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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » So they claim to want peace?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: So they claim to want peace?
Gentlebreeze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4562

posted 24 October 2003 11:44 AM      Profile for Gentlebreeze     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is tough to buy Israeli officials claims that they desire peace when they do things like this. Clearly provocative, yet they pretend suprise when people are outraged.

----
By Gwen Ackerman

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel announced Thursday it will go ahead with plans for construction of hundreds of new homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the second time in a month it has defied a U.S.-backed peace plan on this issue.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat condemned the project as well as Israel's decision Wednesday to press on with construction of a barrier in the West Bank despite a United Nations resolution demanding it be torn down.

Urging the United States to intervene to stop construction of the barrier and the new homes, he added: "Settlements and walls are the number one obstacle to peace."

An Israeli Housing Ministry official said invitations to bid on construction had been announced for 143 new apartments in the Karnei Shomron settlement in the northern West Bank and 180 in Givat Zeev near Jerusalem.

Earlier this month Israel unveiled plans to build more than 600 new homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, drawing international and Palestinian condemnation.
----

Here is the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3679530


From: Thornhill | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 24 October 2003 01:14 PM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
drawing international and Palestinian condemnation.

What else is new?
quote:
they pretend suprise when people are outraged.

Beside Palestinians and those who hate Israel, what other people are outraged?

From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 24 October 2003 01:14 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
What ever happened to Bush's roadmap to peace? I thought it included something about not building new settlements.
From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gentlebreeze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4562

posted 24 October 2003 01:28 PM      Profile for Gentlebreeze     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not Palestinian, nor do I hate Israel, and I'm outraged. Even the United States government has demanded an end be put to the settlements, and they are clearly not haters of Israel. I am troubled when anybody does something to do intentionally anger and provoke someone they claim they want to make peace with.

Can you provide us with a valid moral defence of these settlements? What great purpose do they serve? How do they help protect Israel?


From: Thornhill | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 24 October 2003 01:30 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by evenflow:

What ever happened to Bush's roadmap to peace? I thought it included something about not building new settlements.


Yes, but it never said anything about expanding existing ones. This loophole is one the Israelis have long driven a truck through. After all, theoretically, if you can expand existing settlements, you'll never need to build new ones.

"Beside Palestinians and those who hate Israel, what other people are outraged?" A "when did you stop beating your wife" question if I ever heard one.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 24 October 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Haaretz

quote:
Peace Now was also critical of the tenders
issued. "At the same time that [Prime Minister
Ariel] Sharon embraces the road map in words,
the government in effect has not stopped
violating it," said an organization spokesman,
referring to a U.S.-backed peace plan that
calls for a freeze on settlement activity.

But a senior Israeli official responded: "All
legal tenders within existing communities are
not included in the road map, according to our
interpretation and our understanding."


It's open to interpretation?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 24 October 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To their credit, the U.S. media are duitifully reporting this with a paragraph on how this is another case of Israeli government defiance of the "roadmap". For example, Reuters says it right in the lead sentence:

quote:
Israel announced Thursday it will go ahead with plans for construction of hundreds of new homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the second time in a month it has defied a U.S.-backed peace plan on this issue.

The Associated Press noted this fact as well, and also included the obligatory note that neither have the Palestinian authorities disarmed militants as required by the roadmap.

From my perspective thousands of miles more or less safely away from the conflict, it seems to me the Palestinians are missing an opportunity to resist Israeli tactics using videocameras instead of guns. Like RAWA, they could film the atrocities as they happen and smuggle that recording out of the country. You'd think that would be a lot more effective in the long run than blowing up innocents and giving the Likkudites another excuse to expand Israeli territorial claims.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 24 October 2003 01:45 PM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it possible that the roadmap was drawn up to Palestinian textbook standards? (Israel does not exist!)
From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gentlebreeze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4562

posted 24 October 2003 01:51 PM      Profile for Gentlebreeze     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I agree with April that capturing these incidents on film would be better than murdering civilians, it is not so simple. I recall watching a documentary earlier this year where they talk about how journalists (of all nationalities) were targeted by the army. Some of the footage was shocking to say the least, making it clear in many cases that the IDF /settlers were shooting journalists who had filmed various incidents. In one case a fight had broken out between settlers and some Palestians during the day, some of which had been captured by a number of cameramen. While nobody could have claimed innocence in the fighting, the settlers were especially brutal in this case. Later when the IDF showed up, the opened fire on the journalists. Despite it being clear who they were, they continued to rain bullets down on them. When others tried to help a wounded cameraman, they turned their fire on the rescuers and shot the injured man again.

Long post short, trying to film the IDF is a VERY dangerous proposition. They do not wish to have records of what they do, and they have the arms to enforce that wish.


From: Thornhill | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gentlebreeze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4562

posted 24 October 2003 01:59 PM      Profile for Gentlebreeze     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidB-D:
Is it possible that the roadmap was drawn up to Palestinian textbook standards? (Israel does not exist!)

What bearing does this have on the validity of the settlements? Are you un-willing to answer my previous questions?

If Israel wants peace with the Palestianians, they sure have a funny way of showing it. Furthermore, I'd still like to know how Israel benifits from these settlements? I have heard Israeling military analyists condemning them, not because they are immorral and illegal(which they are), but because they drain valuable resources from the IDF that would be better used elsewhere.


From: Thornhill | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 24 October 2003 02:06 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidB-D:
Is it possible that the roadmap was drawn up to Palestinian textbook standards? (Israel does not exist!)

No, that is not possible, as the slightest bit of research would show. The "roadmap" provisions, at "worst", would require Israel to set its boundary at the Green Line, the border for Israel mandated by the U.N. measures that established Israel in the first place.

Gentlebreeze, your point about the shooting of journalists is very well taken. I had heard of an incident or two of that nature, but thought: well, if it could be done against the frothing fanatics of the Taliban, who were even faster to shoot on sight... But I guess there's a difference in trying to pass that by the disorganized and somewhat technologically backward Taliban, and the modern, well-organized and well-equipped IDF. Urgh. It's never ever simple, is it...


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 25 October 2003 01:17 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Details of Israeli security barrier made public

quote:
Israel published a detailed map Friday of its planned security barrier, which would encircle tens of thousands of Palestinians, cutting them off from the West Bank, and would keep about 80 per cent of Jewish settlers on the Israeli side of the fence.

The snaking path of the fence, which slopes from flat land up into mountains, cuts deep into the West Bank and will likely inflame already fierce international opposition.

[snip]

The Israeli military published a map of the new section for the first time Friday, outlining a series of double fences in some areas to protect Israel's international airport from rocket attacks and a planned ringed road around Jerusalem.

Those barriers will completely surround several West Bank towns, including Qibya, Beit Sira and Bir Nabala, isolating an estimated 70,000 Palestinians, according to some Israeli officials.

Rachel Niedek-Ashkenazi, a Defence Ministry spokeswoman, said defence officials had not yet finished their estimates on the number of Palestinians that would be cut off, but said 70,000 was much higher than their current assessments.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 October 2003 02:57 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidB-D:
Is it possible that the roadmap was drawn up to Palestinian textbook standards? (Israel does not exist!)

Um, no. Have you paid the slightest bit of attention to American-Israeli relations over the past forty years? Do you know how much money America throws at Israel every year? No way in hell would America endorse a plan to eliminate Israel. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

As for the settlement-building, it's just deliberately provocative and I cannot imagine how they could ever justify it.

[ 25 October 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 October 2003 02:06 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel reneging on part of peace plan

quote:
Israel's Defence Ministry confirmed Monday that it will provide services to eight West Bank settlement outposts, despite the government's earlier pledge to remove them as part of a stalled U.S.-backed peace plan.

Dismantling dozens of unauthorized settlement outposts was one of Israel's obligations under the so-called road map to peace, which was launched in June with great fanfare, but which quickly bogged down over disagreements and violence.

Palestinians complained that Israel is systematically undermining the plan.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 October 2003 04:31 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Permits ordered for Palestinians

quote:
The Israeli military has ordered thousands of Palestinians living near the steel and concrete "security fence" through the West Bank to obtain special permits to live in their own homes.

Palestinian officials said the order breached a pledge by Israel to the UN security council a fortnight ago that the barrier would not change the legal status of those who live near it, and was another step towards the annexation of tens of thousands of hectares of Palestinian land.

The order, signed by the Israeli army's commander in the West Bank, Major General Moshe Kaplinski, said Palestinian land between the fence and the 1967 border, known as the green line, was to be a "closed military zone".

Any Palestinian who lived in the area would be defined by a new category of "long-term resident" and everyone over the age of 12 would be required to obtain a permit to live in their own homes and travel beyond their villages.

The order said that only Israelis and Jews could enter the designated areas without a pass.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 October 2003 07:19 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Disgusting.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ice Foot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2531

posted 27 October 2003 07:22 PM      Profile for Ice Foot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agreed. Beyond disgusting.
From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 October 2003 08:19 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israeli barrier turns olive harvest into ordeal

quote:
The barrier that Israel is building in defiance of international protest is meant to keep suicide bombers at bay. But it's also cutting off thousands of Palestinians from their land and disrupting the West Bank's ancient farming rhythms, especially these days as the olive harvest, normally a joyous occasion, turns into a nightmare.

Farmer Adilah Mousa, a haggard-looking woman in her 60s from the northern West Bank village of Jayous, says she has spent 10 days waiting to cross the barrier to her olive grove.

The Israeli military says farmers can get permits if they apply several hours in advance and pose no security risk.

Military officials declined comment on complaints by farmers in Jayous, who said they were more often kept off their land than allowed to pass — particularly during heightened travel bans that coincided with the start of the olive harvest in October.

[snip]

The barrier has cut off 75 per cent of the 1,200 hectares farmed by the people of Jayous, a hilltop village in the northern West Bank. The village has 120 greenhouses, 15,000 olive trees and 50,000 citrus trees now behind the Israeli barrier, said Michael Tarazi, a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization who monitors the barrier's effects on the lives of Palestinians.

[snip]

The Palestinians are in a no-win situation, said Tarazi. "If they don't get permits, then they will be subject to Israel's punishment," he said. "If they do get permits, then they are recognizing Israel's authority over their land."

[snip]

Jayous farmers say their chronic water shortages have worsened because six important wells lie on the wrong side of the fence.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 October 2003 09:06 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do Israelis worry whether their God is just?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 October 2003 09:51 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suspect that being a chosen people can obscure that basic question.

It is not so different from a highly-placed General in the US army or President of the US appropriating the Christian God as the Deity of Deities and, by extension, implying that the forces of Righteousness and Good are astride the occupying armies.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gentlebreeze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4562

posted 28 October 2003 08:49 AM      Profile for Gentlebreeze     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a very interesting interview in this months Harpers, in the "Readings" section, with two Israeli writers, Amos Oz and David Grossman. One makes a point at the very end of the interview, that for a long time now Israel has been completely taken with building armour up around its body. This has been going with such energy he says, that it is now difficult to tell if what is left underneath that armour is human anymore.

Israel has thrown away any claims it mights have had on the ethical beauty of the Jewish faith. This is why I laugh when Israel claims to be the "Jewish state". It has no concept of the true teachings of Judaism, and most likely never has. Like too many faiths, it has been hijacked by madmen, fools, and liars.

[ 28 October 2003: Message edited by: Gentlebreeze ]


From: Thornhill | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 October 2003 10:18 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 28 October 2003 10:53 AM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think that anyone here is paying much attention to the reality that the territory in question is in fact Israel's after having won that land from Jordan which attacked Israel in 1967. The ensuing "peace" treaty saw Jordan refuse to take over the west Bank.


As to Gaza, Egypt, which had it before the six day war, didn't want it after the six day war. I say give it back to the Egyptians and make them personally responsible for what goes on there and especially for what comes out of there.

But they're not going to want that anyway.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 28 October 2003 11:01 AM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 28 October 2003: Message edited by: EMGEE ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 28 October 2003 11:07 AM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel has thrown away any claims it mights have had on the ethical beauty of the Jewish faith. This is why I laugh when Israel claims to be the "Jewish state". It has no concept of the true teachings of Judaism, and most likely never has. Like too many faiths, it has been hijacked by madmen, fools, and liars.



I don't think that Israel is a "Jewish State" as much as a "homeland for the Jewish people".

The people are trying to live as Jews in a state where they represent the majority... as was the plan of the UN and the British. The state itself though must, with the Jewish slant of its people, run itself according to the climate surrounding it. This climate of racist hatered, of viloent attacks on its security and physical existance, forces that state to carry on business in a manner beftting its circumstances.

Stop judging Israel on a moral basis so much higher than its neighbours. If your neighbours were like Israel's neighbours, you would be running your households much differently than you do today and probably a lot more aggressively than Israel is "allowed" to do.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 28 October 2003 11:38 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But this is contingent on an analysis of why Israel gets such a negative reaction from its neighbours. We don't get such a reaction because we exterminated the local inhabitants to establish Canada and the US. Israel didn't, so kudos to it for that , but nevertheless no one likes the impending threat of conquest by imperial powers, and Israel is the symbol of that and now so is Iraq.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 October 2003 12:20 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Stop judging Israel on a moral basis so much higher than its neighbours.

If anything, Israel is held to a lower standad than its neighbours.

What other country in the immediate region is allowed to routinely bomb its neighbours, hold whole populations captive while plundering their lands and snub its nose at UN condemnations of its actions with the secure knowledge that any crime it commits will be excused by the world's only superpower?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 28 October 2003 01:06 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And why did Israel not take over the lands that now "belong" to it?

Because it did not want to give citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs, and the alternative - becoming an openly apartheid state - would not be tolerable either.

So we're left with either genocide, the nineteenth-century solution, or trying to push the Arabs off the land by degrees.

Sure, you can argue that the lands are Israel's. But they come with people on them. Israel doesn't want the people. That's the problem.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 October 2003 01:32 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sure, you can argue that the lands are Israel's. But they come with people on them. Israel doesn't want the people. That's the problem.

Do I or merely .

Are you saying "sure go ahead and try to make a case that the lands are Israel's," or are you saying that "the lands should be Israel's?"

I see Zionist refusal to accept the rights of the original inhabitants to living in the same the land as "the problem."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 28 October 2003 03:04 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you saying "sure go ahead and try to make a case that the lands are Israel's," or are you saying that "the lands should be Israel's?"

The former. I don't think those lands "should" belong to any state in particular. But just for the sake of argument, let's say that Israel captured those lands fair and square - in order to take them, they'd have to grant Israeli citizenship to the people who live there, and they don't want to do that because they want to be a Jewish-majority state.

I see no problem with a binational, secular Israel. However, most Zionists would disagree.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 28 October 2003 03:46 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EMGEE:

Stop judging Israel on a moral basis so much higher than its neighbours.

You know, I get really sick of this claim. So please excuse the upcoming boldface and such.

You know why you don't see as much debate and discussion of the domestic policies of, e.g., Egypt, compared to those of Israel?

It's because, when Egypt's atrocities are pointed out, no one here tries to defend them. We all go: yeah, that sucks, we need to support the Egyptian human rights workers, and lobby our governments to stop supporting that dratted regime. Agreed? Agreed. Moving on...

The only reason that Israel isn't held to the same standard - i.e., a nation that is violating human rights - is that some people blindly and persistently attempt to defend those very violations, as somehow excusable when it comes to Israel, though they would be for no other nation.

In short, it's those who defend Israel's violations that are trying to hold Israel to a different standard. For shame.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 28 October 2003 03:59 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's because, when Egypt's atrocities are pointed out, no one here tries to defend them.

But in fairness, no one expends so much as 1/100th of the board space to discussing or criticizing them either. Not even on the Middle East forum.

There's currently a thread running here in which several posters are making the case that we shouldn't view some atrocities (specifically the Holocaust) as more atrocious than others, and yet right here on babble (and, to be fair, elsewhere too) we devote the vast majority of "international" discussion and debate to Israel and Palestine.

If the Holocaust isn't the only atrocity worthy of our remembrance, why is Israel/Palestine for all intents and purposes treated as the only current atrocity worthy of our concern?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 28 October 2003 04:13 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, a quick eyeball of all the forums shows the U.S., Iraq and Afghanistan as the clear winners in atrocity concerns.

Other nations are discussed on the board - Columbia, Bolivia, Liberia, the DR Congo, Burma/Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, and France have all come up recently. The United States actually gets a lot more dissin' than Israel, board-wide.

If Israel seems to be getting a lot of attention of late, I put that down to several factors:

* Their vehement defenders tend to turn Israel-related threads into long point-and-counterpoint arguments, rather than simple "news of note" threads like those on other countries discussed. Note past comments on the Saudi Arabia or on Pakistan for examples of everybody just nodding and saying "yup, bad situation."

* Besides Iraq, Israel is the only country in the region currently in the throes of a violent exchange, and violence always makes the news. For some reason most of the Iraq stuff is filed under "news" rather than "the Middle East", though.

* For a long time, the left-wing had a strong tendency not to criticize the government and policy of Israel, for various historical reasons. (Remember, various kinds of Zionism used to be strongly associated with left-wing movements. The kibbutz folks, for instance.) I suspect that some may be making up for "lost time" in this department. It is, after all, a characteristic of the rebellious that they go out of their way to challenge what they see as the most entrenched of powers.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 28 October 2003 05:00 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
AF, I agree with you on the reasons; although I do sometimes think the anti-Israel rhetoric goes over the top, I think most of the discussion is understandable and most of the criticism is justified.

I have yet to see anyone come on this board and support Egypt in the way some people support Israel. I have yet to see anyone complain that he/she was being persecuted for supporting the atrocities of the Egyptian or Iranian or Pakistani governments.

Not to mention the huge amount of money and military support Israel gets from the US. Not even Egypt receives that level of funding.

Of course we discuss it a lot. Unfortunately, some people are deaf - not just disagreeable, utterly deaf - to arguments they don't like.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 28 October 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I agree that the rhetoric sometimes goes over the top; I think that's always going to be the case ewith these emotional topics. Someone drags Nazi comparisons into it, and then it's all over for sensible discussion.

To be fair here, it may be that Israel does get "picked on" more than less developed nations, in the same way that the U.S. does. I suspect people still carry around a false expectation that industrialized nations should know better. (This presumes a link between the social and the technological that, I think, is not as true as we in industrialized nations might like to think. )

There's also the aspect, as someone pointed out, that nations with developed industry, well-funded armed forces, and, well, nukes, may pose a greater threat to their region and the world at large in the eyes of some. Thus the focus on the U.S. and Israel. Though from my point of view, Pakistan with nukes is definitely as or more scary as Israel with nukes... and of course, it goes without saying that George Bush with nukes makes me really, really nervous.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ice Foot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2531

posted 29 October 2003 10:01 AM      Profile for Ice Foot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Though from my point of view, Pakistan with nukes is definitely as or more scary as Israel with nukes... and of course, it goes without saying that George Bush with nukes makes me really, really nervous.

Thanks for the discussion you guys, I am really enjoying it.

With regards to the comment about which country would be worse than another if they had the 'nuke', it is clear to me that those countries that do already have it abuse the power and use it to oppress other nations, violence being one of the first measures, rather than a last resort. In my opinion, its quite likely that there exists no nation today that would be universally responsible with that kind of power. I could be wrong about that but just like a slingshot amongst grade 1's (metaphorically of course), no matter how responsible the kid is, the slingshot is just an injury waiting to happen. There severity of said injury being the only unknown.

[ 29 October 2003: Message edited by: Ice Foot ]


From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 29 October 2003 11:45 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think India with nukes is pretty scary too.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 29 October 2003 12:13 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
At least if India had nukes the US wouldn't be the only intimidating and all-powerful force in the world. It may help to balance the scales a little...Maybe.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2279

posted 29 October 2003 12:16 PM      Profile for Alix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought India did have nuclear capability.

Hasn't struck much fear into the U.S. yet.


From: Kingston | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 29 October 2003 12:17 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it would no more balance the scales than Pakistan or China or Russia having them.

Worse, in fact. The fascist party in power in New Delhi is very close to Bush. They love anti-terrorism, you see, they know it's code for anti-Muslim, and they never bother to hide their distaste for Muslims.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Uri_Eidel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4597

posted 29 October 2003 12:27 PM      Profile for Uri_Eidel        Edit/Delete Post
Agreed Lima Bean. While more nuclear weapons in the world is not the way to peace I am sure, having only a couple of countries with nukes seems clearly a vehicle for creating dictatorship-like violence and force against non-nuke owning nations. This is clear in the working examples set forth by the US and Israel, and would surely be followed by North Korea and anyone else who gets the bomb.

It seems to me that America's trouble, similar to the Roman Empire, is that it is relying predominantly on its military might to remain a global super-power instead of using its ingenuinity and the full potential of its resources (including people) to develop a longer term and sustainable economy and way of life. Perhaps the goals of each administration are too near sighted.

In any case, the lack of international balance created by a few countries having nukes is threatening global stability in general, the results of which can be seen in the middle east today.


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 29 October 2003 12:35 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Worse, in fact. The fascist party in power in New Delhi is very close to Bush. They love anti-terrorism, you see, they know it's code for anti-Muslim, and they never bother to hide their distaste for Muslims.

Great, these guys will fit right in with Bush and Sharon. They all understand the same codes too, which is convenient. A match made in heaven, wouldn't you say?


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 29 October 2003 12:57 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
India does have nukes. They and Pakistan both got nuclear capability at about the same time, which, considering the Kashmir dispute between them, didn't strike most of us as exactly reassuring. I singled out Pakistan because, well, Musharraf is a military authoritarian, a type of which I'm doubly unfond. Mind, I agree with what's said about the party in India as well.

While there are strong anti-Muslim tendencies in certain segments of Indian society, led by the Hindu zealots like the Bajrang Dal, the government of India has been notable for not climbing wholeheartedly onto the "anti-terrorist" bandwagon, particularly as regards Iraq. I suspect that anti-US feeling may be the stronger of the two, when you get right down to it. (Which, I think, is rather well justified, considering what Enron did in India.)

Of course, everybody and their dog are to some extent using "anti-terrorist" measures to enforce the power of ruling oligarchies at the expense of human rights.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 29 October 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
[India] and Pakistan both got nuclear capability at about the same time

Actually, India developed it's A-bomb in the 1970s (thanks, in part, to Canada's CANDU reactor), Pakistan tested its first nuclear weapon a few years ago. Both countries, however, developed missile capabilities around the same time.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 29 October 2003 01:57 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:
Actually, India developed it's A-bomb in the 1970s (thanks, in part, to Canada's CANDU reactor), Pakistan tested its first nuclear weapon a few years ago. Both countries, however, developed missile capabilities around the same time.

Whoops! Quite right, I misremembered. Many thanks for the correction.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 29 October 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if Saadam would have used the nukes on Iran or vice versa?

I for one thank G-d that it is Israel and the US that have the nukes rather than Iraq, Iran, or Syria!!!

There is a civility about some nations towards others and their own peoples as opposed to that displayed by other nations. Sometiomes thoughcivility dosen't mean fairness to both sides.

It's funny that the Muslim dominated and run nations have a union of their own which they use to outnumber all others in any UN debate. I just wish that the US would say fuque it to the rest of the world and drop back into a period of issolationism, letting the rest of the world rot and/or destroy themselves.

But I guess that would be a positive thing for most of the posters on this particular site.

Actually, I'd really like to see the US lead away from the UN and create a much more effective union of democratic states where civil rights and freedoms are the necessary requirements for admission to the roles.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 29 October 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Guys, I'm a newbie here and there are a lot of things for me to learn. What I see is that Israel lays claim to the same land that the palestinians do. Israel's "facts" are that they had the land in biblical times AND they legitametly hold the land today. The palestinains are more like Ontario Canada's Mennonite community demanding statehood and Ottawa as their capital... just because they have lived in Canada for hundreds of years. And yet if the Ontario or Canadian government needed their farm for an airport or a highway... bye bye Mennonites!!!!

But you don't see the Mennonites blowing up children in downtown Toronto.

Canada is the occupying force here!


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 October 2003 04:33 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EMGEE:
Guys, I'm a newbie here and there are a lot of things for me to learn.

The first thing you should learn is to spell "Palestinians" with a capital "P".


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 29 October 2003 05:25 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel's "facts" are that they had the land in biblical times AND they legitametly hold the land today. The palestinains are more like Ontario Canada's Mennonite community demanding statehood and Ottawa as their capital... just because they have lived in Canada for hundreds of years. And yet if the Ontario or Canadian government needed their farm for an airport or a highway... bye bye Mennonites!!!!

While I applaud your efforts in trying to break things down for the rest of us, this has got to be the least logically coherent analogy I've ever seen. Full marks for trying though.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 October 2003 08:07 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wall that breaks Rafah's heart

quote:
The view from the top of one of Rafah’s many partially demolished houses is as strikingly beautiful as it is incongruous.

Arid agricultural land, now completely flattened, stretches out for miles amidst the hazy horizon, all the way into the Egyptian border.

Yet, disrupting the picture perfect image and serving as a constant reminder of the reality of Israeli occupation, is a rusty iron barrier, winding its way through the heart of this troubled southern town.

It is the Rafah separation wall, the lesser known counterpart of the now infamous apartheid wall tearing the West Bank apart. Moreover, the havoc wreaked on its behalf could be a foretaste of what is to come.

Though its construction started long before plans for a West Bank wall were even conceived, it has received scant outside attention.

Local Palestinian officials and activists alike have neglected it as they feel it does not threaten the borders of a future Palestinian state and are far more focussed on the barrier to the west.

Residents whose homes and farms have been demolished and whose entire livelihoods destroyed to make way for the wall, however, take issue.

[snip]

In the last three years, over 7500 people have lost their homes because they lived against that wall and [the Israelis] wanted to place it another 200m or so inside the border," said Paul Mcann, Chief Public Information Officer of United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

“So, where the wall is now, there were once mosques, shops and people’s houses,” he told Aljazeera.net.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 29 October 2003 08:19 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry but I can't believe that Israel tore down mosques to build a wall. Any idea what the world's Muslims would react to such a transgression??? It's Al Jazeera that brought us the Jennin comedy, do you really expect us to believe anything that they say???


I wonder how many lives the wall saved both against suicide bombings and their inevitable retaliations from Israel.

it's not an apartheid wall, it's a wall that divides warring parties. I can't see a logical argument against that wall. Wouldn't it be worth it for the Palestinians to give up a few acres or farms to get rid of the Israelis from their cities?????

From one side, the Israelis should want the wall to keep the suicide bombers out. On the other side, the Palestinians should want the wall to keep the Israeli army out.

Wouldn't the wall be a good thing for both sides??


Who's paying for the wall? Most likely the Israelis. So the Palestinians could spin this in their favour by claiming that it is also THEIR wall by virtue of the fact that they "contributed" land for its construction. I wonder if the Israelis are contracting the actual work to Palestinian labourers???


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 October 2003 08:26 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Haaretz: Lies and waste

quote:
The recent string of decisions reflects the true
policy of the Sharon government - and not the
policy expressed in the sweet tidings the prime
minister delivered to a visiting delegation of
European parliamentarians or the American
diplomats who frequent the country. Sharon
tells those guests about his firm commitment to
the road map and his readiness - when the time
comes - to offer painful concessions for
peace.

But in practical terms, Sharon displays only
profound contempt for the road map, for the
chance to ever reach a compromise agreement
with the Palestinians, and for the values of
integrity and credibility that should guide any
statement made by the prime minister of Israel.
The first stage of the road map required Israel
to totally freeze construction in the
territories and to dismantle the illegal
outposts.

The government seemed to have accepted those
two demands. It even staged a few removals of
outposts. But it was all pretense. In effect,
construction has proceeded apace, and for every
outpost seemingly removed, two have been
established in its place.

True, the Palestinian side has also rudely
violated its commitments in the road map. But
that cannot justify the fraud perpetrated by
the government. The history of the settlements
is rife with the language of deceit. Now, with
the road map clear to all, there is no more
room for mendacity and prevarication. Most of
the settlements will not end up under Israeli
sovereignty. The wasting of precious national
resources on them must be put to an end.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 October 2003 08:32 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
EMGEE: So the Palestinians could spin this in their favour by claiming that it is also THEIR wall by virtue of the fact that they "contributed" land for its construction.

From the same article:

quote:
But any effort to go near the wall for further investigation is met with deadly force.

“You can’t go to the wall… they’ll shoot you,” she said.

“They go around regularly making announcements in Arabic and Hebrew that anyone stepping beyond the place where there are houses into the militarised zone will be shot and killed… and I’ve seen journalists shot,” she continued



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 29 October 2003 08:32 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry but President Clinton who brokered the last peace plan and also Mitchell who composed the wording for that plan (hence, the "Mitchel plan") both place full blame for the collapse on the shoulders of Arafat.

Publicly Israel offered more than anything anyone could offer and the Arafat counter-offer was the second intifadah.

You can quote whatever you want to quote but from a layman's stance based on news reports and talking to both Jewish and Arab friends, you're not winning any points with me.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 30 October 2003 10:05 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wouldn't it be worth it for the Palestinians to give up a few acres or farms to get rid of the Israelis from their cities?????

Wouldn't it be worth it for the Israelis to give up a few acres or farms to get rid of suicide bombers from their cities?

Apparently not, juding from the path of the wall.

And get your head out of your orifice, the occupation is not, and never was "legal". The Security Council, which even you can't possibly try and claim is dominated by some "Arab union" has condemned it as illegal.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
EMGEE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4601

posted 30 October 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for EMGEE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
aRoused, that kinda flies in the face of what I've read and heard. Could you please tell me where the security council deemed the "occupation" illeagal.

So far I'm seeing that Israel was granted the West Bank from Jordan as a part of their peace agreement. The Jordanians were "legally" given that land by the British who "legally" got it from their conquest of the Ottomans who conquered it from the..... all the way back to the Romans who conquered it from the Jews who, surprise, surprise have it again today.... "leagally".


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 31 October 2003 07:45 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Security Council Resolution 242

quote:
Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermatch of the Six Day War. It calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights.

Security Council Emergency Resolution 10/6

quote:
Determined to uphold the purposes and principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law and all other instruments of international law, as well as relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions,

Reiterating the permanent responsibility of the United Nations towards the question of Palestine until it is solved in all its aspects,

Aware that Israel, the occupying Power, has not heeded the demands made in the resolutions of the tenth emergency special session and that it continues to carry out illegal actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular settlement activity, including the construction of the new Israeli settlement at Jebel Abu Ghneim, the building of other new settlements and the expansion of existing settlements, the construction of bypass roads and the confiscation of lands,

Reaffirming that all illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, especially settlement activities and the practical results thereof, remain contrary to international law and cannot be recognized, irrespective of the passage of time,

Expressing its appreciation to the Government of Switzerland, in its capacity as depositary of the four Geneva Conventions, 1/ and to the International Committee of the Red Cross for their efforts to uphold the integrity of the Conventions,

Increasingly concerned about the persistent violations by Israel, the occupying Power, of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, 2/

Conscious of the serious dangers arising from persistent violations and grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the responsibilities arising therefrom,


Emphasis added by me.

Okay, short words time: The Security Council is the ultimate arbiter of international law on the planet at present. The Security Council has declared the occupation of the lands taken by Israel during the Six Day War as illegal. Beyond that, it has pointed out that Israel is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the way it treats the Palestinians.

That. Means. The. Occupation. Is. ILLEGAL.

Edited to add:
Look, this is why people get mad at you for not doing your own research. Finding that information and reading it took me about 45 seconds. I did a search for "UN security council resolution occupied territory", and both links (and a raft of others) popped up. Just like that.

In particular, that christianactionforisrael.org site has what seem to be good links to the relevant security council and general assembly resolutions regarding the occupied territories.

[ 31 October 2003: Message edited by: aRoused ]


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca