the creation of Israel. Prior to Zionism, Jews and Muslims did live together in peace for centuries (certainly a much more peaceful situation than in Europe). Of course, the creation of Israel doesn't justify the response of Arab nations in punishing their own Jewish populations, if anything they only strengthened the case for Israel both ideologically and materially (by providing emigres). Also, it should be recalled that Israel actively promoted emigration from Arab countries to Israel often using underhanded methods to do so, including firebombing a synagogue in Baghdad and otherwise undermining the position of Jews in Arab countries.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 07:19 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:
the creation of Israel doesn't justify the response of Arab nations in punishing their own Jewish populations,

No it doesn't.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 14 July 2003 07:50 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So there you have it . The penultimate analysis of the Middle East.

What's the ultimate analysis? Your "Final Solution"?


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

posted 14 July 2003 08:24 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is there some reason that neither Blind_Patriot nor Skdadl are answering the request for clarification on what they meant?

Huh?

1. I was not here.

2. What did I say that you want clarified? I see that you have asked BP a question -- but where did you ask me one, and what was it?

(I feel like Gertrude Stein -- an not infrequent sensation these days.)


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

posted 14 July 2003 08:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: That would be "neither IS" -- "neither" is a singular, PEH.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 July 2003 09:02 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:

Blind sees the world and in particular Israel and Israelis in black and white. No nuance no shades of grey and absolutely no historical or political analysis of place and time.[/QB]


I think the more important point is that Sharon sees the world and in particular Israel and Israelis in black and white. And it always seems the Israel is wearing white, and the Palestinians black. He is plain as day, as any shaded and nuanced analysis of his politics and history shows. Everything he touches in the Occupied Territories, in Jordan, and Lebanon, turns to dust. If the Israeli public cannot see what this man is - as most of the rest of the planet can - they are to be pitied for their complete lack of political savvy.


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

posted 14 July 2003 09:09 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by satana:
Calling Palestinian refugees fighting for the recognition of their internationally recognized rights "extremists" is racist. I explained at the beginning of my previous post why.
I'm not supporting what they did. And I haven't seen the poll. But according to the BBC "95% of respondents insisted that Israel recognise the right of return as a moral principle".
So what do think of this Palestinian majority?

I agree somewhat. The argument that Mishei made is stock footage from the Israel-U.S. rejectionist stance that has been an ongoing policy for decades. The 'right of return' for Jews who may or may not have direct ties to Israel before the Diaspora is recognised as a moral imperative, while the 'right of return' for Arabs for a known and identifiable grievance in modern time, recognised in international law and supported by a moral consensus is an 'extremist' undermining of the road to peace. It's a stunningly absurd argument. It is part and parcel of the failure of Israel and her supporters to admit their role in the displacement of the Palestinians and accept the necessary redress for that crime. It is tantamount to a kind of denial of the import of the Palestinian displacement in creating the current conflict, and a denial of the Palestinians accepted human rights - rights that Israel claims for its citizens.


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

posted 14 July 2003 09:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Calling Palestinian refugees fighting for the recognition of their internationally recognized rights "extremists" is racist. I explained at the beginning of my previous post why.

No I called those who ransacked the Palestinian research office and assaulted its director extremists. What do you call them heros?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it . The penultimate analysis of the Middle East.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's the ultimate analysis? Your "Final Solution"?


Smith, was this really necessary? Could you not have asked this question without putting it in the form of a fflame?

[ 14 July 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 14 July 2003 09:26 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
It seems that there is a vested interest amongst a few extremists to force the issue of Palestinian refugee return to Israel.

Please explain your qualification for who is considered an 'extremist' in your most recent post in light of the above quote.

Were you just sloppy with your words?

I guess what this boils down to is the simple question: do you believe that claiming the 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees is 'extremist'?

[ 14 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 14 July 2003 09:28 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

Please explain your qualification for who is considered an 'extremist' in your most recent post in light of the above quote.

Were you just sloppy with your words?


Not at all. I am referring directly to the hooligans/extremists who attacked the research office and assaulted its director. I thought that was pretty obvious given the article.

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

posted 14 July 2003 09:32 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, could you make up your mind?

Your last posts have insisted you were NOT conflating two distinct groups, the small group that attacked the study's office and those Palestinians who are focused on the right of return.

But then you go on to conflate the two groups anyway. You say that the former are the ones you call extremists -- but then suddenly it is Palestinians and the right of return that is at issue?

How do those who attacked the office differ from any random group of rabid settlers we might hear about some other day?


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

posted 14 July 2003 09:35 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Not at all. I am referring directly to the hooligans/extremists who attacked the research office and assaulted its director. I thought that was pretty obvious given the article.

It's a lot more murky in light of your sentence...

Now, the question above stands: Do you believe that the claim for a Palestinian right of return is extremist?

Please be reminded that elsewhere you said:

"Justice, you can post as many quotes as you want, reasonable explanatory, it makes no difference. These folks who demand the so-called right of return to Israel for Palestinians could care less. They are single-focussed with little sympathy for the state of Israel and it's survival as a Jewish state."

Now, perhaps you have had a change of heart. Perhaps you believe that having "little sympathy for the state of Israel and it's survival as a Jewish state" is not 'extreme'. Somehow, I doubt it.

So, Mishei, what do you think of the claim for a right of return?

[ 14 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 July 2003 10:06 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mishei, what do you think of the claim for a right of return?
This is basically what I asked above pertaining to No Yards statement/question, and you didn't answer the question Mishei.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 14 July 2003 10:44 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given that the vast majority of Palestinian refugees would not return to pre-1967 Israel if given the chance what's the harm in granting Palestinian refugees the right of return? It's clear that doing so would not destabilise Israel as opponents fear.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 15 July 2003 12:09 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record I believe that the Palestinian "right of return" to ISRAEL, for all refugees with any family tie back to 1948 would mean the end of the Jewish state . I am fully against it.

However there can be some limited family reunification and there must be financial restitution. That is my position. Clear now?

By the way, please don't start a new thread listing all the nasty things everyone said to everyone else in this thread and asking me why I didn't say anything about that too. The truth is, I haven't read this entire thread because it grew exponentially today and I just haven't had time. So for everyone else who got their feelings hurt by something that someone said here, I would like to issue a blanket, "Cut that out!" to anyone and everyone who may have been out of line.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


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

posted 15 July 2003 01:51 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been looking at this post and it is important to note that it is true if there were a viable Palestinian state then probably the demand on the right of return would lessen so why not focus on making a viable Palestinians state rather then demanding the right of return.

Seems to me that 87% of Palestinian refugees really don't care as much as the posters on this board that they are more realistic and not all fanatic idealists like the majority of posters on this board.

There is no other conclusion except that 13% are radical and want nothing else but to see Israel destroyed the rest probably don't care this or that but they know that an unconditional right of return is illogical to demand it would be forcing Israel in to corner in which case it would continue responding as it has done so far. It needs to end this is a great step forward and the initiative by Ayalon and Nussibeh sport this. We have to be realistic and fight for what people really need the right of return isn't one of those things it's just an excuse as this poll proves.

If things are to be changed Israel has to dismantle all settlements and remove troops from the west bank and Gaza and the Palestinians need to stop the terrorist attack one is not a pre-requisite for the other it needs to be done simultaneously. After the palestinains have a state that looks like a state and every bodies has the health and adequate (The priority rights have been dealt with) then the right of return can be discussed it's not priority unless you want to start an all out war or destroy Israel


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 15 July 2003 03:37 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it's nice to know some things are still predictable in this world. When I saw this story in the Globe this morning, I said to myself, "I bet by the time I get home tonight, there'll be a 75-post thread about this on Babble, full of harsh invective, shrill insults and furious finger-pointing."

Sure enough, here it is. (Exactly 75 posts too.)

What is it with this forum anyway? Why is it so much more uncivilized than the rest of Babble?


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 July 2003 09:02 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
... that they are more realistic and not all fanatic idealists like the majority of posters on this board.

You really must get an expert to look into that nasty case of Pot Kettle Black you're developing, Justice.

Beluga - Have you seen the gun threads? The ME forum is like a breath of fresh air compared to any gun thread. Besides, I thought that the ME forum was created to shield the News and Politics fora from the discivil society found on most ME threads. If so, it's working well.


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

posted 15 July 2003 10:28 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Huh?

1. I was not here.

2. What did I say that you want clarified? I see that you have asked BP a question -- but where did you ask me one, and what was it?

(I feel like Gertrude Stein -- an not infrequent sensation these days.)


Go back and read it.

About the grammar, why stoop to such a tactic? I expected more of you than to look for such insignificant aspects so common on message boards.

If you understand the question or statement then make your point or rebuttal. IF you don't mind, get back to the question.


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

posted 15 July 2003 10:37 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PEH, I still haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about; and since the query is yours, if you want it answered you'll have to make it more directly than you have.

Out of nowhere appears an insinuating question -- and yet nothing that I posted earlier seems to me to raise it.

(Oddly enough, I did ask you a direct question with some content, and you never answered that.)

Justice, where do you get off talking about most posters on this thread? You obviously didn't read the discussion on the first page of the thread, where it is clear that most of us -- me for sure -- made it plain that we more or less share the view you express in that same paragraph.

This "most posters" or "most babblers" crap has got to go. The people who write that way are just trying to make trouble. Read other people carefully, or expect to be ignored.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 15 July 2003 10:47 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
For the record I believe that the Palestinian "right of return" to ISRAEL, for all refugees with any family tie back to 1948 would mean the end of the Jewish state . I am fully against it.

However there can be some limited family reunification and there must be financial restitution. That is my position. Clear now?


The Jewish right to return meant the end of a Multi-Religious Palestinian state. Israel can remain a Jewish state and would not be under threat if a few evil gentils lived among them. I beleive that Israel must regognize the Palestinian Right To Return, because it has only been 55 years since their displacement. The Palestinians were forced to accept a 2000 year old claim. How can you deny them this claim?
quote:
However there can be some limited family reunification
First, who are you to suggest "limited" family reunification? And what exactly do you mean by that?

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 15 July 2003 11:04 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
PEH, I still haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about; and since the query is yours, if you want it answered you'll have to make it more directly than you have.

Out of nowhere appears an insinuating question -- and yet nothing that I posted earlier seems to me to raise it.

(Oddly enough, I did ask you a direct question with some content, and you never answered that.)

Justice, where do you get off talking about most posters on this thread? You obviously didn't read the discussion on the first page of the thread, where it is clear that most of us -- me for sure -- made it plain that we more or less share the view you express in that same paragraph.

This "most posters" or "most babblers" crap has got to go. The people who write that way are just trying to make trouble. Read other people carefully, or expect to be ignored.


Stop being obtuse. I know you are able to read from the start of the thread and find the question. So why rather than answering the question (which isn't all that important anyway) do you feel the need to ask a question that has absolutly nothing at all to do with the topic, and then resort to spelling and grammar checking as some sort of rebuttal?

Either way it is of little consequence as it has nothing to do with the topic. Participate or don't.


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 15 July 2003 11:10 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If she claims she doesn't know what you're talking about (I don't either), then it behooves you to paste exactly what you're referring to and explain its significance. The ball is in your court.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 July 2003 11:11 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quite.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 15 July 2003 11:26 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We should be looking at both sides of the conflict and the wrongs that the so called extreme minorities are committng.

While there is merit in keeping an eye on the big picture, it is almost impossible to find any common ground if anytime there is a possibility of agreement on any issue, the biggest stumbling blocks are tossed in as a condition of the agreement.

The right of return is an important issue. But it's the details that dictate the ability for the right of return to be immplimented. I am sure you understand that putting one family next to another who son killed members of the other family is not going to make for a peaceful resolution.

No matter what, some poeple are not going to let go and this is one of the problems. How would you feel if your were a Palestinian living on a block with dozens of ex-IDF soldiers who would give you an awkward eye everytime you were out and about?

The same goes for a family whose son blew himself up in a cafe or on a bus killing some kids from that street.

How in the world would there ever be peace?

Not to mention that you would have to force some peole out of their home for some 50 years to allow a Palestinian to move into it. Is that going to make for a peaceful time of things or will that just take the battle to the Jewish citizens in Israel?


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 15 July 2003 11:29 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote riginally posted by skdadl:
The 13 per cent, of course, may be the people who are watching the "fence" go up, and can see what it is going to create ... not exactly a contiguous Palestinian state.

Do you mean the 13% who want nothing less than the state of Israel gone?


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 15 July 2003 11:30 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Like it matters anymore.
From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 July 2003 12:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, still puzzled, but obviously yes. (There were other 13 per centers being talked about??)

From the beginning, my point has been that 13 per cent is obviously a small percentage. That is interesting to know. (Somewhere else on this board Mishei tells us that a local neo-Nazi candidate in Ontario once managed to get 14 per cent -- so: perspective, eh?)

The group that attacked the office: also a small group, not so different from the crazed settler groups, it seems to me.

And then, obviously, I was making a somewhat acid joke: if you've seen the maps showing where the "security fence" is projected to go, you will know why anyone living along it is not a happy camper -- especially those people whose olive groves are being illegally expropriated or destroyed, or worse, who are themselves being expropriated, by having their entire villages suddenly scooped into Israel by the fence.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 15 July 2003 12:28 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Well, still puzzled, but obviously yes. (There were other 13 per centers being talked about??)

From the beginning, my point has been that 13 per cent is obviously a small percentage. That is interesting to know. (Somewhere else on this board Mishei tells us that a local neo-Nazi candidate in Ontario once managed to get 14 per cent -- so: perspective, eh?)

The group that attacked the office: also a small group, not so different from the crazed settler groups, it seems to me.

And then, obviously, I was making a somewhat acid joke: if you've seen the maps showing where the "security fence" is projected to go, you will know why anyone living along it is not a happy camper -- especially those people whose olive groves are being illegally expropriated or destroyed, or worse, who are themselves being expropriated, by having their entire villages suddenly scooped into Israel by the fence.


So just to recap, you feel there is not going to be a civil war should there be a Palestinian state created because maybe those in the 13% are watching the fences go up around them? And so would abide the laws and live in peace rather than go to war with those who are making the deals to secure the Palestinians a state.

Am I understanding you correctly?


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

posted 15 July 2003 12:28 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:


There is no other conclusion except that 13% are radical and want nothing else but to see Israel destroyed



So, international law is 'radical'. Much of world public opinion on the matter is 'radical'. Fascinating. Only Israel - who committed an act of ethnic cleansing, has sat in brutal military occupation of an entire people for 30 years, and has a racist legal system which recognises religion/ethnicity as a prime political catagory which denies the entry of those ethnically cleansed is 'moderate'...


Fascinating argument, Justice.

quote:
the rest probably don't care this or that but they know that an unconditional right of return is illogical to demand it would be forcing Israel in to corner in which case it would continue responding as it has done so far.

Yes, it is true that Israel has so far had an incredible case of denial when it comes to the terrible crime committed against the Palestinians. The amount of repression, ignorance, and fancy arguing that they have gone through to cover-up this fact is astounding.

[ 15 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 15 July 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How in the world would there ever be peace?

Not to mention that you would have to force some peole out of their home for some 50 years to allow a Palestinian to move into it. Is that going to make for a peaceful time of things or will that just take the battle to the Jewish citizens in Israel?


You will never know if there will be peace, unless you try. Your statement above has no Merit, only 50 years ago Palestinians were anchored in for generations over a couple of thousand years, and there was no problem when they were forced out by gun point 55 years ago. How can you expect to be just say... "Shit Happens". It is a very difficult thing to except to loose a physical ancestrial home. Unlike the Jewish claim, where there was no physical attachment to there claim of right to these homes. You can't erase their history in just 55 years. Palestinians who were there when the tradjedy happened are still alive today, they have legal deads to the land. The Jewish people showed up with the Tora and God as their Real-Estate broker.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 July 2003 12:54 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, PEH. (I am never going to grasp how you read.)

It is simpler than that.

I do not think that 13 per cent is a big number, capice? I do not think that 13 per cent, however provoked, is the kind of percentage that starts a civil war.

My ironic comment about the fence was meant simply to indicate that I accept that many people continue to be severely provoked.


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

posted 15 July 2003 01:05 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What does PEH mean?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 15 July 2003 01:16 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
What does PEH mean?

LOL... Pathe Eton Hogg

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 15 July 2003 01:32 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

The right of return is an important issue. But it's the details that dictate the ability for the right of return to be immplimented. I am sure you understand that putting one family next to another who son killed members of the other family is not going to make for a peaceful resolution.


It's not the details that are important - in many places people who formerly were at war with each other have learned to live together. What is necessary for this to happen is a real, sincere appeal on the part of Israel to the Palestinians. An unconditional admission and apology for the crime of ethnic cleansing, not to mention occupation, that has been committed. You'd be suprised how far such a reconciliatory gesture would take the situation.

quote:
No matter what, some poeple are not going to let go and this is one of the problems. How would you feel if your were a Palestinian living on a block with dozens of ex-IDF soldiers who would give you an awkward eye everytime you were out and about?

So because some folks would be uncomfortable with admitting their guilt, and others with having those who harmed them around, the imperative to Justice is unimportant?

quote:
The same goes for a family whose son blew himself up in a cafe or on a bus killing some kids from that street. How in the world would there ever be peace?

Jews live in Berlin now, with little problem. In fact, the population is growing steadily. Blacks and Whites are slowly learning to live side by side in South Africa. Blacks and Whites for the most part coexist peacefully in the United States.


quote:
Not to mention that you would have to force some peole out of their home for some 50 years to allow a Palestinian to move into it. Is that going to make for a peaceful time of things or will that just take the battle to the Jewish citizens in Israel?

No. There is more land in Israel than Zionists like to admit. If there were Palestinians who wanted to live in Israel (I personally think a two-state solution is not the best solution) then arrangements could be made to house them. Israel takes tens-of-thousands of new immigrants a year. They seem to find housing for these people - why not Palestinians who wish to live there as well?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 15 July 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel takes tens-of-thousands of new immigrants a year. They seem to find housing for these people - why not Palestinians who wish to live there as well?
I totally agree with this statement as it is very hipocritical of Israel to do this.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 15 July 2003 01:51 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
I totally agree with this statement as it is very hipocritical of Israel to do this.

More than that, it's racism. Good 'ol fashioned colonial racism.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 15 July 2003 03:36 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You will never know if there will be peace, unless you try. Your statement above has no Merit, only 50 years ago Palestinians were anchored in for generations over a couple of thousand years, and there was no problem when they were forced out by gun point 55 years ago. How can you expect to be just say... "Shit Happens". It is a very difficult thing to except to loose a physical ancestrial home.

For someone who says they have a knowledge of this issue you sure don't display it much. How do you think someone in the IDF could blow up a building knowing that there is a chance there are children who will be killed or harmed in the blast?

How do you think someone can walk right into the middle of a crowd of teenage kids and set off a bomb?

Temper and ill will are one thing. Pure hatred is quite another. I dare say that there is some deep seated hatred and not in short suppliy on both sides of this issue.

So maybe before you toss people together for the love fest, it would be a start if both side stopped killing eachother.


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 15 July 2003 03:44 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I do not think that 13 per cent is a big number, capice? I do not think that 13 per cent, however provoked, is the kind of percentage that starts a civil war.

What happened to perspective?

I guess we will have to watch this unfold and see if civil war breaks out or not.


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

posted 15 July 2003 04:01 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:
So maybe before you toss people together for the love fest, it would be a start if both side stopped killing eachother.

These people hate each other for reasons - reasons which mostly have to do with political decisions; real life events with causes and effects.

Taking South Africa as an example - while there is still some tension between Blacks and Whites, the 'Truth Commissions' have gone a long way to establishing the basis for a peaceful coexistence, and the roots of a renewed, reinvigorated society. Much of the success has been had by simply allowing Blacks to tell their stories, to enunciate their j'accuse against the Apartheid regime. A gesture of true guilt and conciliation - something Israelis and Zionists have been loathe to do - could greatly alter the social landscape.

In short, I think you have it backwards, and in so doing you have unwittingly repeated the Israeli rejectionist position. The violence does not need to stop before their can be reconciliation, a reconciliation needs to be attempted to stop the violence. Because the violence has causes - and one of those causes is the inability of Israeli society to point the finger at themselves, at their actions in 1948 and since, and say, "We are at fault, and we are sorry. What can we do to redress this wrong?"

It would be the first time in modern history when the Jewish State actually stooped to ask the Palestinians what it is they want. All the language surrounding the cessation of occupation, of the building of the stupid wall, the right of return all revolves around Israel's self-interested concerns for security and the continuation of their discriminatory ethnocratic polity. As though occupation and racial discrimination were neutral issues. As though they can be justified through standard colonial apologetics.

Zionism surely asked itself 'The Arab Question', it has never, once, asked the Arabs in question. And until it does, nothing will be right.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 15 July 2003 05:22 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

How do you think someone in the IDF could blow up a building knowing that there is a chance there are children who will be killed or harmed in the blast?

How do you think someone can walk right into the middle of a crowd of teenage kids and set off a bomb?

Temper and ill will are one thing. Pure hatred is quite another. I dare say that there is some deep seated hatred and not in short suppliy on both sides of this issue.


I wouldn't know, because I would lay my weapons down like the few fine soldiers who have rejected orders to murder Palestinians.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 July 2003 06:21 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

quote:

Israel takes tens-of-thousands of new immigrants a year. They seem to find housing for these people - why not Palestinians who wish to live there as well?

I totally agree with this statement as it is very hipocritical of Israel to do this.


It's not hypocritical to take care of your own first and set that as a priority. If you don't take care of your own who else will? That’s all Israel is doing.

Perhaps if the Palestinians started to take care of themselves instead of attacking Israel all the time then we'd have less of a problem.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 15 July 2003 06:40 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:

It's not hypocritical to take care of your own first and set that as a priority. If you don't take care of your own who else will? That’s all Israel is doing.

Perhaps if the Palestinians started to take care of themselves instead of attacking Israel all the time then we'd have less of a problem.


That is complete insanity Justice. What do you mean by their "own". Fellow humanbeings, not the animals in the west bank? I don't see the Palestinians have the means to take care their own backyard, now do they Justice? Perhaps with state hood, I could give your ridiculous, selfish, and racist comment some merit, but not even close !

Try Again


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 July 2003 06:58 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Palestinians have been given money and aid to take care of them selves and you know it. Sadly the PA and others decide to use this to by weapons or fund schools that teach hate. Sure maybe it's not enough but there sure could mange it much better if they want to. The terrorist organizations are more of a threat the Palestinians then the IDF will ever be.

I'm not being racist I'm being rational but you are cause you think only one side is responsible for everything.


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

posted 15 July 2003 08:16 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Palestinians have been given money and aid to take care of them selves and you know it. Sadly the PA and others decide to use this to by weapons or fund schools that teach hate.

Or to build government structures that the IDF summarily knocked down?


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 15 July 2003 08:36 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm not being racist I'm being rational but you are cause you think only one side is responsible for everything.

And because of that attitude, the issue is where it is. There is more than enough blame to lay on both sides of this.

There is not a chance in hell that these two groups are ever going to do more than fear and loath eachother. The only opportunity I see is if the two end hostilities, form their two states and stop teaching their children to hate. Maybe in a generation or two they will be able to live together without all the baggage.


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

posted 15 July 2003 09:17 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, if the Palestinians were allowed to HAVE a state, that'd be a nice start...
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 July 2003 10:39 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Or to build government structures that the IDF summarily knocked down?

Structures that are used to store or manufacture weapons, Can't something more constructive be done with it?

quote:
You know, if the Palestinians were allowed to HAVE a state, that'd be a nice start

Yes it would and so would dismantling terrorist organizations and recognizing the right of Israel to exist.

[ 15 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 15 July 2003 11:03 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good to see that you never want Palestinians to acheive statehood, nutbar.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 15 July 2003 11:47 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
The Palestinians have been given money and aid to take care of them selves and you know it. Sadly the PA and others decide to use this to by weapons or fund schools that teach hate. Sure maybe it's not enough but there sure could mange it much better if they want to. The terrorist organizations are more of a threat the Palestinians then the IDF will ever be.

I'm not being racist I'm being rational but you are cause you think only one side is responsible for everything.


Wrong and wrong again!

How much do you think the Palestinians get? You make it sound like all that money is going into defending themselves, and that's not true. Most of it goes into infrastructure as Smith said, only to be torn down, because they have weapons of self defence. The U.S. supplies Israel with designated military funding. What do you say to that?


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 July 2003 12:18 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I have yet to hear from Mishei or someone else about Arafat's alleged pilfering of international funds into Swiss bank accounts for himself, as pro-Israeli debaters sometimes bring this up as a way of deflecting blame for the shockingly bad state of PA infrastructure.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 16 July 2003 05:35 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There will be peace when people stop demanding their rights. That's what "peace-loving" people have been saying since Israel's creation... "Hopefully", "Maybe", "some day", just wait a few more decades, a few more generations people will just give up, shut up, forget or die away and nobody will have to worry about anything anymore...I think its disgusting that some people are expressing the same sentiments here.


95.4% of Refugees Stick To Right of Repatriation

quote:
The survey showed that 88 percent of those polled opposed settlement [at their current place of residence], and 6.1 were in favor. Some 95.4 percent affirmed their adherence to the right of return together with reparations, and 4.6 percent opposed this option; 91 percent opposed receiving reparations in exchange for renouncing the right of return; and 84 percent oppposed the establishment of a Palestinian state in exchange for renunciation of the right of return, while 11 percent were in favor of this option.

Whichever poll you look at, the fact is that Palestinians demand the right to choose freely whether they wish to return to their homes or not. That is what a right to return means. Until refugees exercize that right they remain refugees, and the conflict that caused their dispossesion will only continue to grow.

Creating another state will achieve nothing so long as the other is percieved as occupying stolen land. It will only further divide the people, bottling up resentment and hatred until it finally explodes again later. ...which is really the whole idea behind creating two states in the first place - keeping the fear and resentment alive and the people constantly dependent on "aid".

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 16 July 2003 09:59 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doc, do you really think wether or not Arafat put's a million bucks in a Swiss account is going to make a difference in acheiving peace?
quote:
Whichever poll you look at, the fact is that Palestinians demand the right to choose freely whether they wish to return to their homes or not. That is what a right to return means. Until refugees exercize that right they remain refugees, and the conflict that caused their dispossesion will only continue to grow.

Creating another state will achieve nothing so long as the other is percieved as occupying stolen land. It will only further divide the people, bottling up resentment and hatred until it finally explodes again later. ...which is really the whole idea behind creating two states in the first place - keeping the fear and resentment alive and the people constantly dependent on "aid".


I really think that this is fundamental to the human nature for the Palestinians or any caught in a situation like they are. Palestinians would except living among Jews as they have pre 1948, however the Jews refuse to have the filthy Arabs living among them. As for Mishei, well when I hear nothing, I see it as a form of conceding.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 16 July 2003 10:16 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
You know, if the Palestinians were allowed to HAVE a state, that'd be a nice start...

It's been offered many times so why can't they manage to stop for one moment to organize it and bring it about?


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 16 July 2003 10:19 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
Good to see that you never want Palestinians to acheive statehood, nutbar.

No warnings? No one cutting and pasteing the policy statement? Why have people been banned for putting words in others mouths while this doesn't even warrant a finger wagging?


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 July 2003 10:35 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boo-fuggin'-hoo. Read what Justice has written on Palestinian self-determination, and then tell me (with a straight face, mind you), that he accepts the concept of Palestinian statehood. I shall provide a few choice quotes for your edification:

quote:
Perhaps if the Palestinians started to take care of themselves instead of attacking Israel all the time then we'd have less of a problem.

The Palestinians have been given money and aid to take care of them selves and you know it. Sadly the PA and others decide to use this to by weapons or fund schools that teach hate.

Structures that are used to store or manufacture weapons, Can't something more constructive be done with it?


It appears to me that Justice doesn't think Palestinians are capable of governing themselves. Every building they build is used to build weapons, and that every school they build teaches anti-Semitism 101. Those Palestinians just can't help themselves, don'cha know. If he weren't a nutbar, he may consider the bombings and the hate are a direct fallout from the hopelessness and despair propogated by a harsh occupation.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 16 July 2003 11:01 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

It's been offered many times so why can't they manage to stop for one moment to organize it and bring it about?


Why don't you tell us exactly "what" was offered to the Palestinians.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 16 July 2003 11:40 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
Why don't you tell us exactly "what" was offered to the Palestinians.

A starting point.


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 16 July 2003 11:53 AM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
Boo-fuggin'-hoo. Read what Justice has written on Palestinian self-determination, and then tell me (with a straight face, mind you), that he accepts the concept of Palestinian statehood. I shall provide a few choice quotes for your edification:

It appears to me that Justice doesn't think Palestinians are capable of governing themselves. Every building they build is used to build weapons, and that every school they build teaches anti-Semitism 101. Those Palestinians just can't help themselves, don'cha know. If he weren't a nutbar, he may consider the bombings and the hate are a direct fallout from the hopelessness and despair propogated by a harsh occupation.


What difference does it make what Justice accepts or doesn't? Fact is when some percieved rightwinger calls names and puts words into peoples mouths they get banned or at the very least an official warning not to do it again along with taunts and insults by many of you here. Just pointing out the obvious hipocracy here.

The points Justice makes maybe some what exagerated but have a some amount of truth to them. Even Mosques have been used to hide weapons. Some money given as donation with the perception that it is going to help the victims has been used to buy weapons. If they put as much effort into building their own state and regaining what has been taken from them they would be much farther ahead and hundreds of people would be alive today.


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 16 July 2003 12:07 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

A starting point.


Was it what the U.N. resolution says, or was it much less than that? The longer it takes, the worse it will be, as the Israeli expansionists use the opportunity to take more. This in principle should be reversed to the 1967 U.N. resolution.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 July 2003 12:21 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wrong and wrong again!
How much do you think the Palestinians get? You make it sound like all that money is going into defending themselves, and that's not true. Most of it goes into infrastructure as Smith said, only to be torn down, because they have weapons of self defence. The U.S. supplies Israel with designated military funding. What do you say to that?

Israel is surrounded by many enemies who want to destroy it if the US didn't support Israel there would have been a genocide long ago but you have no problem with that do you and you call yourself moral and say your not racist.
If Israel wanted to commit an act like that against the Palestinians it certainly could have but it hasn't what do you have to say about that.
And I do think they are capable of taking care of themselves I am totally for them having a state same as the Israelis one does not contradict the others. I think Arafat's huge Swiss bank accounts mansions and Mercedes of his colleges are doing a lot of good for the common Palestinian.
Israel is not the enemy it's the radicals and the terrorist that are the ones like the many on this board that don't understand the meaning and importance of compromise. If the Palestinians would rise up and use all necessary means to fight terrorism maybe then you could say Israel has absolute no legitimacy for what the amount of force they are using. I'm not talking about the settlements that’s a different problem I believe they should be removed all the way back to the 67 line unconditionally.

Another important fact is that Israel and the US gave the Palestinians weapons to fight terrorism who do they end up using these weapons against? Israel ooh the Irony.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 16 July 2003 01:12 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:

Israel is surrounded by many enemies who want to destroy it if the US didn't support Israel there would have been a genocide long ago


Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Lebanon was never a real threat to Israel, except as a hotbed of Palestinian nationalism. Lebanon was summarily destroyed far out of proportion of her threat to Israel. Syria has not been a threat to Israel for 30 years or more. Furthermore, several settlement plans put forth by Arab states have included the recognition of Israel and the provision to normalise relations with Israel once the mistreatment of the Palestinians stops. This is not the picture of impending genocide - though you may want to consult a psychoanalyst about this paranoia you have.


quote:
against the Palestinians it certainly could have but it hasn't what do you have to say about that.

Sure, since they haven't exterminated them, and their Arab neighbours want to exterminate Jews (homicidal Arab anti-semites that they are), it means that Israel's actions are defensive in nature. Israel has subjected the Palestinians to an illegal military occupation, stolen their land, instituted torture, humiliation and human rights abuses as daily routine, and periodically openly spoken of their final liquidation or 'transfer'. This of course isn't (as Mishei might say) "all that bad" because Israel hasn't just killed them all. Right.

quote:
Israel is not the enemy it's the radicals and the terrorist that are the ones like the many on this board that don't understand the meaning and importance of compromise.

So occupying territory and destroying houses, business and lives through torture, curfews, random shooting, etc. is not 'radical' behaviour? A wall that is slowly taking away chunks of Palestinian land while Israeli settlements continually expand and an Israeli society refusing to acknowledge international law on the right of return (admitting the Israel committed an act of ethnic cleansing in 1948) are the signs of a 'compromise' position? Destruction of the extensive PA infrastructure of schools, hospitals, civil offices, with the concomitant destruction of records and files (the life's blood of modern bureacratic statehood) is a 'moderate' position which is only threatened by the 'radical' position of Palestinians who find it offensive to wake up to an IDF soldier telling them where they can and can't go each day and who found it a little unnerving that they were ethnically cleansed from their homes in 1948.

That's fascinating..."Alice, is that you in there?"

quote:
If the Palestinians would rise up and use all necessary means to fight terrorism Another important fact is that Israel and the US gave the Palestinians weapons to fight terrorism who do they end up using these weapons against? Israel ooh the Irony.

The weapon to fight terrorism is for Israel to end the occupation (with all the torture, abuse, and humiliation), depopulate the settlements, pull back the IDF and make a full reconciliatory gesture based primarily on an admission of responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and for the brutal treatment of the Palestinians through the occupation. Moreover, a real initiative in the direction of creating a contigious, sovereign Palestinian state - not the pock-marked, surrounded-on-all-sides, Bantustan of the Barak deals. This would likely quell the 'terrorism' problem really quickly. It would also give moderates in the Palestinian national movements room to breathe and fight with the more extreme elements who can, for now, always point to a recently bulldozed house, a recently blown-up child and a brand new Israel settlement as evidence of how the 'moderate' position is not working. Israel holds all the cards in this situation, and the ball is in her court. Asking the Palestinians to make all the concessions is essentially blaming the victim, and THAT is certainly ironic...

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 16 July 2003 01:12 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 16 July 2003 01:19 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice some here have a peculiar and rather unique understanding of the term "racist". They will harangue me when I poinbt out what could be seen as antisemtic arguments..they feel this refers to them as antisemites.

However, disagree with people like Blind patriot evn while presenting logical arguments, refer to suicide bombers as "Islamic terrorists" and you will be labelled a "racist"

Meanwhile terms like "IDF terrorists" or "Jewsih terrorists" are used frequently and people dont seem to see this as a problem.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 16 July 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:
....

.... The weapon to fight terrorism is for Israel to end the occupation (with all the torture, abuse, and humiliation) pull back the IDF and make a full reconciliatory gesture based primarily on an admission of responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and for the brutal treatment of the Palestinians through the occupation.


You con't be more factual than that.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 July 2003 01:31 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look: there are serious problems with the word "race," and there have been serious discussions on this board about when we will and won't use that term, about what we think of it generally.

Islam is not a race. Muslim is not a race. Judaism or Jew or Jewish is not a race. Capice?

People who sling those terms around indiscriminately are bigoted people. Calling them racists -- is that helpful? It may be true in one narrow sense, in that they think they are talking about a race apart. But do we have to be that ignorant?

I think people should be guided by the caution babble mods enforce when we talk about nations, national groups, and governments. If you are angry at USian gov't policy, then you make clear that it is the USian admin you are taking to task, not all Americans.

Go thou and do likewise with all the rest of God's chillun; and sin no more.


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

posted 16 July 2003 01:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Meanwhile terms like "IDF terrorists" or "Jewsih terrorists" are used frequently and people dont seem to see this as a problem.

Mishei, I repeat (from another thread):

I have seen people refer to IDF terrorists, and I think that is fair. I don't have to agree with the characterization to think it is a legit opinion.

I have never seen anyone refer to "Jewish terrorists" on this board. Find me evidence, or apologize to us all.


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

posted 16 July 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Look: there are serious problems with the word "race," and there have been serious discussions on this board about when we will and won't use that term, about what we think of it generally.

Islam is not a race. Muslim is not a race. Judaism or Jew or Jewish is not a race. Capice?


I disagree with you somewhat. I agree that these catagories - from one point of view - are not 'races' in the classic anthropological schemata of four races with which we are all familiar. However, to me, 'racism' doesn't really describe this schemata - but rather the procedure of essentialising any particular ethnic or religious group and setting it apart from other groups (also essentialised). The political act of racism is, then, the deliberate naming of an essentialised ethnic/religious/whatever outgroup which is unassimilatable, even a threat to, the essentialised ingroup. This produces discriminatory policies, arbitrary distinctions based on essentialised 'racial' characteristics.

In short, there isn't a short list of 'racial' signifiers - rather it's the essentialist content which is used to fill any particular set of ethnonyms and make them operative as political catagories.

Does that make sense?


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

posted 16 July 2003 01:46 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes -- but why don't we try to advance human understanding (there ARE no races) by using words like bigoted instead?

Why should we use the terms of the fantasists?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 16 July 2003 01:52 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Yes -- but why don't we try to advance human understanding (there ARE no races) by using words like bigoted instead?

Why should we use the terms of the fantasists?


So your saying Anti-Jewish and Anti-Semite are 2 different things. Which I do see as valid, because many Muslims are Semites and many Jews are not.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 16 July 2003 02:01 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Yes -- but why don't we try to advance human understanding (there ARE no races) by using words like bigoted instead?

Why should we use the terms of the fantasists?


Because just because a shoe can be used to drive nails into a wall, doesn't make it a hammer. If someone says or implies, like Justice did, that, "Arabs want to commit genocide against Jews" that is a racist statement. Why not call it such?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 16 July 2003 02:06 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
Was it what the U.N. resolution says, or was it much less than that? The longer it takes, the worse it will be, as the Israeli expansionists use the opportunity to take more. This in principle should be reversed to the 1967 U.N. resolution.

A starting point is a starting point. The substance is whatever can be sucessfuly negotiated. That is a start. I am sure that all sorts of issues could be acceptable once there is some comprimise on bothsides. No more suicide attacks means no more retailiation. You get the idea? Once people get the idea into their heads that the person they are looking at will not harm them, then perhaps enough trust can be managed to live side by side with a nice fence instead of a barrier. Who knows where the hell that would lead but that fact is, nothing happenes till the agreement to halt all hostilities is enforced on both sides.


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

posted 16 July 2003 02:08 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Mishei, I repeat (from another thread):

I have seen people refer to IDF terrorists, and I think that is fair. I don't have to agree with the characterization to think it is a legit opinion.

I have never seen anyone refer to "Jewish terrorists" on this board. Find me evidence, or apologize to us all.



No it is not legitimate to refer to the IDF as terroits...not at all. And NO I will not research the Board over the last year to find your example. I have a memory of it. If you want to do the research and can prove I am wrong be my guest. If you can at that time I will apologize.

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

posted 16 July 2003 02:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha!

Mishei, you must take a course in logic.

You made the charge; you find the evidence. Otherwise, you are slandering all babblers and this board.

We are all innocent until proved guilty, Mishei. You can't retail that kind of slander here.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 16 July 2003 03:06 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

A starting point is a starting point. The substance is whatever can be sucessfuly negotiated. That is a start. I am sure that all sorts of issues could be acceptable once there is some comprimise on bothsides. No more suicide attacks means no more retailiation. You get the idea? Once people get the idea into their heads that the person they are looking at will not harm them, then perhaps enough trust can be managed to live side by side with a nice fence instead of a barrier. Who knows where the hell that would lead but that fact is, nothing happenes till the agreement to halt all hostilities is enforced on both sides.


quote:
No more suicide attacks means no more retailiation
That is quite the opinion PEH. Your laying the blame on one side. Although you metion after that "nothing happenes till the agreement to halt all hostilities is enforced on both sides". It seems that you are quick to forget about the settlements which I find alot more hostile then the retaliation to those settlements and thier expansion.

quote:
No it is not legitamate to refer to the IDF as terrorists
That's quite the opinion too! And why is that?

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 July 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Ha!

Mishei, you must take a course in logic.

You made the charge; you find the evidence. Otherwise, you are slandering all babblers and this board.

We are all innocent until proved guilty, Mishei. You can't retail that kind of slander here.



You are the one accusing me of misrepresentation. In British common law (what we follow here in Canada) you are the one that has to prove your claim against me not the other way around.

I have a pretty clear recollection. You have disputed my recollection. Bring me the evidence and I will gladly retract.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 July 2003 03:41 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bring me the evidence and I will gladly retract.

But Mishei, skdadl's position is that no-one on babble has referred to "Jewish terrorists" (well, strictly speaking, it's that she's never seen such a reference). How could she provide evidence of a negative? Produce all babbleposts over the last two years for your perusal?

If you have a pretty clear recollection, it would be a simple matter for you to enter the phrase on the "search" page, choosing "all topics" and "all active forums." It would also be the logical thing. Courtroom rules don't apply here -- or if they do, then it's up to you to prove your (alleged) misrepresentation of what's been posted on babble.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 July 2003 03:56 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have a pretty clear recollection. You have disputed my recollection. Bring me the evidence and I will gladly retract.

Who says you can't prove a negative?

The search 'lance calls for

0 results.

For my next trick, I shall prove the non-existence of God. Thankya, Thankya very mush.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 July 2003 03:56 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Lebanon was never a real threat to Israel, except as a hotbed of Palestinian nationalism. Lebanon was summarily destroyed far out of proportion of her threat to Israel. Syria has not been a threat to Israel for 30 years or more. Furthermore, several settlement plans put forth by Arab states have included the recognition of Israel and the provision to normalise relations with Israel once the mistreatment of the Palestinians stops. This is not the picture of impending genocide - though you may want to consult a psychoanalyst about this paranoia you have.

The only reason they signed peace deals with Israel is because they couldn't destroy it god knows they tried for about 50 years. The only reason they don't attack today is because Israel has nuclear weapons. Syria has mustard gas and other chemical weapons that’s common knowledge Egypt has one of the most powerful navies in the whole of the Mediterranean. Iran although no next door is developing the launch capability to hit Israel with unconventional weapons may a remind everyone of the "Shehab 3" On positive note Iran however there have been uprisings among the rational majority that wants a real democracy perhaps the Palestinians could take an example.

Who are you calling paranoid??? You have a very, very, very narrow view of things.

quote:
Sure, since they haven't exterminated them, and their Arab neighbours want to exterminate Jews (homicidal Arab anti-semites that they are), it means that Israel's actions are defensive in nature. Israel has subjected the Palestinians to an illegal military occupation, stolen their land, instituted torture, humiliation and human rights abuses as daily routine, and periodically openly spoken of their final liquidation or 'transfer'. This of course isn't (as Mishei might say) "all that bad" because Israel hasn't just killed them all. Right.

not me nor Meshi have said everything Israel does is legit however you see no wrong with the Palestinians this proof of how narrow your brain is. You may be intelligent but you're not intelligent enough to look at the wider picture probably just because you’re a hateful racist.

quote:
The weapon to fight terrorism is for Israel to end the occupation (with all the torture, abuse, and humiliation), depopulate the settlements, pull back the IDF and make a full reconciliatory gesture based primarily on an admission of responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and for the brutal treatment of the Palestinians through the occupation. Moreover, a real initiative in the direction of creating a contigious, sovereign Palestinian state - not the pock-marked, surrounded-on-all-sides, Bantustan of the Barak deals. This would likely quell the 'terrorism' problem really quickly. It would also give moderates in the Palestinian national movements room to breathe and fight with the more extreme elements who can, for now, always point to a recently bulldozed house, a recently blown-up child and a brand new Israel settlement as evidence of how the 'moderate' position is not working. Israel holds all the cards in this situation, and the ball is in her court. Asking the Palestinians to make all the concessions is essentially blaming the victim, and THAT is certainly ironic...

the ball is in both courts you have a narrow point of view sure the Israeli's need to back out there is no argument there. However if Baraks deal wasn't good enough there could have continued negotiations major parts of the army had pulled out until the break down in September 2000. The economy of both sides was better then ever there certainly was no reason to respond with violence.

Anyways thank god the moderates are standing up by spreading the truth like the survey that started this thread. Like the imitative the Nussiebeh and Ayalon started. This survey is proof that Nussiebeh is rational and represents of vast majority of Palestinians. It will be a shame if he gets killed by radicals like the 1500 Palestinians since 1990 that were so called collaborators and traitors. There have been enough attempts by people with in the IDF selling valuable military security secrets and you don't see them getting capital punishment just another little example of the difference in moral standards.


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

posted 16 July 2003 03:57 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:

Who says you can't prove a negative?

The search 'lance calls for

0 results.

For my next trick, I shall prove the non-existence of God. Thankya, Thankya very mush.



For the record could someone tell me how far back the search engine will look for terms.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 July 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Forgive me Sarcasmobri, but apart from this thread, I was able to find the phrase "Jewish terorrist" or "Jewish terrorists" used on two others.

Over here, Justice referred to "so called Jewish terrorist groups" thus:

quote:
When all these so called Jewish terrorist groups were around the British were still there. You should know as well a I that the British only left in 1948 hence the Jews declared independence. I don't deny that these terrorist groups committed some acts which were criminal however after 1948 most of the groups were eradiated by the IDF (remember Altelna for example).

But this is an admission, rather than an attack or smear.

Meanwhile, over here, Blind_Patriot used the phrase, but only by way of objecting to the sweeping inclusiveness of the phrase "Islamic terrorist":

quote:
Now... Had I said "Jewish Terrorist", you would have slandered me for being anti-semetic. I really think that that was unappropriate and racist.

Incidentally, in this same thread, Mishei said this:

quote:
People here have freely used terms such as "Jewish terrorist" when referring to people like Baruch Goldberg. I dont like it but it is not racist. Islamic terrorist fits into that category. To call me "racist scum" as a result of using that phrase is a direct contravention of babble policy.

Edited to add:

quote:
For the record could someone tell me how far back the search engine will look for terms.

The oldest thread my search turned up, Mishei, was from April 3, 2002. However, that was a thread in which both the words "Jewish" and "terrorist" were used (separately, and not in the same context), not the complete phrase.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 July 2003 04:14 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Forgive me Sarcasmobri, but apart from this thread, I was able to find the phrase "Jewish terorrist" or "Jewish terrorists" used on two others.

Hmm. I guess the babble search engine doesn't recognize the use of quotes to denote an exact phrase? I've obviously grown too comforable with the Google syntax. You can't prove a negative after all. Good thing, that, I was about to waste precious years on disproving God. Now I can work on my pizza recipes instead.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 July 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record I also mentioned that the JDL (Jewish defense league) was a terrorist group I don't remember which thread it was. I didn't and I don't deny either exists. Using the term Islamic terrorist I don't think is sweeping. Islamic terrorist are hardly representative of all Islam. Same as Jewish terrorist are hardly representative of all Jews.

The IDF is not a terrorist group neither is the Palestinians security forces for the most part. These organization are doing there best to protect their respective populations if it was just the PA fighting Israel and the whole of the Palestinians support of them there would be no argument the problem is that there are many terrorist group that chose to undermine the PA and take the matters in their own hands.

Israel has a lot more control and restraint respectively. It definitely could show more restraint but that doesn't justify the way Palestinian terrorist groups have been reacting.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 16 July 2003 04:24 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
THe manipulator complains of manipulating
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 16 July 2003 04:29 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel has a lot more control and restraint respectively
How lucky the Palestinians are that there Israeli neighbours have restrained from eradicating them. So Justice, where is the Israeli restraint in expansionism of Illegal settlements?

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 July 2003 04:34 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I cannot be sure of the search engine. For example I entered "Baruch Goldstein" and then the word "terrorist" and it too came up with a 0.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 July 2003 04:39 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just got back from an educating session on Google. You can do site specific searches there, if you have the gumption. Unfortunately, the site-specific option is a bit limited. No pages came up with the phrase "Jewish terrorist" on the domain rabble.ca. Many came up when I just looked for "Jewish" or "terrorist", and we've seen that phrase used today, so I presume there's something amiss with Google's phrase-specific engine when it's searching specific sites. Either that, or Google's indexing system hasn't caught up to the frenetic posting pace we see here. I'm still trying to prove a negative, I realize.

Mishei, in case you don't get the point of my fruitless and silly search, YOU made the claim, YOU should be the one to back it up. Your understanding of British common law seems laughable.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I hereby declare that Angie is a witch. I, with mine own ears, did hear her speak witchcraftese. The onus is on her to prove that she cannot speak the vile language of witchcraftese. The only way she can prove this to the court's satisfaction is to have her speak every word in her vocabulary and confirm that each and every word is not of the witchcraftese language."


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 July 2003 04:40 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

----------------------------------------------
Israel has a lot more control and restraint respectively
----------------------------------------------

How lucky the Palestinians are that there Israeli neighbours have restrained from eradicating them. So Justice, where is the Israeli restraint in expansionism of Illegal settlements


you really are blind aren't you? Or are you another narrow minded nit picking racist? if you'd bother to read to the end of the sentence rather then only hearing what you want maybe I could call you rational and open minded but you didn't! Responding to some one who is only looking to see one thing is hardly worth the effort for the record anyways this is what I said:

quote:
Israel has a lot more control and restraint respectively. It definitely could show more restraint but that doesn't justify the way Palestinian terrorist groups have been reacting.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 16 July 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:

the ball is in both courts you have a narrow point of view sure the Israeli's need to back out there is no argument there. However if Baraks deal wasn't good enough there could have continued negotiations major parts of the army had pulled out until the break down in September 2000. The economy of both sides was better then ever there certainly was no reason to respond with violence.


The negotiations were broken off by both sides - largely at the behest of Clinton who was in his last months of a lame-duck administration and looking for a quick 'legacy'. Then after the Palestinians conceded on some issues at Taba, the Clinton and Barak spin machine went into high gear to blame the whole collapse of the negotiations on the Palestinians without regard to the actual terms that Barak offered. This is where we get the myth of the 'sincere and generous offer' which amounted to a non-contigious, non-sovereign, Palestinian Bantustan. These are not principles to be negotiated from - they are effectively the offer of a fait accomplit which allows Israel to concede nothing of value. Meanwhile, under the 'generous' Barak, settlement building increased 200% from under the previous regime. And you expect anyone to believe that Barak was 'sincere' and that he really wanted to negotiate?


Further, to the issue of who has control of this conflict: Israel has control of the airspace, borders, the water supply, the electricity supply, the movement of Palestinians, the movement of goods in and out of the Occupied Territories, a huge well-equipped occupation army, nuclear weapons, the diplomatic and financial support of the world's only superpower, and a vast well-heeled lobbying force in all the major capitals of the Western world, including the key one: Washington.

Again, who is in charge? Your attempt to paint this battle as even is the most absurd argument of all.

quote:
There have been enough attempts by people with in the IDF selling valuable military security secrets and you don't see them getting capital punishment just another little example of the difference in moral standards.

Yes, we also see the 'moral superiority' of settlers who beat young Arab boys to death getting community service, and IDF soldiers who kill Arab civilians rarely being reprimanded...

But what is really revealing about your posts is this: Israelis are morally superior to Palestinians...Add that to the claim that all the Arabs around Israel want to commit genocide on the Jews...And of course that little thing about the occupation not being so bad because Israel hasn't exterminated the Palestinians in body...

And you call me a filthy racist?

I must say, it's good to see your mask come off for all to see. From your first posts a few months back, I sensed this kind of nonsense lurking under the surface. It's good to see that at least you are being honest now.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 16 July 2003 04:43 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei: That's cause you don't know what you are doing

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001196

That is just one thread where you and GGINT and Lakesh and GGINT go at it about whoever this guy is. Pray tell, don't tell us the babblers who use the words "jewish terrorist" also happen to be banned?

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 16 July 2003 04:46 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It seems that you are quick to forget about the settlements which I find alot more hostile then the retaliation to those settlements and thier expansion.

I am not sure if this indicates that you are dim or evasive.

Has someone convinced you that Israel will give the land back while Palestinian sucide bombers are killing Israeli citizens?

Maybe it hasn't occured to you that there are no other countries coming along with their military to stop the IDF from killing Palestinians and putting up fences around compounds full of Palestinians.
Do you think there is a reason for that?

No one expects Israel to stop anything while Hamas and Hezbollah target civilians in Israel. The U.S. supports Israel and has taken a very obvious stance against terrorism like it or not. And everytime someone blows up a cafe or a bus, the Palestinian cause gets dumped right back to square one.

It will take years and years before Palestinians are living freely in what is now the occupied territories and all other parts of Israel. With each suicide bomber that gets set back just a little further.

The Israelis have plenty to answer for but there isn't anyone who can raise the questions. At every turn the Palestinians keep interupting and dragging the focus right back to them anytime someone starts thinking about telling the Israelis to back off.


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

posted 16 July 2003 04:46 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
Mishei: That's cause you don't know what you are doing

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001196

That is just one thread where you and GGINT and Lakesh and GGINT go at it about whoever this guy is. Pray tell, don't tell us the babblers who use the words "jewish terrorist" also happen to be banned?

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: clockwork ]


Clock I know what I am doing and all I am sayiing is that the search did not work for me.

Now of further interest is the page that Clock linked in which during the arguments WingNut stated the following:

quote:
This is not true Lakesh. Many innocent Palestinians have been targetted and murdered by settlers illegally occupying Palestinian lands. Why does Israel not prosecute them? Why does Israel not condemn these Jews as terrrorists? Why does Israel not force them off the land? Doesn't Sharon even support the illegal settlers?

Now I know this isnt "Jewish terrorists" but it is pretty to close. Indeed Wing could have stated "these Jewish terroriists". The emphasis being on "Jewish".

In my previous posts would it have been more preferable for me to have said "these Palestinians as terrorists? Or would Blind still have preferred "these extremists as terrorists"?

I for one do not believe it makes that much of a difference and while i understand that the use of either "Jewsih" or "Palestinian" may grate I do not believe either phrase is bigoted as Skdadl claims or racist as Blind suggests.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


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

posted 16 July 2003 04:51 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage

Your the one making generalizations and assumptions not me!!!

If I'm not making generalizations how can I be racist? Isn't that the essence of being racist? Or the Quebecer's also racist for being separatists?

For the record I didn't call all Palestinians terrorist I Just said you can't equate the IDF or terrorist like the Hamas.

I even go so far as to tolerate you I don't why maybe I'm very sympathetic that’s the way I am hardly a racist if I myself are willing to tolerate. The truth is it really doesn't make sense for anyone to tolerate those who aren't willing to tolerate them. But I'm not going to make generalizations.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 16 July 2003 04:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei and Lakesh appeared on the same thread?

Man oh man, I never saw that either.

Just goes to show how much I miss.


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

posted 16 July 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pathe Eton Hogg:

I am not sure if this indicates that you are dim or evasive.

Has someone convinced you that Israel will give the land back while Palestinian sucide bombers are killing Israeli citizens?

Maybe it hasn't occured to you that there are no other countries coming along with their military to stop the IDF from killing Palestinians and putting up fences around compounds full of Palestinians.
Do you think there is a reason for that?

No one expects Israel to stop anything while Hamas and Hezbollah target civilians in Israel. The U.S. supports Israel and has taken a very obvious stance against terrorism like it or not. And everytime someone blows up a cafe or a bus, the Palestinian cause gets dumped right back to square one.

It will take years and years before Palestinians are living freely in what is now the occupied territories and all other parts of Israel. With each suicide bomber that gets set back just a little further.

The Israelis have plenty to answer for but there isn't anyone who can raise the questions. At every turn the Palestinians keep interupting and dragging the focus right back to them anytime someone starts thinking about telling the Israelis to back off.


Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc fallacy - 101.

Suicide bombings start AFTER 20-some-odd years of economic exploitation and political discrimination at the hands of the Israeli occupation, but these bombings are actually the 'cause' of the continued occupation...


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

posted 16 July 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes PEH, has someone convinced you that the suicide bombers will stop as long as the occupation continues?
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 16 July 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
[QB]Your the one making generalizations and assumptions not me!!!

Name one. Quote me.

quote:
If I'm not making generalizations how can I be racist?

Israel is morally superior to the Arabs. The Arabs all want to commit genocide against the Jews. Those are some pretty dandy generalisations, Justice.


quote:
I even go so far as to tolerate you I don't

Awwwww, isn't that nice of you. You flatter yourself in thinking that I really care what you do...

Still waiting for some example of my 'racist generalisations'. I won't hold my breath.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 16 July 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bah, I wouldn't read into the two of them on one thread. (this bah is to skdadl)

Mishei: yes, and I'm saying that because I can find threads about the Goldstien guy that somehow I'm the one that doesn't know what to look for.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: clockwork ]


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

posted 16 July 2003 05:02 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
Bah, I wouldn't read into the two of them on one thread. (this bah is to skdadl)

Mishei: yes, and I'm saying that because I can find threads about the Goldstien guy that somehow I'm the one that doesn't know what to look for.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: clockwork ]



Sorry Clock, I didnt mean to suggest anything other than I used the serch engine properly and I didnt come up with anything. No reflection on you.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 16 July 2003 05:08 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Suicide bombings start AFTER 20-some-odd years of economic exploitation and political discrimination at the hands of the Israeli occupation, but these bombings are actually the 'cause' of the continued occupation...

There are plenty of reasons but the latest is the suicide bombings. Should the suicide bombings be replaced by remote control truck bombings then that will be the latest cause of the continued occupation.

And I might add that the world will just go along with it as it has so far.


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 July 2003 05:08 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel is morally superior to the Arabs. The Arabs all want to commit genocide against the Jews. Those are some pretty dandy generalisations, Justice.

Your putting words in my mouth yes I said they are surrounded by many enemies I said Palestinians did I mean all Palestinians? I said Syrians did I mean all Syrians? …etc…No, No and No.

I specifically said the Islamic terrorist don't represent all Islam

Yet to you think Israeli's are colonialists. Zionism is a form of colonialism that is quite a sweeping generalization

But you know you're really not worth it you only hear what you want. I could argue from here to infinity and you'd never even bother to try and understand you'd just rather call me racist so now you can taste your own medicine/poison what ever you want to call it I've proven myself enough.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


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

posted 16 July 2003 05:19 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PEH, I guess the lack of resistance to the occupation in the west bank and gaza from 1967 to 1987 was also the cause of the occupation. And that lack of resistance must have triggered all those illegal settlements.

It is the "land of Israel" ideology that is the cause of the continued occupation, and which gave birth to the illegal settlements.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 16 July 2003 05:33 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
Mishei: That's cause you don't know what you are doing

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001196

That is just one thread where you and GGINT and Lakesh and GGINT go at it about whoever this guy is. Pray tell, don't tell us the babblers who use the words "jewish terrorist" also happen to be banned?

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: clockwork ]



Holy Crap, is Lakesh ever a nutbar too!

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 July 2003 05:39 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:

Holy Crap, is Lakesh ever a nutbar too!


Anyone else you want to add to your schoolyard bully-name list?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 16 July 2003 05:44 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, I know this probably belongs in the reactions forum, but since the subject is being addressed here, why is it that in another thread we have the following discourse:

quote:
posted 12 July 2003 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Kindred:
I have had it up to here with fucking Americans and their "horror" stories of Canada, I suggest we close the border NOW to any and all people from the US
They are nothing but a bunch of weak kneed lily livered pansies terrified of their own shadows


To which Michelle replied:

quote:

I think this is completely unacceptable and I think you know it, Kindred. This kind of bigotry clearly violates babble policy.


So why should "fucking Americans" be clearly against babble policy, yet "terrorist" when associated with a race or religion not be considered equally as clear a violation??

If it is so obvious that someone making a comment about "Islamic terrorist" is not talking about all Muslims, and only a specific groups of Palestinians who commit and support suicide bombings, then why can it not be just as obvious that someone saying "fucking Americans" is directing that comment towards a limited group of people who just happen to be best identified as a specific limited group of Americans who are a bunch of "fuckers" spreading horror stories about Canada??

I think we either need a little consistance in both censuring and/or looking beyond the straight "technical" meaning of a comment and getting at the actual meaning of the comments being made.

In this case, I don't think Kindred was saying all Americans are fuckers, nor do I believe that Justice was saying all Muslims are terrorists . . . of course, I still think Justice is way off base in his view of the Middle East, but that is another thread altogether.


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

posted 16 July 2003 05:45 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your putting words in my mouth yes I said they are surrounded by many enemies

You left out something important, Justice:

"Israel is surrounded by many enemies who want to destroy it if the US didn't support Israel there would have been a genocide long ago but you have no problem with that do you and you call yourself moral and say your not racist."

So here we have the accusation that Israel's enemies want to commit genocide - in fact, WOULD have if not for the U.S. And this is based on what facts, Justice? Then, based on this fantastic generalisation (in fact a blatant paranoic fantasy if one examines the historical record) we get the moral judgement: "If Israel wanted to commit an act like that against the Palestinians it certainly could have but it hasn't what do you have to say about that." So because these 'others' WANT to kill all the Jews, but the Jews haven't killed all the Palestinians, Israel is morally superior. Besides being bizarre and absurd, I think the import is pretty clear. Moreover, it skips right over the fact that not one of those 'enemies' has been holding the Palestinians in a brutal racist occupation for over 30 years.

quote:
I said Palestinians did I mean all Palestinians? I said Syrians did I mean all Syrians? …etc…No, No and No.

One cannot be sure what you mean, Justice. The argument above is just one example of how absurd your discourse often is.


quote:
Yet to you think Israeli's are colonialists. Zionism is a form of colonialism that is quite a sweeping generalization.

Colonialism is the transplanting of a population from one geographical region to another. So yes, strictly speaking, Zionism is a form of colonialism. The vast majority of the Jewish population of Israel is from Europe, America and other parts of Asia. They didn't get to Israel by accident. Thankfully, your forbears were more honest about what was going on:

For example, Chaim Weizmann:

quote:
"By a Jewish National Home I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America American."


Still further:

quote:
"In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by it pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Ottoman Turks] must, there for, be persuaded and conceived that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves."

That's colonisation in a nutshell, Justice. But in case we still aren't sure, Jabotinsky said:

quote:
"Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native [Palestinian] population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop under the protection of a force independent of the local population --an iron wall which the native [Palestinian] population cannot break through. This is, in to, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."

Even more bluntly:

quote:
"If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will maintain the garrison on your behalf. ... Zionism is a colonizing adventure and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces."

quote:
I've proven myself enough.

But you set the bar of proof so low...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 July 2003 06:09 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel is surrounded by many enemies who want to destroy it if the US didn't support Israel there would have been a genocide long ago but you have no problem with that do you and you call yourself moral and say your not racist.

So many years of unprovoked attacks and a constant supply of funds and weapons to terrorist organizations, if they thought what Israel was doing was wrong why did they shoot first and then ask questions? Was because they realized it wouldn't be as easy as they thought to get rid of the Jews? And by they just to be clear a mean the leaders in the region not all the people.

And after what happened in Europe in Russia and the suffering the Jews had through out north Africa where were they to go Canada and the US didn't even let them in, in the 1950's. Would Uganda been any different aside from the fact that there the Jews really have no connection to the land.

For example, Chaim Weizmann:

quote:
quote:

"By a Jewish National Home I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America American."

Still further:
quote:

"In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by it pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Ottoman Turks] must, there for, be persuaded and conceived that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves."


That’s your interpretation one could easily look at it as a bunch of refugees fleeing for their live and trying to make due the best the can under the difficult circumstances.

Once again the lines of oppressed and oppressor, victim and victimizer get blurred I'd love to live in world where it would be so easy to see black and white there would be nothing to argue about we could all be happy we could punish the bad with out any worries because we can be absolutely sure who is bad and who is good too bad life isn't like that. I hope your planning on coming back to earth soon because I do think everyone has to have a chance to prove themselves and see if they can contribute something good to this world.
I purposely won't talk about Jabotinsky because there you are right but Jabotinsky even though he is taught in the history books in Israel is not representative of all Jews or Zionists. How ever once again I'm differentiating not generalizing.


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

posted 16 July 2003 06:19 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
there is a country which happens to be called Palestine

I also don't deny that the Palestinians have a right to there own homeland or identity. If the choose to be different and unique that is there choice. However if you want to go back into history the English called it Palestine for whatever reason it just coincidence. You can't find in history any other time in history that it was called that or that there was a unique people called Palestinians the Philistines mentioned in the bible have no link to today's Palestinians and yet I don't deny their rights to an Identity or a homeland the Jews deserve it and so do they both preferably one they can feel connected to since it seems in this case it is the same place a compromise has to be made.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pathe Eton Hogg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3960

posted 16 July 2003 06:36 PM      Profile for Pathe Eton Hogg     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
PEH, I guess the lack of resistance to the occupation in the west bank and gaza from 1967 to 1987 was also the cause of the occupation. And that lack of resistance must have triggered all those illegal settlements.

It is the "land of Israel" ideology that is the cause of the continued occupation, and which gave birth to the illegal settlements.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


When Hussein ordered troops into Kuwait it didn't take long for a coalition to come on over a kick his ass right back out.

Has it failed to occur to anyone there may be a reason that no one has put together a coalition to boot the Israelis out?


From: Iraqistan suburbs | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 16 July 2003 07:03 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
OK, I know this probably belongs in the reactions forum, but since the subject is being addressed here, why is it that in another thread we have the following discourse:

So why should "fucking Americans" be clearly against babble policy, yet "terrorist" when associated with a race or religion not be considered equally as clear a violation??

If it is so obvious that someone making a comment about "Islamic terrorist" is not talking about all Muslims, and only a specific groups of Palestinians who commit and support suicide bombings, then why can it not be just as obvious that someone saying "fucking Americans" is directing that comment towards a limited group of people who just happen to be best identified as a specific limited group of Americans who are a bunch of "fuckers" spreading horror stories about Canada??

I think we either need a little consistance in both censuring and/or looking beyond the straight "technical" meaning of a comment and getting at the actual meaning of the comments being made.

In this case, I don't think Kindred was saying all Americans are fuckers, nor do I believe that Justice was saying all Muslims are terrorists . . . of course, I still think Justice is way off base in his view of the Middle East, but that is another thread altogether.



I agree with, why one and not the other. However it was Mishei that said "Islamic Terrorists"

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 16 July 2003 07:09 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
[QB]

That’s your interpretation one could easily look at it as a bunch of refugees fleeing for their live and trying to make due the best the can under the difficult circumstances.


You could look at it that way, but it is clear that Weizmann, Sharret, Jabotinsky, and even Ben-Gurion didn't look at it that way.

quote:
I purposely won't talk about Jabotinsky because there you are right but Jabotinsky even though he is taught in the history books in Israel is not representative of all Jews or Zionists. How ever once again I'm differentiating not generalizing.

Actually, we should be highly sceptical of what is taught in Israeli textbooks. Close examination of their historiography demonstrates that they have long been a source of the chief ideological delusions that much of Israeli society is under about the ethnic cleansing of 1948, and the various 'good intentions' of Zionist ideologues. This history of ideological repression has been amply elucidated by Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, Baruch Kimmerling, among others. Considering the amount of support and influence that Revisionist Zionism had in the WZO during the 1930's and 1940's to argue that he had little influence on Zionist policy is simply delusional.

Close scrutiny of the role of Revisionist Zionism in Israeli state policy over the past 40 years, shows how Jabotinsky's ideas about the role of force and tranfer came to be accepted and mimicked by Ben-Gurion and the Labourists.

For example, in 1936 we have Ben-Gurion parroting the 'Iron Wall' strategy proposed by Jabotinsky:

quote:
"I now say something which contradicts the theory which I once had on this question. At one time, I thought an agreement [with Palestinians] was possible." Ben-Gurion attached some reservation to this statement. A settlement might be possible between both peoples in the widest sense, between the entire "Jewish people" and the entire Arab people. But such an agreement could be achieved "once they despair of preventing a Jewish Palestine."

Still further:

quote:
". . . . there is no chance for an understanding with the [Palestinian] Arabs unless we first reach an understanding with the British, by which we will come a preponderant force in Palestine. What can drive the [Palestinian] Arabs to a mutual understanding with us? . . . Facts [meaning achieving Jewish majority through immigration and increased military strength] Only after we manage to establish a great Jewish fact in this country . . . only then will the precondition for discussion with the [Palestinian] Arabs be met."

This is the kind of idea which precipitated the 'transfer' (ethnic cleansing) of Arabs from Palestine in 1948. As a testament to the radicalisation of Zionist thinking, within 20 years we get so-called 'doves' like Labour PM Golda Meir saying incredible things like, "The Palestinians don't exist." Oddly, this actually MORE radical than anything that Jabotinsky ever said. If nothing else, he admitted that the Palestinian Arabs were a real force to be reckoned with and would need to by subdued by power and violence.

And frankly, don't play this coy game about there being 'other kinds of Zionism'. I have elsewhere elucidated the history of cultural and spiritual Zionism, and I am not in the least ignorant of this traditon. In fact, as I have said elsewhere, I have much affinity with it. However, even Ha'am, Buber, Judah Magnes, and their ilk were very aware that it was a colonisation that was underway. The difference with their view was only in how to go about it. They understood that the imperative to create a Jewish homeland could not ethically supercede the imperative to reach a modus vivendi with the Palestinians. They would never have denied that Zionism was important for the protection of Jews, but they would not have fallen for the dichotomy you are presenting which suggests that this importance somehow negates the raw facts of colonisation.

Second, your argument is a veiled attempt to use the Holocaust as a justification for the worst of Zionist crimes in Palestine. I think this is a reckless and immoral attempt at emotional blackmail. It is an attempt to set Jewish suffering apart and above Arab suffering. This, in fact, was the prime argument against which Buber, Einstein, Magnes, Arendt, and others fought. They saw in it an immoral devaluation of Arabs as human beings combined with a collective egoism of the worst kind. Just as I do.


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

posted 16 July 2003 07:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would appreciate it if we didn't call each other names like "racist scum". That is uncalled for, even if you are offended by the use of the term "Islamic terrorists". I am actually not comfortable with the term either, but I don't think Mishei meant it in the way it was taken, even if his choice of words was unfortunate. Sometimes people can unwittingly use a phrase that is problematic without actually meaning to be racist. You can point out his error without calling him names.

In other news, I'm closing this thread because it's way too long and way too off topic.


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