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   » The Lie of the Wall 2

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Lie of the Wall 2
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 10 February 2004 04:03 PM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh look, a hundred posts.

Oh look, the wall is still there.

Israel: The Threat from Within

quote:
By Henry Siegman

The answer to President Bush's question to Dr. Rice therefore is that the "fundamental problem" that has undermined every previous peace initiative is the notion entertained by Prime Minister Sharon's government, and to a greater or lesser degree supported by all previous Israeli governments, that the 22 percent of the pre-1948 Palestine Mandate which now constitutes the West Bank and Gaza remains subject to further surgery by Israel.

The political damage done by the settlements to the peace process has been ratcheted up several orders of magnitude by the separation fence. For Palestinians, the fence confirms Israel's intention to leave most of its settlements in place and to confine the Palestinian population within less than half of the West Bank (i.e., about 10 percent of pre-1948 Palestine). No amount of verbal acrobatics by Prime Minister Sharon will persuade any Palestinian that the purpose of this fence, in which Israel, despite its parlous economic situation, is investing billions of Israeli shekels, is anything other than the creation of South African– style bantustans to contain an emerging Arab majority.

According to current plans, the route followed by the separation fence veers deeply into the West Bank along its western border. Sharon has approved the continuation of the fence to enclose Palestinians along the eastern (Jordanian) border as well. The effect of the fence, once it is completed, will be to enlarge Israel's share of pre-1948 Palestine from 50 to 90 percent. The remaining 10 percent (about half of today's West Bank) conforms to Sharon's definition of a "viable Palestinian state." Palestinians see no point in engaging in internal debates about compromises they need to make to achieve a peace agreement with Israel if such an agreement will yield nothing more than a collection of tiny fenced-in enclaves under Israeli control.

Of course, Israel's government has not only the right but the obligation to protect its citizens against the murderous suicide bombings of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terrorist groups; a government that fails to protect its citizens loses its right to govern. As even Yasser Arafat declared recently,[2] Palestinians have no objection to a separation fence if it is built on Israeli territory. But no one I know of in Israel's government, including the IDF and the security services, would deny that a fence whose purpose is the protection of Israel's citizens would be far more effective if it were constructed along Israel's pre-1967 border rather than snaking its way around Israeli settlements deep inside Palestinian territory. The argument that the fence's intrusions into Palestinian territory are necessary to protect the settlements establishes a new standard for chutzpah. In effect, Palestinians are being told that Israel must steal more Palestinian land to protect Israelis living on previously stolen Palestinian land.



From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 07:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A nicely written piece handled with authority... I found this most interesting...

quote:
The most dramatic evidence that territory remains the fundamental issue in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is the recent statement—in Ha'aretz and other Israeli papers on January 9—by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, and repeated by Hamas's Abdel Aziz Rantisi and the Islamic Jihad's Nafiz Azzam, that their organizations are ready to postpone indefinitely their "military" operations in return for an Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders. This change in policy, which relegates the recovery of all of Palestine to an indefinite future, was not linked by these organizations to the return of refugees, to claims to Jerusalem, or to other issues concerning a permanent status agreement between Israel and Palestine; it was linked only to the territorial issue.

Yassin's statement will be seen by many as meaningless, since it leaves Hamas free to revert to its previous position at any time. But this reaction ignores not only the unique religious context within which Hamas operates but the essential nature of all religious cultures that claim divine sanction for their beliefs. For Hamas to abandon what it has maintained is a divinely ordained obligation to recover all of Palestine is to bring into question its very identity, which it defines as its obedience to God's immutable will. It must therefore resort to theological fictions, i.e., relegating this obligation to future history, in order to be able to claim it has not compromised its orthodoxy.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 21 February 2004 09:34 PM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel's 'Wall' Assailed by Key Civil Society Groups

quote:
Fri Feb 20, 8:51 AM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!

Jim Lobe, OneWorld US

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb 20 (OneWorld) -- On the eve of the World Court's opening hearing on Israel's construction of a barrier wall along the West Bank, two of the world's oldest and most influential non-governmental organizations are calling for the dismantling of those sections that cross the pre-1967 "Green Line" into occupied territory.

On Thursday, Amnesty International said the barrier, which Israel refers to as a "fence," "is contributing to grave human rights violations" against Palestinian residents living within the West Bank. "Any measure Israel undertakes in the Occupied Territories in the name of security must comply with its obligations under international law," the London-based group argued.

The Amnesty statement followed closely on the publication by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) of a statement calling on Israel "not to plan, construct or maintain this Barrier within occupied territory."

"Where it deviates from the 'Green Line' into occupied territory, the Barrier deprives thousands of Palestinian residents of adequate access to basic services such as water, health care and education, as well as sources of income such as agriculture and other forms of employment," the Geneva-based agency said, adding that to the extent the wall deviates into occupied territory, it violates international humanitarian law (IHL).

"The Palestinian communities situated between the 'Green Line' and the Barrier are effectively cut off from the Palestinian society to which they belong. The construction of the West Bank Barrier continues to give rise to widespread appropriation of Palestinian property and extensive damage to or destruction of buildings and farmland," the ICRC said, in what observers noted was a highly unusual public statement.

The two statements were apparently provoked not only by the barrier's actual construction, but also by the imminence of the World Court hearing, which is scheduled to begin Monday at The Hague (news - web sites) in the Netherlands.

The Court, formallly called the International Court of Justice (ICJ), was formally asked to issue an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the barrier's construction in a resolution overwhelmingly approved by the UN General Assembly in early December.

Israel has refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction to hear the case and will not present formal arguments, although its government intends to have spokespeople present at The Hague to press the Israeli viewpoint on the international press and public. Pro-barrier Israeli groups are expected to sponsor the presence of hundreds of protestors, along with the remains of a bus blown up by a suicide bomber. Palestinians are also expected to demonstrate against what they call "the wall."



From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 22 February 2004 02:52 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
8 kilmoeters down, only 720 to go

quote:
Israel to reroute barrier

Israel today planned to tear down a section of its controversial West Bank barrier that cuts through a Palestinian village, a day before the World Court opens hearings on the legality of the project.

But Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie yesterday said the Israeli step did not go far enough, telling reporters: "We will not agree to even one millimetre of the barrier."

Workers will start dismantling an eight kilometre section of the barrier, which snakes deep into the West Bank and plans to extend for 728 km in total.

Israel says completed sections of the barrier are already stopping Palestinian suicide bombers, Palestinians call it a land grab, and the barrier had attracted criticism from Israel's main ally, the US.

Hundreds of Palestinians today marched in West Bank demonstrations to protest against the barrier and are planning a "Day of Rage" at the start of the World Court's hearings.

Israeli Defence Ministry Director General Amos Yaron said the timing of the removal of the barrier east of the Palestinian village of Baka al-Sharqiya was unrelated to the court hearings and was planned months in advance.

But Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said he had urged parties to take the step, and acknowledged that Israel could reap public opinion benefits from changing the barrier's route, which cuts off Palestinians from their fields, schools and clinics.



From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 February 2004 02:58 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Workers will start dismantling an eight kilometre section of the barrier, which snakes deep into the West Bank and plans to extend for 728 km in total.

This is going to become the biggest waste of money and resources since the Great Wall of China.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 February 2004 03:02 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would there be any objection to the Wall if it was built completely on the Israeli side of the Green line separating pre-1967 Israel from the occupied territories? (Except for Jerusalem which is a bit of a separate issue)
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 February 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Arfat affirmed that.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 22 February 2004 09:39 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Indeed he did.

Also note that a barrier which followed the Green Line would be much shorter than the proposed one, making it far cheaper to build, as well as easier to patrol.

Of course, that assumes that the Wall is intended for security reasons and not political ones. Which it obviously isn't.

On that note, just out of curiosity, exactly what possible "security" explanation is there for the proposed eastern barrier, the one which will run straight down the Jordan Valley? Is it to deter all those suicide bombers who've been blowing themselves up in Amman? To prevent Palestinians from taking a dip in the Dead Sea? What the hell?


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 23 February 2004 01:10 AM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
America is complicit in illegal wall...

quote:
By Jeff Halper, 2/21/2004

WHEN THE International Court of Justice at The Hague meets on Monday about Israel's "security fence" in the West Bank, it should find that the wall constitutes a violation of both fundamental human rights and international law.

The fundamental issue lies between "military necessity" and "proportionality." Israel certainly has an obligation to protect its citizens from violent attacks, but it also has a responsibility to protect the safety, well-being, and rights of the Palestinian civilian population under its control. The wall's route, extending deep into Palestinian territory, has the look of a political border, not a security barrier.

Rather than a linear defensive barrier bordering the West Bank, the wall is a complex matrix that literally imprisons thousands of Palestinians in enclaves encircled by 24-foot high walls, electronic fences, and watchtowers manned by armed Israeli soldiers.

In a brief presented to the International Court, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel argues that the wall's route and its other mechanisms of control are not necessary, proportionate, or legitimate security measures.

As a result, the wall violates the basic provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a key component of international law which protects civilians living under occupation. It divides families, destroys communities, obstructs people's freedom of movement, and, ultimately, drives them out. It violates prohibitions on confiscating private property in occupied territories. By alienating farmers from their land, it prevents them from earning a livelihood.

Overall, it violates Israel's legal obligations to ensure the well-being of the civilian population under its control, including its right to liberty, security of person, mental and physical health, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. As such the wall constitutes a form of collective punishment levied against innocent civilians. The wall also violates political provisions of international law which forbid the acquisition of territory by force and thus prohibit an occupying power from making its occupation permanent.

The route of the wall illegally protects and annexes already illegal settlements. By impinging on Palestinian territory it violates their right to self-determination. Indeed, it violates the international prohibition of apartheid as an aggravated form of racial discrimination. But complicity in violations of human rights is not confined only to Israel. The United States, Israel's chief ally, is culpable as well -- and by extension so are citizens of the United States.

The US government sells massive quantities of sophisticated arms to Israel, a major violator of human rights according to the State Department, even though US law prohibits sales to countries designated as such. American arms intended to be used against armies -- F-16s, Apache helicopters with laser-guided missiles, tanks, and artillery -- are deployed against civilian neighborhoods and refugee camps. It provides an umbrella for Israel, enabling it to treat the Palestinians with impunity and steadily strengthen its occupation, yet avoid international accountability. It even provides funds -- tax dollars -- for Israeli-only highways connecting West Bank settlements to Israel proper. Is American support for the wall (with minor reservations) congruent with American interests? In a world in which the United States seeks to combat terrorism yet is seen as a bully toward Arabs and Muslims, is active involvement in repressing the Palestinian people truly constructive? Can US-Israeli unilateralism provide a sustainable approach to a better, more peaceful, more just world?



From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
scribblet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4706

posted 23 February 2004 02:28 PM      Profile for scribblet        Edit/Delete Post
Surely Israel, or any country, has a right to protect itself from indiscriminate attacks against unarmed civilians. These homicide bombings are crimes against humanity, Israel has to defend itself and if a wall is the way to go, then so be it. Wouldn't you do anything to protect yourself from these insane killers, even if it means building a wall.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 23 February 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure, look how successful walls have been historically.

The Maginot Line stopped the Wehrmacht in its tracks.

The Great Wall prevented Ghengis Kahn from entering China.

The Berlin Wall stopped those desperate West Berliners fleeing to the paradise of East Germany and the Stasi.

Uh... The Wall was Pink Floyd's seminal album that set the standard of getting high and listening to drawn-out, dull guitar rock....


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2004 02:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How true, Particullarly the last. The Wall, certainly was the fall of one of the great rock bands.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
scribblet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4706

posted 23 February 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for scribblet        Edit/Delete Post
Okay, so maybe it won't stop them, the homicide bombers will get through regardless and continue their carnage. But Israel has to defend itself against them. I don't agree with killing on either side, but if I were living in Israel, I'd would want someone to attempt to protect me and my family.


quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[QB]Sure, look how successful walls have been historically.
QB]

From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 23 February 2004 03:24 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scribblet:
Surely Israel, or any country, has a right to protect itself from indiscriminate attacks against unarmed civilians. These homicide bombings are crimes against humanity, Israel has to defend itself and if a wall is the way to go, then so be it. Wouldn't you do anything to protect yourself from these insane killers, even if it means building a wall.


You missing the point. The issue is not whether Israel can build a wall, it's where it's building the wall. They are stealing land in the guise of building the wall. There is no reason they couldn't build it on the green line. But under the guise of security, Sharon and Co. are engaging in another land grab. The point is addressed by Noam Chomsky in the N.Y. Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/opinion/23CHOM.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 February 2004 03:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't agree with killing on either side, but if I were living in Israel, I'd would want someone to attempt to protect me and my family.

But is the strategy even successful at acheiving its stated aim?

The question is, does continually abrogating the fundametal human rights of Palestinians in the name of security increase or decrease the actual security of Israelis? Statistics from the Israeli Minstry of Foreign Affairs show that deaths of Israelis due to 'terrorism' are at an all time high, going back to 1948!

This despite the fact that Israel has imposed the most restrictive security measures ever, in the last four years.

It seems to me that the security measures imposed only serve to irritate, justify and further inflame Palestinians, and hence inspire them to be even more audacious acts of violence.

[ 23 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 February 2004 12:43 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course in the meantime everyone acknowledges that this latest homocide bombing could not have come at a worse time for the Palestinians trying to stop the wall from being built. Right when the case of the wall is before the court in the Hague this latest mass murder hands Israel a fantastic propaganda weapon. Don't the homicide bombers have the slightest idea of how destructibe they are to their own cause?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 February 2004 01:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some are aware that Israel has already declared that the World Court has no jurisdiction, and will not be represented at the 'hearing.' I think it is safe to assume that considering that Israel has yet to abide by any ruling of any UN sponsored commission (or even the security council) that goes against what Israel has stated it will do (which in this is case build a wall on Palestinian land) that some are tired of playing charades with the International community, which has done very little for them in the real world.

Some elements with the Palestinian community have taken it upon themselves to remind Israelis and the world that on this date Israel yet again snubbed the International Community and legal process, and thereby gave the Palestinians yet another fantastic propoganda opporunity to justify further attacks on Israelis. Also they are saying that continued intransigence on key issues, such as the wall, will only steady their resolve to get through it.

It would seem they are tired of the paper chase.

[ 24 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 February 2004 02:04 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Some elements with the Palestinian community have taken it upon themselves to remind Israelis and the world that on this date Israel yet again snubbed the International Community and legal process, and thereby gave the Palestinians yet another fantastic propoganda opporunity to justify further attacks on Israelis. Also they are saying that continued intransigence on key issues, such as the wall, will only steady their resolve to get through it.

It would seem they are tired of the paper chase.


So, obviously you applaud the homicide bombings. Are you popping champagne corks with glee as you watch pieces of human flesh being collected for burial? Does it fill you with delight to see dead civilians lying in pieces on the ground? Sure sounds like it.

The Palestinian tactic sure isn't working, all they do is kill and kill and kill and all they get are more clampdowns, more reprisals and more intransigence by Israel. They can launch a thousand homicide bombers, it will all backfire and get them even further from any resolution of the conflict. That is assuming that they actually even want any end to the conflict.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 24 February 2004 02:08 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I was really, really, really cynical, I would be tempted to wonder whether there was some kind of illicit deal between Sharon and the al-Aqsa killers to launch an attack just at this crucial time. Like Stockholm said, it couldn't have possibly have suited Israel's propaganda purposes any better. I can't believe even Sharon would go that far, though. Cueball's explanation seems plausible to me. I'm sure they had some kind of twisted logic justifying this attack to themselves.

In any event, the attack, while disastrously timed (and repugnant in its own right), hopefully shouldn't have any particular effect on the court's assessment of the wall's legality. At least not if they keep their attention focused on the real issue -- the location of the wall. "Security" considerations can't possibly explain the barrier's proposed route (and I'm still waiting for an explanation -- any explanation -- for the eastern, Jordan valley, section of the wall). One more suicide attack doesn't change that at all.

PS: Noam Chomsky's in the New York Times?! Has the world ended or something?


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 24 February 2004 02:12 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just saw Stockholm's intervening post. This is beneath fucking contempt. Apparently you subscribe to the post-9/11 Repugnican conception that seeking an explanation for a terrorist attack is identical to and indistinguishable from justifying it.

I advise you to apologize to Cueball quickly, Stockholm, or I imagine you'll soon be playing tiddlywinks with Mimi and Mishei.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 24 February 2004 02:34 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Note on Newspeak:

I wish people would avoid the expression "homicide bombers", which sounds like it is some kind of propaganda invention. (Of course I'd say the same in spades about "martyrdom operation", the pro-suicide-bomber euphemism, but I've never seen it used here).

Why? Because all bombers, from the hapless shoe bomber to George W Bush and Vladimir Putin, are at least potentially homicide bombers, and there are just as many dead and maimed bombing victims in Bagdad and Grozny. Suicide bombing is a specific tactic - I don't think it is a euphemism or a denial of the horror for the people who are victims of such a horrendous act.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 February 2004 02:54 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
So, obviously you applaud the homicide bombings. Are you popping champagne corks with glee as you watch pieces of human flesh being collected for burial? Does it fill you with delight to see dead civilians lying in pieces on the ground? Sure sounds like it.

Good Lord. What the hell IS that, Stockholm? Consider this warning number one AND number two. That is so offensive, I don't even know what to say. I know this is an emotional topic, but accusing someone of feeling gleeful as they watch people getting scraped off the ground merely because they are trying to explain what they think the motivation is for suicide bombings is completely not acceptable. Even if someone thinks the Palestinians' grievances are valid, or believes there are political reasons motivating suicide bombings, does not mean that they like suicide bombings or feel glee at the thought of civilians getting killed.

I'd suggest you either apologize and take it down a notch, or avoid the Middle East forum for a little while if you can't control yourself.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 February 2004 03:58 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
So, obviously you applaud the homicide bombings. Are you popping champagne corks with glee as you watch pieces of human flesh being collected for burial? Does it fill you with delight to see dead civilians lying in pieces on the ground? Sure sounds like it.

Your gratuitous imagery is not helpful to civil discussion. Why do you persist in the use of imflammatory language?

Furthermore, your character assassination is a direct attack on someone else, and is an unsubstantiated speculative essay into what someone else believes or thinks.

You should have the good grace to feel a bit of shame for the way you acted.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 February 2004 05:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, obviously you applaud the homicide bombings. Are you popping champagne corks with glee as you watch pieces of human flesh being collected for burial? Does it fill you with delight to see dead civilians lying in pieces on the ground? Sure sounds like it.

Let me put it this way: I were to explain the mechanism of an avalanche, would that say to you that I applauded the fact that it killed people? If I were to point out that people should't yodel in the valley in the spring time when the ice shelf is loose due to melting, would that mean that I would pop "champagne corks with glee as you (I) watch pieces of human flesh being collected for burial?"


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 February 2004 06:01 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd also like to add that the effect of this action has been dramatic. On this board two threads talking about this attack and the issue of the world court decision have seen considerable traffic, as people talk about the attack and how it relates to the world court decision.

Most posts side with the overall Palestinian position, even if they are uhappy about the means of Palestinians resistance.

This topic has been well covered by newspapers and the CBC. The topic of the World Court advisory panel is now a hot front page topic, instead of a page three article. This impact is world wide, based on my internet surfing.

I think the Palestinians are confident that the 'advice' given by the World Court, will be favourable to them, purely on a legal basis. When the decision is handed down the judgement will be come out in the press like this:

"World court condemns wall, despite recent attacks."

What could be better than having the World Court essentially condone your position despite the violence that is being used to effect your position?

[ 24 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 February 2004 10:08 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone here dances a jig of glee at every suicide bombing. Similarly, no one on the other side dances a jig of glee when there is a reprisal attack.

I just notice a double standard. Palestinian terrorist commit an atrocity and we get the equivalent of a doctoral thesis coldly providing all the reasons why it makes sense strategically for the Palestinians and why there is ample justification etc...

Yet when Israel retaliates, there is enevr any acknowledgement as to why on earth Israel might feel justified in doing so. It as if the Israelis just feel like being cruel and there is no context wahtsoever to their actions either.

The pattern is always the same, restrictions on Palestinans in the territories are relaxed, then as a thank you, the Palestinains launch more terrorist attacks. Then Israel retaliates by imposing another cllampdown. What does anyone expect Israel to do?

Does anyone seriously think that ther Israelis are going to say "Oh boy, they just blew up another bus full of people, I guess we better agree to all their demands and let anyone walk freely into the middle of Tel Aviv without being searched". Everytime one ofn these attacks occxurs it just cements the idea in the minds of Israelis that 1. Palestinains are inhuman and only motivated by irrational self-destructive hate 2. There is no one to talk to on the other side 3. The other side cannot be reasoned with 4. The only possible response is to elect an even more hardline government in Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 24 February 2004 10:48 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTEYet when Israel retaliates, there is enevr any acknowledgement as to why on earth Israel might feel justified in doing so. It as if the Israelis just feel like being cruel and there is no context wahtsoever to their actions either. [/QUOTE]Stockholm, you know this isn't true. There's almost always such acknowledgement by some people on these boards. There's no consensus. That's different. Effectively, you're criticizing people for not agreeing with you. To make matters worse, you then assign motive to those you disagree with or who disagree with you and Israel.

And yes, there is context - it's called the occupation. The Israeli government's notion of "justifiable retaliation" (which you support) is challenged on these boards and by Jews in Israel and abroad because not only is it one-sided, but it lets Israel off the hook for the occupation. How can there be a road to peace that doesn't deal with this head-on?


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 24 February 2004 10:49 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
If I was really, really, really cynical, I would be tempted to wonder whether there was some kind of illicit deal between Sharon and the al-Aqsa killers to launch an attack just at this crucial time. Like Stockholm said, it couldn't have possibly have suited Israel's propaganda purposes any better. I can't believe even Sharon would go that far, though. Cueball's explanation seems plausible to me. I'm sure they had some kind of twisted logic justifying this attack to themselves.

In any event, the attack, while disastrously timed (and repugnant in its own right), hopefully shouldn't have any particular effect on the court's assessment of the wall's legality. At least not if they keep their attention focused on the real issue -- the location of the wall. "Security" considerations can't possibly explain the barrier's proposed route (and I'm still waiting for an explanation -- any explanation -- for the eastern, Jordan valley, section of the wall). One more suicide attack doesn't change that at all.

PS: Noam Chomsky's in the New York Times?! Has the world ended or something?



The extremists on both sides have played off of one another for years. They need each other to exist and to justify themselves in the eyes of the majority on both sides. Whether there's an actual arrangement, I can't say. But nothing would surprise me with those two groups.

However, the essential point of the conflict remains the same. Israel has occupied Palestinian land for over 35 years and has colonized it for some 30 years. Now, they are building a wall that will expropriate more Palestinian territory. Until the facts change on the ground, the dance of death will continue.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 February 2004 11:01 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
and the longer the "dance of death" continues, the more Israel's grip on the territories will be further cemented and strengthened. Every time there is a suicide bombing all it does is play into the hands of the hardliners in Israel who are just looking for an excuse not to make any concessions.

I wonder if the people behind the suicide bombings realize the extent to which they are only sowing the seeds of their own destruction.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 24 February 2004 11:05 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes and no. For about a quarter of a century there were no suicide bombings. Yet the Israeli occupation continued. And the main reason for the bombings is that Palestinians don't have the traditional elements of warfare at their disposal. The other side of the coin is that some of these groups have no interest in a peaceful settlement with Israel, and have taken these actions to sabotage any chance for a deal. However, since Israel is occupying and colonizing the land, it is incumbent on them to take the first substantial step.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 24 February 2004 11:06 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
all it does is play into the hands of the hardliners in Israel who are just looking for an excuse not to make any concessions
And you don't think that if they didn't have that excuse (which is compelling) they wouldn't come up with another and another and another?

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 24 February 2004 11:44 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

So, obviously you applaud the homicide bombings. Are you popping champagne corks with glee as you watch pieces of human flesh being collected for burial? Does it fill you with delight to see dead civilians lying in pieces on the ground? Sure sounds like it.


What a stupid, ignorant, hateful comment . . . If you actually believe what you stated, then it would be just as appropiate to ask "does it fill you with delight when you see Palestinian civilians dying at check points because they can't get to a hospital? . . . obviously neither question is appropiate!


quote:

The Palestinian tactic sure isn't working, all they do is kill and kill and kill and all they get are more clampdowns, more reprisals and more intransigence by Israel. They can launch a thousand homicide bombers, it will all backfire and get them even further from any resolution of the conflict. That is assuming that they actually even want any end to the conflict.

So? Neither is the Israeli tactic working . . . all they do is kill and kill and kill (3 times more in fact) and clamp down and clamp down and clamp down, and all they get is "more reprisals"!!

What's so damed "inspirational" about Israeli stupid stubborness, and so "immoral" about Palestian stupid stubborness??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 February 2004 01:07 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes and no. For about a quarter of a century there were no suicide bombings. Yet the Israeli occupation continued.

During that "quarter century of no suicide bombings" there was something called the Oslo Accords and there was the creation of the palestinian authority and there was at least the beginnings of an Israeli withdrawal from the territories and a timetable for more withdrawals. Then the suicide bombings started and everything got scuttled. Now you'll never get the toothpaste back into the toothpaste tube.


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

posted 24 February 2004 02:18 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...and there was at least the beginnings of an Israeli withdrawal from the territories...

Yet curiously, settlement construction accelerated immediately after the Oslo Accords, during the government of the "dove", Barak.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 February 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Palestinian militant activity reached two high water marks prior to Oslo. Immedialty after the occupation began, 1967-1973, and 1989-92. Interestingly the lulls directly conincide with activity on the diplomatic front.

1967 to 1975: ongoing coflict between Israel and and the Arab States, and Palestinians.

Roughly 50 Israeli killed per year.

1975 to 1988, the most peaceful period, roughly coincides with the various initiatives post the Arab Israeli war of 1973. Including the accords between Egypt and Israel, and various intitiative started by but never completed by Jordan and Israel.

Roughly 20 Israelis killed per year

1989 to 1992: Jordan (1988) gives up adminstrative authority for the West Bank, leaving Palestinians politically adrift, and without a state and without negotiators. Increased violence, the rise of Hamas as political force in the Gaza Strip and the introduction of the sucide bomber. The PLO takes over the peace process.

Roughly 50 Israeli's killed per year.

1992 to 1999: The Oslo Period.

Roughly 34 Israeli's killed per year.

2000 to 2003 (1999 only 8 Israelis are killed.) Camp David fails, Areil Sharon is elected in early 2001 announce that Oslo is dead, and isntitutes the most restrictive security measures since the occupation began.

Roughly 235 Israeli's killed per year.

All statstics derived from the Israeli Minstry of Foreign Affairs web siteTerror deaths in Israel: 1920-1999

Terror deaths 2000 to now: 943

Terror deaths 1967 to 1999: 803

Clearly active negotiation and concilliation are periods of less violence. It is not true to say:

quote:
The pattern is always the same, restrictions on Palestinans in the territories are relaxed, then as a thank you, the Palestinains launch more terrorist attacks.

In fact this arguemnt could easily be inverted, periods of less violence have not ended the occupation. This is really striking in the 13 year period between 1975 and 1988.

The recent violence is actually a remarkable increase over any proceeding period, no matter how you read the statistics. More Israelis have been killed in the last 4 years than in the entire period, between 1967 and 1999. Four years after the Sharon mandate began, after Israel stated that Oslo was dead and that the Palestinians would get even less than Barak, and after introducing the most severe security measures, Sharon can not show he has effectively dealt with the violence through force.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 24 February 2004 03:18 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, what does anyone think the chances are at the Hague? Will they take the case? If they do, how will it go? The Israelis are lobbying as hard as they can without actually recognizing the proceedings, but I'm not sure how far they're likely to get.
I suspect few courts are going to respond much to arguments that amount to "bad things are happening to me, therefore you don't have jurisdiction over my crimes." Indeed, the Israeli government may well be aware of this and fighting not so much to avoid the Hague taking up the case as to discredit any result, especially in Israel. After all, the actual international law question seems fairly cut and dried: The wall, along with much of the rest of what Israel does in the occupied territories, is in violation. Pro-Israel commentators rarely argue that--they just say that Israel really *needs* to violate international law, so it's OK.

So, what's gonna happen? Any opinions?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 24 February 2004 03:54 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not a matter of jurisdiction. The Court hears three types of cases. The first is a dispute between two states. The second is an interpretation case, where a state asks the Court to interpret a past ruling.

This case is the third kind: the advisory opinion. The General Assembly has asked the Court for a non-binding opinion on the issue based on international law. So the Court has every right to consider the question. Why? Because the GA asked them to.

It should also be noted that advisory opinions are not enforceable by the Security Council, unlike disputes between two states, where disobeying the decision lands you in a deep pile of geopolitical doggy doo-doo.

The Court will say what they will, the GA will do what they will based on that, and the US will use their Security Council veto to stop anything substantive from coming of it.


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 February 2004 05:30 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread started out being about the wall. If there were no suicide bombings there would be no wall in the first place. The idea of building a wall wasn't even on the radar screen in Israel until after 100s were killed by suicide bombers. Ergo, its all the suicide bombers fault that the wall is being built.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 February 2004 06:05 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your reasoning works only if you accept the premise of the lie.

If safety is the real reason for the wall, why is it being built so deep into the West Bank?

Can it not be built along the Green line or within Israel and still provide the protection that is supposed to be its justification?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 February 2004 11:24 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If safety is the real reason for the wall, why is it being built so deep into the West Bank?

Can it not be built along the Green line or within Israel and still provide the protection that is supposed to be its justification?


I agree 100%. I think that Israel should build a wall right on the Green line and abandon those religious freak settlers. They can either move or stay at their own risk under Palestinian rule. The world will be no poorer a place without those Israeli religious freaks with Brooklyn accents. Feed them to the lions.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 25 February 2004 12:09 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I agree 100%. I think that Israel should build a wall right on the Green line

Then the question becomes, why aren't they? Did they just miss the border by accident? Are the bulldozer drivers all driving drunk? Since a barrier on Israeli territory would perfectly satisfy the "security" argument, there must be some other reason for the wall's actual route. Given Sharon's lifelong devotion to preventing the emergence of a Palestinian state and absorbing large parts of the West Bank into Israel, it's not hard to discern what that reason is.

Also, if you're so opposed to the settlements, are you not outraged that the wall is so blatantly designed to solidify and enhance them? The wall has the unmistakable purpose of making the settlements permanent and annexing the land on which they stand to Israel. Perhaps it should be called the "Settlers' Wall".

Let's not forget water, which is a huge consideration in a desert region. I understand the wall will envelop most of the important water reserves in the West Bank for Israeli use, while Palestinians go thirsty. Is that explainable by "security" considerations? Suuure.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 25 February 2004 02:28 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
This thread started out being about the wall.


By which you imply there has been drift. How so? The decision the General Assembly has asked the court for relates to the legality or otherwise of the wall. So presumably, discussion of that case, its likely outcome etc., is discussion relevant to the wall, no?

quote:

If there were no suicide bombings there would be no wall in the first place. The idea of building a wall wasn't even on the radar screen in Israel until after 100s were killed by suicide bombers. Ergo, its all the suicide bombers fault that the wall is being built.

This is sort of true. Near as I can make out, the Israeli objective has never changed, but tactics do shift. So while the Palestinians were keeping quiet, the Israelis were making little walls, barrier roads, joining this settlement to that settlement a piece at a time, hoping to extend it all as far as possible before the Palestinians woke up. After all, the Gaza strip is entirely walled in already, and was before the new Intifada started.

So now the Palestinians are fighting back, the Israeli government has been forced to/been given justification to apply their partitions in huge, obvious chunks. But we'd be in a fairly similar situation if the Palestinians had been quiescent. The little walls would still be joining up, cutting the West Bank into smaller and smaller bits, and progressively forcing Palestinians off more and more land--just as they are today. The only real difference is that the international community wouldn't be paying any attention. So to that extent, at least, the resistance has gotten the Palestinians further than no resistance would have. There is a case to be made also that not resisting what's being done to them would be a devastating blow to their self-respect as a people. It makes the difference between a people struggling for self-determination and a defeated people.
(Bizarre musing, not intended to be taken seriously) I sometimes wonder if the Israeli insistence on being Uber-Tough derives in part from some Jews being totally weirded out by the feeling that they collectively let themselves be herded away and killed too easily--that they feel they should have somehow killed a bunch of Germans before they went down. So they make up for it by being kick-ass now. (/End bizarre musing)

Incidentally as a side note, I find it interesting that while killing Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories is not only absolutely justified but completely legal under international law, and on the other hand suicide bombings (of civilians) are not, Israel always responds much more violently to killings of Israeli soldiers.

Back to the Hague. It's quite true that the ruling will have no binding force of any sort--and even if it did in theory, it would be ignored in practice. Much the way the United States ignored it when the World Court told them they had to stop beating up on Nicaragua.
But at the same time, I think the symbolic force of a ruling could be considerable. For many countries in the world, international law has become something of a hot button due to the US' scofflaw behaviour with respect to Iraq. Also because of Iraq, the world is watching the Middle East even more closely than usual. Mainstream theories of international politics suggest that the historic moment is one where various national actors are going to tend to combine to counterweight the world hegemon (the United States). Israel is the US' high-profile proxy. States that would not yet have the guts to tell the US itself where to go might be about at the point where a high-profile righteous reason would let them ostracize Israel, especially since the US constantly swears up and down against all reason that they are neutral brokers between Israel and Palestine. So in putting sanctions on Israel a country isn't *officially* bucking the US--the US is neutral on Israel, right? Of course the US isn't *really* neutral on Israel, but by not admitting that they've gotten to have things both ways.

International pressure on Israel could in turn push the US government into being more explicit about its relationship with Israel. Which itself has political costs, for instance with respect to the Arab world, but also with respect to domestic public opinion, which is happy to be kidded that they're neutral, it's just that Israel is culturally more comfy--but may be less happy with the idea of blatantly taking sides against an impoverished occupied group.

Obviously, I'm spinning a yarn. Anyone else got any yarns they could spin?

[ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 February 2004 08:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I spun mine, bute here is another, which I think is really important also:

quote:
I agree 100%. I think that Israel should build a wall right on the Green line and abandon those religious freak settlers.

Fine but that is not the case. It is not as if Israel is building the wall on the Green Line, and the Palestinian response is suicide bombing. They are building deep into Palestinians land, and extending even that so that it 'surounds' the Palestinian on all sides, like a camp.

Mor inportant: Talking about Israeli settlers on the West Bank and Gaza as if they are all religious freaks from Brooklyn, misses the mark substantially. Many are more or less economic, social and politcal refugees from various parts of the world. Subsidization by the state of Israel has made it very difficult for some people (drawn to Israel for quite just reasons) to refuse to participate in the occupation, even if it means they are essentially living in a war zone.

From my understanding some settlements have an 'actual' occupancy rate of 50%. Many can not simply get up and leave, or sell their properties (whom would buy?) and move. Sure there is a messianic sect of nutcases from the states, but to focus on that makes it sound as if the occupation is a matter solely of personal responsibility, when the settlement process is actually state sponsored and engineered.

This view gives credence to the Likud idea that Israel is forced to protect all Jews (as de Facto citizens) anywhere in the world, and that whether they like it or not the IDF must defend Jews living on the West Bank. However, noting that the Israeli state has played an essential role in planning and paying for the settlements, undermines this argument, because the state is not helpless.

It would be simple enough to withdraw funding, and through that machanism substantially reduce settlement activity, or even use the money to organize resettlement of people who choose to move behind the Green Line, leaving the Zealots to the Palestinians.

Another idea, housing opened up in this manner might be used to satisify outstanding claims of some of the Palestinian refugees.

[ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
scribblet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4706

posted 26 February 2004 09:27 PM      Profile for scribblet        Edit/Delete Post
I don't know why they are not on the green line, and they should be.

This security wall is nothing more than a necessary effort to defend itself against Palestinian terror.
Indiscriminately killing innocent civilians is not a legitimate nor a justifiable response to Israeli actions.
Palestinian terrorism is the reason for Israel's security barrier. Ending these homicide bombings and terror attacks would be the first step towards peace, which they don't seem to want.

quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

I agree 100%. I think that Israel should build a wall right on the Green line and abandon those religious freak settlers.



From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2004 05:50 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Palestinian militants kill Israelis at a rate very similar to the murder rate of the city of Toronto, adjusted per capita. Do you think that the murder rate in Toronto jusifies the introduction of marshall law and various other restrictions upon the people of Toronto?

I keep asking this question of people who make statements similar to yours, yet no answer cometh.

Source statistics referenced in a post above from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

quote:
I don't know why they are not on the green line, and they should be.

This is because it is not about terrorism. It is about annexing land. Sharon even stated when he got first got into power that he would not give as much as Barak offered. It was his campaign platform.

Look into the sky and tell me it is not blue on a clear day.

[ 27 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 27 February 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
On corruption,

By Edward Said, Al-Ahram Weekly 10-16, Feb.'00

quote:
Yasser Arafat... will remain as long as he has ... leverage over an enormous amount of
people, who will not jeopardise their future just because they are ruled by a corrupt, inefficient and stupid dictatorship which cannot even deliver the essential services for daily civil life like water, health, electricity,
food , etc.

AL-AHRAM WEEKLY 23 Nov.'00:" Palestinians look for aid" by Dina Ezzat,

quote:
The problem that Arab finance ministers have to deal with is how this money could be best made use of without allowing for any potential embezzlement on the side of
some notorious officials in the Palestinian
Authority.

Al-Massar (PA), December 1,2000

quote:
Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council(PLC), Hussam Khadr stated: "We hope that the funds will reach the eligible people and that some of them will be allocated to strengthening the financial and national infrastructure, rather than the personal
[infrastructure] of PA officials... As for the funds that have [supposedly]already arrived nobody knows a thing about them. This is a mystery which no one can solve, not the Minister of Finance, nor the government, nor any
other institution.

On refugees,

Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee (AHC)to the U.N. Security Council, April 23, 1948,

quote:
The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce ... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed.

Emil Ghory,secretary of the AHC, September 6, 1948,

quote:
The fact that there are those refugees is
the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..

Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab
League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily al-Hoda, referring to comments made in 1948 by Azzam Pasha, then League secretary,

quote:
assured the Arab peoples that the
occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade ... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states.

Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen"), PLO spokesman, wrote in Falastin a-Thaura, official Journal of the PLO, 1976,

quote:
The
Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in
which the Jews used to live.

Jordanian daily al-Urdun quoted a refugee, April 9, 1953,

quote:
For the flight and fall of the
other villages, it is our leaders who are responsible, because of the dissemination of rumours exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... they instilled fear and terror into the hearts of the Arabs of Palestine until they fled, leaving their homes and property to the enemy

Khaled al-Azem, Syria's prime minister in 1948 wrote in his memoirs, 1973, regarding Arab failure in 1948,

quote:
" ... the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the
inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries ... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land

As I have asked before, given the number of years this conflict has been allowed to fester, is it possible that Israel's detractors are unwilling to accept Israel's existence?


From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2004 03:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Caoimhin, thanks. That is the first time I have seen you try and substantiate anything. Thanks.

Now, given the various scandals and charges of corruption that presently suround Mr. Sharon -- developers of course (lol)! Would it be approriate, or further the discussion about this topic, if evertime I discussed Israel I used the phrase like: 'Sharon's corruption central.'

I think not. So I refrain. It's just rhetoric, intended to vilify, as opposed to commentary intended to build understanding and intelligent discussion.

quote:
On refugees

I'd be careful about selectively using quotes from the Massada 2000 site. For instance, the orginal context of this quote, from al-Urdun:

quote:
For the flight and fall of the other villages, etc...

Is actually (note the --- date April 9th) a memorial editorial about the massacre at Deir Yassin. I italicized other. Other is Deir Yassin, a massacre of Palesinian Arabs that happend on that date in 1948.

But, hey keep up the research it will do you good.

[ 27 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 27 February 2004 03:12 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now, given the various scandals and charges of corruption that presently suround Mr. Sharon -- developers of course (lol)! Would it be approriate, or further the discussion about this topic, if evertime I discussed Israel I used the phrase like: 'Sharon's corruption central.'

Not everytime, but certainly in cases where a poster refutes that the present Israeli leader is not corrupt. Sad thing is, though, Israeli's aren't rushing to Palestinian hospitals because the government doesn't (won't?) provide them. Given that Israel is a democracy, it is up to the voters to decide whether the gravity of his corruption (treason?) warrants expulsion from office. Access to water and the building of hospitals and roads are minor engineering problems. I find no reason, despite PA corruption, why Palestinians couldn't acquire infrastructure on their own. However, to use it as an excuse (inconvenience at the wall from getting to a hospital on time, getting to jobs)for murdering Israelis is sick, agreed?


From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2004 03:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that is incumbent on all humane persons to ensure that people get the medical attention that they need. While I find it disturbing that there is corruption within the PA, I think there is often corruption in governement, Israel, the PA, here in Canada. I think that should not prevent the IDF from expiditing quick transfer of Palestinians in need of hospitalization to Israeli facilities.

Your idea, that there should be hospitals for Arabs, and other hospitals for Israelis is in my mind vaguely racist. More hospitals is a good idea. Segregation of hospitals is another thing.

Please note the addition to my previous post.

[ 27 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 27 February 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think that is incumbent on all humane persons to ensure that people get the medical attention that they need

The PA does not provide what their people need and this is a reason to murder innocent Israeli's. And you don't find this extremely fucked up? What gives?

quote:
Your idea, that there should be hospitals for Arabs, and other hospitals for Israelis is in my mind vaguely racist

It is not my idea and it is not what my point is. I take offence. Get a grip!

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 27 February 2004 05:18 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I think that is incumbent on all humane persons to ensure that people get the medical attention that they need. While I find it disturbing that there is corruption within the PA, I think there is often corruption in governement, Israel, the PA, here in Canada. I think that should not prevent the IDF from expiditing quick transfer of Palestinians in need of hospitalization to Israeli facilities.

Your idea, that there should be hospitals for Arabs, and other hospitals for Israelis is in my mind vaguely racist. More hospitals is a good idea. Segregation of hospitals is another thing.

Please note the addition to my previous post.

[ 27 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]



Cueball plays the Race card.

Hospitals for English or French?

What an outdated notion.

There must be but one Global Health Service under a UN flag. Otherwise I will refuse treatment.

Wait, let me check my bank balance.


From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2004 10:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cueball plays the Race card.

To play this card game Tolok, you have to ante up some thoughts of your own. Hiding your cards behind smug one liners does not get you a seat at the table. Perhaps your just impoverished.

quote:
It is not my idea and it is not what my point is. I take offence. Get a grip!

Well then I apologize.

Perhaps, I just misconstrued what you meant when you said, "Maybe they took the money to build a functioning hospital so Palestinians didn't have to go to Isreal to get medical attention."

I guess we both agree that medical attention should be denied no one, and that the possibility that persons in government have misdirected funds is not a reason to deny medical attention, when it is accesible, as corruption in government is not the fault of the individual in question, for they are vicitm to that corruption.

We do agree there, yes?

But this thread is supposed to be about the wall. I would really love it if you could find the full text of that Said article, and any other relvant material about corruption in the PA and perhaps we you start a thread about corruption in the PA. A hard look at the evidence would be very cool.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca