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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Time for Palestinians to lay down arms

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Time for Palestinians to lay down arms
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 April 2004 10:41 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The decision by George W. Bush, today, to change direction by supporting Sharon's plan to maintain, forever, settlements in the West Bank and strip away a right of return for Palestinians should be a wake up call for Palestinians and their supporters that the current intifadah has failed..

Between Israeli control over Palestinian resources; roads that will cut through the West Bank linking settlements to each other and Israel proper; and the fact that Palestinians will be forever in poverty with only their labour to be offered cheaply to an Israel that will cut off the life lines at will and with impunity, it is time to admit armed struggle is not the answer.

Continuing will only result in continued loss of innocent life both Jewish and Palestinan. Sharon and Likud will not be moved by that which they have set in motion.

It is time for Palestinians to declare the two state solution to be dead. killed by Sharon and Bush and begin a new struggle for equality and justice within the state of Israel.

Using the lessons of Ghandi and Martin Luther King with the global outreach created by opponents of Apartheid including cultural and economic boycotts it is time for Palestinians to rejoin the world in demanding not statehood but equal rights, democracy and justice.

And for those of us who have stood on the sidelines for too long watching in horror, it is time we began the process of restoring the international web of support that existed for the struggle against Apartheid.

Palestinians deserve justice. If Sharon and Bush will deny it to them in Palestine, let them have it in Israel.

[ 14 April 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


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

posted 14 April 2004 11:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am horrified by what I just saw on the news. I hadn't seen any of this today even though there was a thread on it here on babble, because I haven't had time to read about it. I'm just watching the National now.

I am dumbfounded by this. Sharon is a thieving, double-crossing bastard, and those who support his policies are racist assholes.

You are right, WingNut. There is no point in further violence. Then again, there never was. Violence never was useful; they weren't acts of strategy, they were acts of anger and despair.

I agree with your analysis. It's time to start calling Israel what it is: a state with racist, apartheid policies, led by far right extremists and propped up by the criminal Bush administration.

As skdadl said in the other thread about Sharon and Bush: bastards, bastards, bastards.

[ 14 April 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 15 April 2004 12:02 AM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
bastards, bastards, bastards

That choice of language is better suited on a redneck board. It's offensive. Bastards are human too.
quote:
It's time to start calling Israel what it is: a state with racist, apartheid policies, led by far right extremists and propped up by the criminal Bush administration.

Pure crap.

From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 April 2004 12:51 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, yes, I do see what you mean. "Pure crap" is just so much more dignified and white-necked than that trailer-trash, passé word, "bastard."
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 April 2004 03:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The decision by George W. Bush, today, to change direction by supporting Sharon's plan to maintain, forever, settlements in the West Bank and strip away a right of return for Palestinians should be a wake up call for Palestinians and their supporters that the current intifadah has failed..

I completely disagree. I think that todays developments signal that a peaceful settement is completely out of the range of the powers that be in Washington and in Israel. Actually the time is now to take up a more agressive armed struggle. This is because what was once a fairly isolated struggle taking place in WB, has been escalated by the ongoing war in Iraq, it is now a regional struggle for Arab self-determination.

Clearly, the US with the support of its Isreali ally has sought to make this the showdown, between Arab nationalism and US hegemony. Military activity on numerous fronts will make the attempt to impose this hegemony even less possible. All out war is what Bush and Sharon have sought, and this is what they will now get.
Once the US ability to impose hegemony through force is proved false, much of the latent power of Israel that is gained through its strategic alliance with the US will also be undermined.

This will be bloody and this will be long, and it is very sad. But armed resistance is the only means through which the Arab people can maintain their dignity and their rights.


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

posted 15 April 2004 03:50 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear D-B,

You make George Bush sound articulate.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 April 2004 08:46 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So are you suggesting the juvenile plaints of Georgie are not articulate?

I always wonder is that really his emotional maturity or is he speking in a language Americans will understand.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 April 2004 10:14 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm torn between the senarios offered by Wingnut and Cueball . . . I certainly would want to see a peaceful solution, and the fact that going Wingy's way would eventually lead to exactly the opposite of what the facist Sharon wants (the Palestinian population would eventually become the majority, and being a majority would be able to revoke Israels status as a "Jewish state".)

BUT, I also have a strong adversion to even for a second letting the Bush/Sharon facists believe that they have won through violent means.

Whichever path the Palestinians choose, any smart Israeli should understand that this decision is no victory. Sharon and Bush have just signed Israels death certificate . . . we are just waiting for the doctor to come by and remove the tubes from the corpse.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 April 2004 10:26 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have to disagree, Cueball. As we have noted many many times, violence begets violence. More intense stirrings in the occupied territories would lead to an even more violent response from Ariel "the Butcher" Sharon. It might seem impossible, but ordinary Palestinians would be made to suffer even more than they do now. In the meantime, increased violence from Hamas (or whoever) would not target the IDF, because it is too well protected. Ordinary Israelis would feel the brunt of any increased Hamas activity.

Calling for a violent uprising from the Palestinians will only set up a situation where civilians on both sides suffer greatly, while the Likudniks reap the benefit. That benefit would come in the form of a green light from Washington to complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. There is currently no massive public outcry when Israel lobs a missile into a crowd outside a Mosque, or in a marketplace. You don't have to look any further than Fallujah to see the Republican response to violent insurgence. They have no problem with inacting a similar scorched earth policy against Palestinians.

Wingnut's proposal may not work immediately, but it didn't work immediately in South Africa either. The international humanitarian community had to show great resolve and perseverance for years before Apartheid became a mainstream protest issue around the globe. With the same resolve, and the political will from Palestinians, we can turn the tables on Likud and make Palestinian human rights a mainstream issue. Hopefully with quicker results than in South Africa.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 April 2004 10:28 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I tend to agree with Cueball as to the actual effect of the Sharon-Bush love-in, although I would ideally prefer Wingnut's response. The Palestinians now have no hope of gaining anything through negotiations, which will now not take place. The inclination will be to respond with violence. However, they would be better served following Wingnut's advice, and coming up with other creative means of resistance. Nonetheless, Bush's willing cave-in to Sharon cannot avoid the inevitable. In the long-run, Sharon and his ilk will not be victorious.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
scribblet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4706

posted 15 April 2004 10:36 AM      Profile for scribblet        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
However, they would be better served following Wingnut's advice, and coming up with other creative means of resistance.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: josh ]


Of course they should, by laying down arms, loving their children, in ways other than encouraging suicide bombing, and just maybe, being peaceful would help.
Maybe investing in their own social programs would also be helpful.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040414-102544-3193r.htm

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — The Palestinian militant group Hamas will use proceeds from a fund-raising drive among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to continue attacks on Israel rather than invest in the group's network of social welfare organizations, Hamas officials have said.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 15 April 2004 10:39 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scribblet, why don't you give that advice to Israel? Why doesn't Israel practice non-violence? OH YEAH. Because when you occupy someone's land against their wishes and oppress them, you have to use VIOLENCE to do it.

It's sheer fuckwittery of you to expect Palestinians to invest in social services when they are UNDER OCCUPATION that has destroyed their economy and civil infrastructure.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 April 2004 10:45 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scriblett, what you're calling for is surrender and capitulation. That's not what I was referring to. And citing a Moonie Times article doesn't aid your position.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 April 2004 10:46 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Scribblet's fuckwittery can be directly attributed to reading (...and favouring us all with a link to) such propagandist sinkholes as the Washington Times.

I agree with Josh. Whether one wants a particular outcome or not is irrelevant. I would be astounded if the Palestinians managed to gather the sheer presence of mind to face this latest affront with measured actions such as peaceful civil disobedience, etc., but I'm not holding my breath.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 April 2004 10:48 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't believe violence is the solution. And yet, all last night and this morning, I've been so angry about this, that I keep thinking, that's it. There's no reason for the Palestinians to negotiate any longer. They might as well just go into full-out war. You don't need to tell me I'm wrong about this - when I think clearly and dispassionately about it, I know I'm wrong, and I am a pacifist. But if this is my gut reaction, I can't imagine what the gut reaction of the Palestinians in the West Bank must be.

Of course, it's in Bush's and Sharon's best interest for there to be as much escalation in the conflict as possible, which is why they consistently do their best to provoke as much violence as possible. Maybe if they're lucky, they'll get the deepest desire of their hearts - full out war in the region. And then everyone loses - except for the far-right leaders who stay in power because the violence they beget scares their populace into clinging to them like a security blanket.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 15 April 2004 11:04 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually the time is now to take up a more agressive armed struggle.

And what form would that take? More suicide bombers? Yeah, that's been really successful so far.

I am really disturbed that some babblers would be seriously considering the option to escalate violence. It completely contradicts all the past agreement I've seen here that the solution is peaceful negotiation. It also makes me wonder about the authenticiy of past condemnation of suicide bombing and mourining of civilian lives, Israeli and Palestinian.

I'm no Sharon-lover by the way, and I fully support the Palestinian cause, but I don't agree with the hogwash of "if we lay down our arms the Bushies will think they have won..." This kind of tit for tat struggle for dominance and power will never lead to a just and equitable end to the conflict. Bush and Sharon gain their power through the use of violence, and extremists on the Palestinian side have a similar addiction. They feed each other in a sickeing symbiotic relationship. If we starve them both of their violent opiate then it will truly be a people's victory.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 15 April 2004 11:05 AM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...But armed resistance is the only means through which the Arab people can maintain their dignity and their rights.

I agree the situation is dire and that the Palestinians deserve a lot better, but as for Arab people maintaining their dignity and their rights, do you really think they'd have much of either under a government led by the likes of the PA or Hamas? When it comes to oppressing Arabs, the governments of Israel and other Arab countries are as much competitors as enemies.

I once spoke with a shop owner in the occupied part of Jerusalem, and we were discussing the eternal troubles of the region. In an unguarded moment, he noted that if by some miracle every Jew vanished from Israel: "The Egyptians would take Gaza, the Saudis would take the Negev, Jordan would take the West Bank, Syria would take the Golan, and we'd still be living in camps under the UN. The only thing that would change is the flags."

The "changing flags" part is interesting; I've heard the same thing from older Irish immigrants on the subject of independence from Britain, although they're living better than the average Brit these days.

I'd say it's dangerous ground for relatively safe, prosperous western progressives to be advocating armed revolt somewhere else - unless they're willing to go there and join it.


From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 April 2004 11:11 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"It completely contradicts all the past agreement I've seen here that the solution is peaceful negotiation."

But Sharon has refused, and refuses, to negotiate. Now, he has been rewarded for not doing so, and has no reason to negotiate. Although I don't like violence, I think the Palestinians have a legitimate right to use armed resistance against the illegal settlements on their land. I do not support the use of suicide bombings inside the Green Line.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 April 2004 11:20 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Although I don't like violence, I think the Palestinians have a legitimate right to use armed resistance against the illegal settlements on their land. I do not support the use of suicide bombings inside the Green Line.

Therein lies the problem with advocating Palestinian violence. The IDF and their supply routes are too well bunkered, armed, equipped, and trained to consider attacking, whether the attack be direct or through ambush. They aren't as easily exposed as the Americans in Iraq. Any army trying to do so would be obliterated. Hamas leadership recognizes this fact, which is why they target civilians, with horrifying results which actually hurt the Palestinian cause. Non-violence is really the only viable solution, both strategically and morally. IMO, of course.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 15 April 2004 11:44 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm going to concur with Scarsmo on this one.

Let me add this observation: This latest news has brought me back to the Mid East forum and to the topic in general. I have exiled myself for some time. Coming back, I am, frankly, a little shocked by the language being used. It is very inflamatory. Then I think: wow, we are thousands of kilometers away from Sharon and the West Bank, and look how inflamatory we are. Just imagine the conversations in Tel Aviv and Gaza. It's no wonder the moderates in Israel and Palestine are shouted down.

Don't read anything more into this post than is there - just a penny worth of words.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 April 2004 11:48 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Nothing shocks me anymore. In fact, I think I've seen enough of "being shocked". Everyone is so filled with moral outrage these days, it's impossible to tell whether it's real or faked. And it does absolutely nothing to move us ahead.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 15 April 2004 12:34 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not "outraged", just surprised. Maybe, a little disappointed. But not outraged. I perfectly understand it, just. . . I don't know.

Anyway. I'm definately Thread Drifting here.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 15 April 2004 12:53 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So the so-called peace crowd shows their true colors...if you dont get your way, up the violence. Sorry cueball, if Palestinains up the violence they will lose. Israel hasn't thrown a fraction of it's might into this fray, but pump up the violence? It will be 1967 all over again, and we know who won that.

As an Israel supporter I am delighted with Bushes decision...more proof that he is truly the right man for the times we live in. It is also proof for the world that terrorism will not work..you try it, you lose.

But I can see things from the Palistinean side as well so I will have to agree with Wingnut. If the Palestians lay down their arms and go the non violent route they will gain much much more. Even I wouldn't support israel if they used heavy tactics against peaceful protesters. Look, the definition of insanity is to expect different results from doing the same thing. Violence and terror has gotten the palestinians nothing..it is time for them to change track.

In the end, it was the terrorism.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 April 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Screw it.

*replonk*

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 15 April 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As an Israel supporter I am delighted with Bushes decision...more proof that he is truly the right man for the times we live in. It is also proof for the world that terrorism will not work..you try it, you lose.

Au contraire. israel has been terrorizing the Palestinian people for a long time and look where it got them.

quote:
But I can see things from the Palistinean side as well so I will have to agree with Wingnut. If the Palestians lay down their arms and go the non violent route they will gain much much more. Even I wouldn't support israel if they used heavy tactics against peaceful protesters. Look, the definition of insanity is to expect different results from doing the same thing. Violence and terror has gotten the palestinians nothing..it is time for them to change track.

In the end, it was the terrorism.


The occupation is terrorism.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 15 April 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Occupation isn't terrorism. It's occupation. We don't need to call it "terrorism" in order to make it horrible - occupation IS horrible.
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 15 April 2004 01:17 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would say some of the actions that have taken place under the guise of occupation would be called terrorism anywhere else. Many disgusting things have taken place at the checkpoints.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 15 April 2004 01:23 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know..like smugggling weapons in ambulances, people blowing themselves up harming Jews and Palestineans, women pretending to be pregnant while carrying bomb belts...It's a good thing the checkpoints catch these thugs in the act!
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 15 April 2004 01:33 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Split the difference and call it Israeli state terrorism. Helicopter gunships firing missiles at old men in wheelchairs is madness...whatever he may have "ordered." It's like adding more combustibles to an already raging inferno.

Seems to me that the Iraqi "quagmire" is now connected with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush & Co. have successfully regionalized the I-P conflict to include Iraq. The whole damn thing could just turn into a generalized regional war. If anyone thinks they can control such events or predict where the next "explosion" will take place then they're just nuts. You could wind up with aircraft flying into the World Trade Centre...if it was still there. That's the problem with the "might is right" approach, or the approach that the other guys just need to be beat into submission.

As William Shirer noted in his magnus opus:

quote:
In our new age of terrifying, lethal gadgets, which supplanted so swiftly the old one, the first great aggressive war, if it should come, will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button. Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it. There will be no conquerers and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on an uninhabited planet.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 April 2004 01:33 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let us be clear about what happened yesterday: The US government has openly declared war against the Palestinian people. This is no longer a matter of US-Israel 'special relations'. This is not just funding. This is open and unapologetic support for Eretz Israel. It is a sop to the Christian Right in America (just in time for the elections). Under no conditions anymore can any reasonable commentator speak about the US (with regards to the ME) as anything other than an ally in Israel's occupation of Palestine.

They have changed the rules. Groups that eschewed attacking US positions or citizens in the past will be re-thinking that strategy; and I do not think they will wait long to act. America has, to put it dramatically, opened the gates to Hell.

Our question must be: How do we react? How does a moral, anti-occupation, anti-imperialist movement confront this new (but old) reality?

I cannot agree with Cueball that an increase in armed struggle will be of any use. I recently started a thread entitled On the Importance of Non-Violent Resistance, and if anything I think this most recent frontal attack against the Palestinian right to self-determination strengthens my argument. At the same time, I believe it strengthens my argument (ala Wingnut and others) that the two-state solution is finished. There is no world within which the two-state solution can function and the Settlements remain in the West Bank.

We are fighting then an anti-apartheid struggle. It is time to reclaim and stand strongly on the principles of humanist decenency and equality. One state. One set of laws for all. Freedom and justice for all the people of Israel and Palestine under a single, secular, democratic government. This latest gambit has clarified the game. Let us take on our responsibilities.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
scribblet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4706

posted 15 April 2004 01:41 PM      Profile for scribblet        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Scriblett, what you're calling for is surrender and capitulation. That's not what I was referring to. And citing a Moonie Times article doesn't aid your position.

I don't know what a 'moonie' Times is, but just because you might think the source isn't left wing enough, it doesn't change the message.

Swearing by some posters doesn't add to the topic either, and is never justifed.

In fact, I would say that tolerance which is supposedly promoted here, has become extreme intolerance towards Israel, and anyone who disagrees with the PLO and violence.

Israel will give up defending itself when the terrorists give up attacking them.

The Palestinian Authority has invited Hamas into its government, now there's an enlightened act towards peace.

--------------------------------------------
There will only be peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate Israel.
Golda Meir


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

posted 15 April 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well-said T.L. I also agree that this is a big step in finishing off the two-state solution. In the end, this action may do more to create a single state than anything else, although Sharon is to blinded by his lust for blood and hatred of Arabs to see it. That is the irony. The conflict will never be resolved on the basis of what was agreed to yesterday. The longer the right stays in power in Israel, the more and more likely it becomes that the conflict will be resolved by way of a single state.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 April 2004 01:50 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scribblet:

I don't know what a 'moonie' Times is, but just because you might think the source isn't left wing enough, it doesn't change the message.

Swearing by some posters doesn't add to the topic either, and is never justifed.

In fact, I would say that tolerance which is supposedly promoted here, has become extreme intolerance towards Israel, and anyone who disagrees with the PLO and violence.

Israel will give up defending itself when the terrorists give up attacking them.

The Palestinian Authority has invited Hamas into its government, now there's an enlightened act towards peace.

--------------------------------------------
There will only be peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate Israel.
Golda Meir



The Washington Times is owned by the cultist Sun Yung Moon.

Was that the same Golda Meir who said that there was no such thing as Palestinians?

The Israeli government has parties and cabinet members who openly advocate ethnic cleansing in the west bank. That apparently doesn't bother you.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 15 April 2004 01:51 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find it funny how every move taken in defense against terror is seen as "enraging" the terrorists. It doesn't take much to get those people angry..look at Spain, they are still getting threatened even though they have competely bent over to the terrorists.

And you know what? Maybe the terrorists need to fear "enraging" America and Israel. Maybe a little fear will get them to smarten up and put down their arms.

Only losers worry about what their enemy will do to them...think of the kid being bullied "oooh If I defend myself and hit him he will hit me back!". This mentality gives the intiative to the bully and has the victim reacting to tthe bullies actions, letting the bully dictate the course of action.

The winner focusus on what he will do to beat his enemy. Which is why I love Bush..he said he will liberate Afagnistan despite all the warnings and did it. He said he will liberate Iraq and did it. Which is probably why the spineless despise him.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 April 2004 02:01 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I find it funny you would have the chutzpah to post something as vacuous as that, O. Bravo. You certainly are the robust type we need to fight the evil-doers. When will you be shipping out?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 15 April 2004 02:03 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your "bully" metaphor leads unfortunately to the easy conclusion that Bush IS the bully. So watch your metaphors.
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 15 April 2004 02:04 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An Iraqi strategy of making the occupation "ungovernable" seems to me to be a wise approach. And it looks very much like that is exactly what they are doing...innocents getting killed in the crossfire notwithstanding.

If the Americans need to have another shit-kicking, if piles and piles of honoured war dead is what it takes for that country to learn the same lesson that they learned in Viet Nam then that is what it will take. The opposition to the war in Iraq however, its relative speed of development compared to the development of the opposition to the war in Viet Nam, suggests to me that they are going to leave Iraq a lot quicker than they left Viet Nam.

Almost eight hundred years ago, a red-bearded invader from the east attacked the kingdom of Khorezm and left piles of mangled corpses behind him. The ancient inhabitants of Iraq survived the invasion of this red-bearded invader...Jenghiz Khan. They will survive this new barbarian invasion.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
DownTheRoad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4523

posted 15 April 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for DownTheRoad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok conspiracy theorists, don't you find the timing of all this rather interesting? You have Mubarak's and Sharon's visit to the US this past week, Abdullah arriving in a day or two, and Bush's dramatic announcment with barely a peep of protest from Mubarak and Abudullah?

Gaza and pockets of the West Bank would not be a viable state, but could be viable as territories administered either directly or indirectly by Egypt and Jordan. Has a secret deal been cut?

quote:
Originally posted by praenomen3:
I once spoke with a shop owner in the occupied part of Jerusalem, and we were discussing the eternal troubles of the region. In an unguarded moment, he noted that if by some miracle every Jew vanished from Israel: "The Egyptians would take Gaza, the Saudis would take the Negev, Jordan would take the West Bank, Syria would take the Golan, and we'd still be living in camps under the UN. The only thing that would change is the flags."


From: land of cotton | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 April 2004 02:13 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This latest news has brought me back to the Mid East forum and to the topic in general. I have exiled myself for some time.

Wei-chi: This thread was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise putrid forum. We were having a very fruitful and civil discussion on the merits of violent resistance (or lack of merits, really). Until the troll known as o showed up. Then it turned back into the usual cesspit of insults and non-discussion. Mission accomplished for the Likudnik, I suppose.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 April 2004 02:17 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sacrasombi:

I am trying a new tactic of ignoring the trolls and not engaging in tit for tat. Love it if you joined me.

Seriously. They can get annoying as hell, but this topic is too important to be derailed by some Likudnik with a Bush fetish.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 April 2004 02:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or, people could ignore him.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 April 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
That never works. That never, never works!!!...

...Ok, I'll try.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 April 2004 02:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now Hinterland, honey. Calm down, darling, I haven't seen you this upset since my mother gave us the harvest gold fondue pot.

(See, as moderator, I can engage in thread drift with impunity! Mwa ha ha! Okay, back to your regularly scheduled thread.)

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 15 April 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
drifting Actually, Sacasmo, while I think some great discussion was taking place, I was also referring to some early comments by Michelle:

quote:
Sharon is a thieving, double-crossing bastard, and those who support his policies are racist assholes.

Now, I'm not saying I support Sharon or his policies, but I feel this is a good example to which I was referring. Nothing personal Michelle, just using your comments as an example. But, like I said, I've been out of this forum for some time.

I'm not sure why we have to give up on the 2-state solution. Won't it be that much more difficult to obtain now? I figured the 2-state was the best option as it gave something to both sides' extremists: a state of their own to play with. Isn't Sharon essentially going to force a state unilaterally ( a much shrunken state) onto Palestinians?


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

posted 15 April 2004 02:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No personal offense taken, wei-chi. Different people have different comfort levels with swear words. I don't think of swearing as something that should be verboten out of hand. I find it handy, when expressing extreme opinions or emotions, to use extreme words sometimes. To me, they're like any other words, with appropriate and inappropriate uses.

I didn't just say he was a thieving, double-crossing bastard because I was just picking "bad words" out of the air. On behalf of Israel, he steals land that does not belong to him and occupies it; I also believe that he is a double-crossing bastard because he lies about his motives to the Israeli people, claiming he wants peace while politically benefitting from the escalation of violence.

I also stand by my assertion that people who support Sharon's policies of racism, ethnic cleansing and provocation and killing are racist assholes.

True, I did not mean "bastard" and "asshole" literally. They are strong epithets that express my opinion. It would be completely inadequate for me to describe how I feel about Sharon and his supporters in weaker terms.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


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

posted 15 April 2004 02:43 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"I'm not sure why we have to give up on the 2-state solution. Won't it be that much more difficult to obtain now? I figured the 2-state was the best option as it gave something to both sides' extremists: a state of their own to play with. Isn't Sharon essentially going to force a state unilaterally ( a much shrunken state) onto Palestinians?"

How is he going to do that? By naming the Palestinian leadership? The Palestinians will never agree to that, nor should they. The only way a two-state solution is possibly viable is if the illegal settlements are dismantled. If that won't happen, such a solution becomes impossible.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 April 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've sometimes wondered, in the past, why the Palestinians have not tried nonviolent techniques à la Gandhi. It's not like Gandhi was obscure, and there are quite a number of educated Palestinians. (Incidentally, even the ANC in South Africa did engage in violent techniques, and promised to make the "black townships ungovernable", if I remember what I read correctly.)

However, while I may not like violence, it is understandable why the first reaction to occupation is violence - after all, it's a human instinct to react in mirror fashion: If you hit me, I will hit you back. If you hug me, I'll hug you back.

It actually takes an effort to mentally switch gears and do the opposite of what your instincts tell you, and what your social conditioning tells you. I think nonviolent resistance among Palestinians will grow; I recall seeing reports of other leaders endorsing this method.

Israel is clearly embodying the definition of stupidity (as have the Palestinians, but anyway...): If what you've just done doesn't work, keep doing it in the hopes that it will work.

If I did that when I was fixing computers, I still wouldn't have a working one today. If a network card doesn't work, continuing to use it hoping it will work is the definition of stupidity. The smart thing is to replace the damn thing! (Or upgrade the drivers, but if that doesn't work then replace it )

The Israeli government (or Hamas) is like the guy who keeps obsessively reinstalling Windows on a computer which has a warped motherboard and hoping that an unrelated solution to an unrelated problem will work the next time they try it. (In case you're wondering, warped motherboards tend to get stressed electrical connections, and often their slots don't fit the cards right anymore, so component failures can appear to be entirely random and might be thought to be dodgy software)

But I guess for o (Hey, I thought you were going to flounce out of here) and scribblet, it's just easier to keep doing the same damn thing even if it's not working, because at least impressive explosions and dead bodies are seen.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 15 April 2004 02:54 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I'll play: HYPOTHETICALLY - he finishes the wall, annexes everything on his side, withdraws all forces from the 'new' West Bank, and recognizes Palestine as a state. I suppose he could also recognize a certain leader, but in the end it wouldn't matter. I think what I'm talking about is the often used strategy by prison guards in a riot scenario - they just lock them up (behind a wall) and let them do whatever they want. Sure, it'd be messy, but isn't that the ultimate conclusion to his "disengagement" policy?
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 April 2004 03:02 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean the Palestinians have to accept it. Nor, other than maybe the U.S., will anyone else in the rest of the world recognize it.

As for Dr. Conway's point about non-violent resistance, I am willing to be proven wrong, but I don't see much of a tradition of that in the Arab world. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, I am all in favour of it, but an explanation of why it hasn't, and why it's not likely, to be tried.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 15 April 2004 03:04 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scribblet, what about Israeli mothers who raise their children to shoot Palestinian children -- to demolish Palestinian homes, terrorize Palestinian families? Why isn't your moral lecture directed at them? Could it be a racist double-standard on your part?

You say the Palestinian Authority has invited Hamas into the government. Israel co-founded Hamas, so that its radicalism would subvert the PLO's claim to legitimacy. Should Ariel Sharon drop a bomb on his own house for supporting terrorism? Why not? Could it be that for you, anything goes, if Israel is doing it?

One of your problems is your analysis, if I can call it that, lacks all sense of history, of how we got to this point, and what and whose motives are being served.

You talk about Israel's right to defense. By your logic then, you should agree the Palestinians have a right to defense -- as it is guaranteed them by international law, namely, the right to resist occupation by a foreign power? Or does only one side have the right to use violence -- the side you favour? The real point is, OCCUPATION is NOT defense. It is OFFENSE. It is VIOLENCE, and it has been going on since 1967. Expropriating people's land, demolishing their houses, colonizing their territory is NOT defense. It is OFFENSE, and a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Denying people democratic rights, and the right to self-determination, restricting their movements, racially categorizing them is NOT defense. It is OPPRESSION and an egregious violation of basic human rights. But you don't see this. Why? Might it be racism on your part, the refusal to recognize Palestinians as human beings like yourself, the refusal to feel empathy at their plight?

You defend Israel's "right" to prosecute any manner of violence it wishes -- the wishes of a democratically elected government, to be sure. Yet some of your allies at the same time constantly point to the Palestinians' lack of democracy -- how did THAT happen, I wonder? -- and try to hold all Palestinians responsible for every suicide bombing. If you claim there is a lack of democracy, then the only basis for blaming all Palestinians and saying they deserve what they get is a racialized notion of responsibility, and a vicious, cruel notion of punishment. If that's what you believe in, could it be because of racism?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 15 April 2004 03:06 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok losers, if offering an opposite point of view is trolling, then you can ban me now Michelle and go on with your agree-a-thon. Screw you all, (except for the pro-israel people out there...keep up the fight) and keep on enjoying being part of a dying, irrelevant movement while the world continues to go my way! It's been fun, but I am out of here! LONG LIVE ISRAEL!!!! BUSH IN 2004!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 April 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The Story of O: A Troll Goes Insane."
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 15 April 2004 03:09 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I love a good flounce. That was not a good flounce.

Oh well, good riddance to bad garbage.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 15 April 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cleanup on brainsplat in aisle four, cleanup on brainsplat in aisle four.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 April 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Okay, I'll play: HYPOTHETICALLY - he finishes the wall, annexes everything on his side, withdraws all forces from the 'new' West Bank, and recognizes Palestine as a state. I suppose he could also recognize a certain leader, but in the end it wouldn't matter. I think what I'm talking about is the often used strategy by prison guards in a riot scenario - they just lock them up (behind a wall) and let them do whatever they want. Sure, it'd be messy, but isn't that the ultimate conclusion to his "disengagement" policy?

I don't think that would be the conclusion. The Likudniks want Eretz Israel, which means everything from the ocean to the banks of the Jordan. Claiming Jerusalem and the current list of settlements (some of which cut deeply into the West Bank) is simply one step towards that goal. The IDF would likely not disengage from the West Bank, under the claim that Israelis within the settlements need a safe 'buffer zone' to be secure. The continued IDF presence would be accompanied by atrocities on both sides. This would eventually feed the Likudnik's call to expand settlements further into the West Bank (beyond the wall). It would be the same old shit, just with Gaza removed from the equation. I just don't see anything changing with this 'solution'.

The sad thing is that a secular, equal one-state solution would satisfy Zionist desires. Jews would be able to live in security throughout Eretz Israel, as would Arabs. Right-wing extremists on both sides fail to realize this, though, focussed as they are on irrational hatred.

Edited to add: If trolls could read, they'd see that we _are_ disagreeing here. Silly buggers.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 15 April 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
Good grief. I hope you're feeling better o.

You talk about the Israel-Palestine problem as if it was a hockey game where it's your team against the other team, which is probably why other rabblers could never seem to have an actual discussion about it with you. Bless them for trying...

Anyways, good luck, and good riddance.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 April 2004 03:14 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, really. If we hadn't been admonished by some goody-goody moderator to ignore him, we could have worked O into giving us the flounce to end all flounces. As it is, all we got was the latest communications strategy from the RNC.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 April 2004 03:19 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The sad thing is that a secular, equal one-state solution would satisfy Zionist desires. Jews would be able to live in security throughout Eretz Israel, as would Arabs."

I have tried to make this point over and over again as one of the benefits of a one-state solution.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 15 April 2004 03:22 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I advocate a secular one-state solution with equal democratic rights for all as the ideal. As the achievable, a two-state solution may be the best we can hope for.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 15 April 2004 04:14 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DownTheRoad:
...Gaza and pockets of the West Bank would not be a viable state, but could be viable as territories administered either directly or indirectly by Egypt and Jordan. Has a secret deal been cut?

I don't know about Egypt and Gaza, but I do know that Jordan's had quite enough of Yasser and the PA. A lot of bad blood there. I don't see Jordan doing anything with the West Bank until Yasser's been dealt with - unless that's part of the deal.


From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 15 April 2004 04:18 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A number of people have suggested that Palestinian violence is counterproductive, relative to nonviolent resistance. Frankly, it seems to me that the nonviolence argument has been presented in a pretty facile way.
While in this thread a while ago I suggested some possible nonviolent resistance tactics that could perhaps overcome some of the obstacles, as did some other people, there are obstacles and they are major.

Effective nonviolent resistance tends to require one of two things:
1) Tremendously large gatherings of people. Or,
2) Economic sabotage, through blockades, refusals to work etc.

On (1), Palestinians can't do really large gatherings because Israel keeps the West bank divvied up with masses of checkpoints and won't let people through.
They did do some sizable demonstrations against the Wall, though. People got shot at them. I didn't notice a single fucking mainstream headline about them.
On (2), the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, while in many ways colonial, is not primarily economic like most colonial occupations such as India; if anything it's undermining the Israeli economy. There's nothing the Palestinians can stop from working that the Israelis give a shit about. Hell, the Israelis blew up most of it themselves.

There may be tactics. I have suggested a couple in the nonviolence thread. But it's pretty easy for us to sit on our butts here in Canada and say vaguely "They should be doing nonviolent resistance". We're not going to be there, getting shot for doing that nonviolent resistance. We're not going to be suffering when ill-conceived nonviolent resistance is violently put down and never makes a single headline in the first world. Or in Israel, most likely.

So if you want to advocate nonviolent resistance, I think you need to do more than say "wasn't Gandhi wonderful". You need to put forward some kind of at least plausible nonviolent resistance program which would have an effect. Just saying "Nonviolent resistance would be more effective" is handwaving; it is, frankly, softheaded armchair leftism and the Palestinians can't afford it. Show me--show them--a nonviolent resistance program that *would be* more effective.

Finally, the violent resistance is having an effect. It hasn't worked yet, but it is doing much more than strengthening Likud (not that Labour ever made anything better). For instance, it is sapping Israel's economy to the point where even massive US subsidies aren't making up for it any more. And Israelis seem to be getting tired of the danger. Opinions are shifting. Eventually, if they continue to struggle violently, and especially if the US begins to suffer exhaustions of its own and reduces material support, they may well simply kick Israel out like Vietnam kicked the US out.

Ultimately, the PR issue is secondary. Public opinion in many parts of the world has already swung against Israel, but nobody can do much about it while they're under the US umbrella, and the US umbrella will be impervious to world public opinion. US public opinion will never, ever hear about nonviolent resistance by Palestinians.

And of course, since there is going to be *some* violent resistance from the hopeless and the vengeful--enough for Israel to use to "justify" whatever "retaliation" they need to keep grabbing land, it could certainly be argued that they might as well go all out and make that violent resistance as effective as possible.

Finally, for those of you who only support nonviolent resistance--do you only support nonviolent resistance in Iraq? If you support violent resistance in Iraq, why is that different?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 April 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well then maybe what is needed is a more intelligent use of violence, as preverse as that may sound. Aside from the obvious moral considerations, I fail to see what purpose suicide bombings against civilians inside the green line serve. They alienate world opinion and harden Israeli opinion. I realize that conventional warfare is not an option for the Palestinians and that the settlements are heavily fortified. But there must be other avenues of attack the Palestinians can use in the west bank and gaza, or even military targets inside the green line.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 April 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rufus:

You ask good questions. Let me start with the last of them.

quote:
Finally, for those of you who only support nonviolent resistance--do you only support nonviolent resistance in Iraq? If you support violent resistance in Iraq, why is that different?
In the little thread I started, alluded to earlier, I made it clear that I am not a pacifist. I even used the culturally appropriate examples of Iraq and Algeria wherein violent resistance was more than justified. Let us get into the difference between Iraq and Palestine.

A very good case can be made by the Iraqi resistance that nearly all foreign workers in Iraq are de facto collaborators with the occupation; yes, even humanitarian workers. Their goal, and it seems to be working, is to make Iraq ungovernable as a colonial entity. I might prefer non-violence, and may have my reservations about some of the figures being thrown out as leaders, but any objections to the specific targetting of the occupying power is facile at best.

Palestine is a very different ball-game. Whereas Iraq is an almost purely economic-military occupation, Palestine is territorial. It is a struggle over who gets to live where. Because of the Israeli proximity to the land they occupy, their civilians have been thrown into the mix. As I have suggested in another thread, the martyrdom missions have severely damaged the international perception of the Palestinian cause. These are horrific acts without justification. I would have no problem with a Palestinian resistance which focused its attacks within Occupied Palestine and against military instillations and even, though it is a tough call, the settlements. This is not the case. My call for non-violence is a call to recognize the damage suicide bombings have done to the Palestinian cause, and in particular if one thinks as I do that the only hope for a lasting peace is a one-state solution.

quote:
There may be tactics. I have suggested a couple in the nonviolence thread. But it's pretty easy for us to sit on our butts here in Canada and say vaguely "They should be doing nonviolent resistance". We're not going to be there, getting shot for doing that nonviolent resistance. We're not going to be suffering when ill-conceived nonviolent resistance is violently put down and never makes a single headline in the first world. Or in Israel, most likely.
Not to get uppity, but you are not being fair here. I, for example, have been to Palestine with the ISM, where I was arrested and deported by the IOF for my involvement in non-violent resistance. Some of us believe, Palestinian and Western alike, that non-violence makes the most sense in a situation where the gross power imbalance makes armed violence a fool's game.
quote:
Effective nonviolent resistance tends to require one of two things:
1) Tremendously large gatherings of people. Or,
2) Economic sabotage, through blockades, refusals to work etc.
I can think of a few things, like blocking roads into and out of the settlements.

Wei-Chi:

You do not seem to understand that this plan means that the occupation can never end. There can be no two-state solution so long as the settlements exist, no Palestinian will ever accept the theft of their land (particularly when they are denied the Right of Return). Should a two-state solution be imposed, part if it would have to include security arrangements guaranteeing an Israeli prescence in the West Bank, restricting the right of movement of Palestinians. Occupation. This is not a solution to the problem, this is an aggravation.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 15 April 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sarcasmobri said:
quote:
The sad thing is that a secular, equal one-state solution would satisfy Zionist desires. Jews would be able to live in security throughout Eretz Israel, as would Arabs. Right-wing extremists on both sides fail to realize this, though, focussed as they are on irrational hatred.

Really? Can you name any Zionist who agrees with that?

Isn't the whole point of Zionism is for Jews to have a homeland where they are in the majoirty, which would mean no one would be able to trample on their rights or outlaw their strategies to ensure the protection of Jewsih culture and religion? As much as I can see the wisdom in a democratic secular one state solution, the Zionists I know consider it an anathema because the demographic trends would make the Jewsih population a minority in no time flat. They see that situation as no safer than the situation that Jews were before the Holocaust, as a significan minority in parts of Europe.

Edited to add: I love the new troll ignoring technique - let's call it babble's non-violence resitance campaign! Also, I apologize for my sometimes naive questions and comments, I mean them sincerely, not antagonistically. (I'm not making any sense, am I?)

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 15 April 2004 05:57 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Huh? I wasn't banned..oh well.

Coyote said "My call for non-violence is a call to recognize the damage suicide bombings have done to the Palestinian cause,"

No mention of the damage done to human life. Nice logic! So it is Ok to kill Jews as long as it benifits your cause. you would have made a great Nazi.

All of this talk about stepping up the violence will get the Palestinians nowhere. ..now if any of you tough guys would like to travel to israel and play chicken with a tank or bulldozer like someone else who I won't name to inspire the troops, be my guest.

[Edited by Michelle to change Coyote's real name to his alias.]

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 April 2004 06:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Calling other babblers Nazis is against babble policy. Maybe you should take a breather from the Middle East forum for a while.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 15 April 2004 06:15 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have been trying to get banned! Feel free to disconnect me lest I insult again!
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 April 2004 06:26 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle:

My skin is thick. I have been called a nazi by people carrying uzis. One more troll isn't going to hurt me. Particularly when he ignores this:

quote:
I have suggested in another thread, the martyrdom missions have severely damaged the international perception of the Palestinian cause. These are horrific acts without justification.
I suggest we go back to simply ignoring him. If he is to be booted, he will be booted. Let us no longer allow him to derail our conversation. Agreed?

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 15 April 2004 06:30 PM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Scribblet, what about Israeli mothers who raise their children to shoot Palestinian children

Excellent investigative reporting, there, rasmus raven.

I wonder why no Israeli newspaper publishes photos of these children and their proud mothers, the way they so readily publish those of Palestinian mothers. If nothing else, it would add some balance and credibility to their reports.

But that's the nature of Israeli media . . . publish only all that's fit to incite hatred towards Palestinians. And to hell with truth.

How naive of them. Little do they realize that they can fool their readers, but cannot get by the more rational shitsniffers of Canada. Fucktwits, as rasmus raven would say.


From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 April 2004 07:08 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I stopped reading here:
quote:
Okay, I'll play: HYPOTHETICALLY - he finishes the wall, annexes everything on his side, withdraws all forces from the 'new' West Bank, and recognizes Palestine as a state. I suppose he could also recognize a certain leader, but in the end it wouldn't matter. I think what I'm talking about is the often used strategy by prison guards in a riot scenario - they just lock them up (behind a wall) and let them do whatever they want. Sure, it'd be messy, but isn't that the ultimate conclusion to his "disengagement" policy?

So I apologize if this has been covered.

Wei, it has been tried. In South Africa, they called them Bantus. The states were recognized by no one but South Africa and were states in name only.

Sharon has the smae plan for what is left of the West Bank and Gaza, I am sure.

But if the world and Palestinians refuse to recognize these Bantus, then the lie of Israel's Apartheid is betrayed.

But I want to make it clear there must be two distinct and complimentary parts to this strategy: 1) Is non-violent resistance by Palestinians and 2) is a World Wide particiapation in education of the issues and cultural and economic boycotts of Israel.

The other day I noticed oranges from Israel at an A&P. I chose not to buy them. The next step would be to convince A&P not to carry them which might include leafletting their customers.

Look, it is very simple. Everyone, even o, apparently, is sensitive to human rights and the human struggle for dignity and self-determination. But the propaganda war is lost everytime a sucide belt is detonated around some young person's body.

If people see Palestinians as terrorists which is the way Bush and Sharon wants the world to see each and every Palestinian, then they will forever be under the heel of oppression.

But if people see others, like us, like themselves, protesting for what we take for granted, a voice, justice, equality and democracy, then they will be willing to make the small decisions, such as not buying Israeli oranges, that will make all the difference.

This can be done. We know it can be done. I swear to you this sort of discussion scares the hell out Bush, Sharon and their supporters than any number of new martyrs arising from the refugee camps.

I say they have killed, finally, the two state solution and it is now time to embrace the single, democratic, pluralistic and secular state with constitutional guarantees of religious and minority rights and joint protection and respect of religious sites.

Violence cannot and will not work and will only perpetuate the suffering of Palestinians. It is time to offer them hope through peace and peaceful resistance.

"If we starve them both of their violent opiate then it will truly be a people's victory."
--Sara Mayo.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


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

posted 15 April 2004 08:09 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sara:

I know of many Jews who support a one state solution...I'm not sure of how many are Zionists, however. Weren't the early kibbutzes, while separate communities, partners with their Arab neighbours?

Anyway, my inability to appeal to authority doesn't invalidate the logic of a one state solution.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 15 April 2004 09:24 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To deny the Jewish need for a safe haven after a millenium of a world trying its damnest to annihalate them is more than insensitive.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 April 2004 09:47 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no safety in separation. In fact, in the last 2000 years it is segregation that has led to Jewish persecution. There is only security in a secular, pluralistic society, and world, that recognizes equal rights under law.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 April 2004 09:55 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, since you can't read:

The sad thing is that a secular, equal one-state solution would satisfy Zionist desires. Jews would be able to live in security throughout Eretz Israel, as would Arabs. Right-wing extremists on both sides fail to realize this, though, focussed as they are on irrational hatred.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 April 2004 10:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of Anihilation. I think the point that is being missed is that Sharon represents a continuum of Israel thought that seeks not only minor territorial concessions from Palestinians in the WB, but in fact completely annexation. This process has gone on wether or not there has been violent resistance by the victims of Israeli expansionism.

I has been shown statistically that violence by Palestinians, or the lack thereof, has little connection to the rapacious program of territorial concessions demanded by Israel. In fact if there is a relationship it is the inverse of the hoped for response -- reduction of violence leads to increased settlement, not the opposite. This process has been going on since 1948, and in each case Israel has taken a little bit more, and expelled a few more of the indiginous inhabitants. To deny this is to be intelectually dishonest.

War is what Sharon and the continuum that both Bush and Sharon represent understand.
Even the treaty with Egypt was only won by the Arabs by force after it proved its metal against Israel in open war.

It is a mistake to not look at the history and see that Sharon's wall, and the lack of commitment by Israel to recognition of any international boundries, even today, means that there is every likelyhood that expansion will someday continue beyond the wall being constructed today. If history is to any indicator we can be sure that expansion will continue beyond the wall at a future date.

Therefore it is absurd to suggest that Palestinians should believe that this is the end of the Israeli campaign to destroy them culturally, politcally and if necessary physically. Under such circumstances it is just as absurd to suggest they should go meakly toward anihilation. It better for them to stand where they are rather then to suffer the long and excruciating program of genocide that is being forced upon them, over the decades.

The next step will be the expulsion of those Arabs living on the west side of the wall to the east, and when there is further violence in the region, eventual expulsion of a large number of Palestinians to the other side of the eastern wall that borders Jordan -- in order to solve the "demographic" problem. One asks why does this eastern wall exist, except as a future barrier to prevent expelled Palestinians from returning to the West Bank?

The insertion of Israeli settlers and the IOF into Hebron is an example of this process in motion today.

Were there any example of a sincere attempt by Israel to recognize international law, either in the manner in which it fights, or comply with any of the various treaties it has signed with the Arabs since 1948, I might find myself opposing the campaign of suicide/vicitm bombing for instance, but Israel has not.

For instance if Israel were to announce and end to punative random assassination by Apache helicopter in exchange for a halt to suicide/victim attacks I would suggest an end to the suicide/vicitm bombing campaign. But even in this, when Hamas has suggested that such might be possible, Sharon and his clique has continued its attacks in the WB and Gaza strip, and restartd the tit for tat retaliations.

When there was at least the hope of negotiated settlement, as per Oslo, it seemed logical to oppose the means that palestinians used to resist but Sharon and Bush have just ended that possibility. In the light of all of these facts I assert that it is are job on the left not to moralize about the means that Palestinians resist Israel, but to support them in their rightful territorial claims, however they choose to achieve them, indivdually or as organizations.

[Edited because I finally remembered how to spell campaign.]

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 April 2004 10:35 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Speaking of Anihilation. I think the point that is being missed is that Sharon represents a continuum of Israel thought that seeks not only minor territorial concessions from Palestinians in the WB, but in fact completely annexation. This process has gone on wether or not there has been violent resistance by the victims of Israeli expansionism.

But that would be my point, cueball, that Sharon and Bush plan for no Palestinian state. So why do Palestinians when there is a perfectly good Israeli state from the Jordan river to the sea?

quote:
War is what Sharon and the continuum that both Bush and Sharon represent understand.

That would be my second point. As much as I oppose violence in any case, in this case in particular it must be clear to even the least interested of observers that Israel and the U.S. are willing and able to surpass any violence perpetuated by Palestinians, in the name of resistance or a homeland or whatever, by leaps and bounds. There is no competition.

So, if Sharon and Bush want violence, if that is what they really want, and I agree it is, why play their game? And it is their game. They set the rules and call the play.

quote:
In the light of all of these facts I assert that it is are job on the left not to moralize about the means that Palestinians resist Israel, but to support them in their rightful territorial claims, however they choose to achieve them, indivdually or as organizations.

I don't think I have been moralizing in this case. I think I have been strategizing. But if I were to moralize I might argue it is our duty to point out when a strategy has failed and offer alternatives for an eventual victory. And in my humble opinion, freedom for Palestinians will only come when they disown violence and embrace both peaceful resistance and a singular, democratic state. That is what they want, isn't it?

What that state is called should be less important than the guarantee of their human rights, property, and security.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 April 2004 10:38 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To deny the Jewish need for a safe haven after a millenium of a world trying its damnest to annihalate them is more than insensitive.

Thank you for joining this discussion, Macabee. Who is arguing any of the above?

Certainly an Israel that guarantees minority and religious rights would be a safe haven for its founders. The best defense for freedom, macabee, is more freedom.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 April 2004 10:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But that would be my point, cueball, that Sharon and Bush plan for no Palestinian state. So why do Palestinians when there is a perfectly good Israeli state from the Jordan river to the sea?

Becasue they are going to be expelled in order to solve the "demographic" problem.

quote:
I don't think I have been moralizing in this case. I

K, I stand corrected. I think the stategy is incorrect.

[ 15 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 April 2004 11:34 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
To deny the Jewish need for a safe haven after a millenium of a world trying its damnest to annihalate them is more than insensitive.

Oh, for chrissakes.

You repeat this over and over and over and over like a holy fucking mantra.

For probably not the last time, get it through your obtuse head that nobody here in this message-board wants to take away the Jewish homeland or anything of that sort. In fact, as a nationalist I defend the right of national sovereignty, and the ability of a nation-state to constitute itself as it pleases within its own borders (with the exception that violating human rights is not a valid expression of national authority).

Even those internationalists who are extant believe that a removal of national borders would not stop Jews from choosing to live in Israel, or rather, what would once be Israel. It would simply not have a government. Presumably none of the Arabic nations would then have governments either, and all authority would rise to the United Nations or some other supranational body.

And excuse me, but "the whole world" has not been "trying its damnedest" to "get rid of Jews". May I point out, for example, that Aboriginal nations of North and South America didn't know the first thing about Jewish people and probably didn't care either?

Neither, for that matter, did many Africans, as far as I know, particularly care or give a hoot about Jewish people. Nor the Chinese or the Japanese.

In short, while parts of the world's peoples have certainly been enthusiastically attempting to get rid of Jews, it is an exaggeration to say "the whole world". It implies a collective guilt that does not exist. Certainly, Aboriginal populations are already rebelling against this, as evidenced by a babbler's post here and the Ahenakew case; they have, as they see it, legitimate reasons to decry the disproportionate attention given to the siege mentality extant among some pro-Israeli people, and the disproportionate lack of serious attention given to the existing structural discrimination against Aboriginals today.

Furthermore, although you and others continue to deny it, during the time when Catholicism was dominating Europe and demanding that Jews convert or be branded heretics, by relative standards the Muslim-dominated nations in the East treated Jewish people better.

In short, my case is that you are obscuring the fact that there have been times and places even in ancient history that Jewish people have been accorded, if not fully equal status, certainly a protection against the mass hysteria wrought by people seeking an enemy for political gain (that is to say, Popes looking for a way to cement domination over their flock).

The French, for example, abandoned the notion of counting religious affiliation on censuses for decades before World War II. Even Mussolini, before he got suckered by Hitler, used to brag about how un-anti-Semitic the Italians were, being that there had been functioning Jewish communities in Italy for a thousand years prior.

My basic point is that the assumption that there is a "latent" desire to vanquish the Jewish peoples from this planet, and this embedding of this fear into the siege mentality that some Israelis engage in, is at odds with the fact that at least in the Western world there is no longer any organized desire in the mainstream to do anything but live and let live.

I am but one example of this tendency. While I am not a fan of organized religion, I do not mind one bit how other people choose to live their lives. Why should it matter to me if the upstairs neighbor worships the Great Potato Chip in the sky, or Yahweh, or whoever?

I think you will find that once Arabic leaders stop playing their populations for suckers by inflaming artificial divisions of religion, you will find that there is no more desire to "drive the Jews into the sea" among the majority of Arabs or Muslims than there are today among the majority of Christians or atheists.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 16 April 2004 12:29 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good point, WingNut, about the Bantus. Except, that Israel might be able to get the US (at least under a Bush-like govt) to recognize the Palestinian State(s).

Yeah, I still don't think the one-state solution is likely. Too many extremists on both sides. The status quo will continue, the West Bank will continue to shrink, and...well, I'll be dead long before anything changes.

I think this is why I left the forum, I had no more hope.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 April 2004 12:35 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Good point, WingNut, about the Bantus. Except, that Israel might be able to get the US (at least under a Bush-like govt) to recognize the Palestinian State(s).

we went through this in the last war against Iraq. The Palestinians were offered all kinds of vague promises in return for recognition. Once the Arab world agreed and took it up the ass, the issue was forgotten. Just as it will be now. The same thing happened when the convinced Egypt to sign a peace treaty. Yadda yadda, we'll be good... no solution... more settlement... look at the facts on the gorund... unreasonable demands by Palestinians... its de ja vu all over again for the 5th time.

I'm not buying it. Not again. Sharon is NOT interested in delivering any kind of soveriegnty beyond the possible creation of a police force to help coral those who oppose conitinued Israeli expansion.

How many times are we going to sell these people Dr. Bondolos Instant (Guaranteed!) Cold Remedy?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 April 2004 01:09 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Which is, again, part of my my point, but first a little drift ... you know, the Palestinians must accept some of the responisibilty. They have been willing to accept US intervention as an honest broker for as long as I can remember when the US has never been, or even in my mind pretended to be, an honest broker. Israel has been America's junior partner in the mid-east almost since day one so why in God's name would Palestinians ever accept the U.S. as an honest broker? .. end of drift ...

The Palestinians must take ownership of the problem and present their own solution. The first step is to acknowledge that their will never be a viable state in the West Bank.

The next step is to appreciate they can't win a war. Sharon doesn't care how many he kills. Nethanyahu will use every attack to further justify "transfer."

Their only hope is with a unified state. South Africa is no paradise but it is a democracy, is it not?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 16 April 2004 01:28 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What are you talking about, David B-D? You are rambling incoherently. *plonk*

quote:
To deny the Jewish need for a safe haven after a millenium of a world trying its damnest to annihalate them is more than insensitive.

I think you're conflating a number of issues here.

I would argue that to deny the history of anti-semitism and persecution of the Jews would be more than insensitive. All of us in the west need to take responsibility for this. Also, no matter how much we perceive that Jews in North America aren't oppressed, non-Jews have to appreciate the deep scars and hurt of a history of persecution and oppression, and to understand why people feel they need a safe haven -- and that this desire is very legitimate, and grounded in trauma.

It doesn't follow that Israel is therefore the answer and that to deny Zionism, as you obliquely imply, is to be anti-semitic. It doesn't follow that if someone hurts me, I have license to hurt someone else. I don't have the right to disappear them, to dehumanize them, to trivialize their suffering, to erase their history, to deny their identity. And that is what I see going on in Israel.

Nor does opposing Zionist ideology mean that one thinks that Jews shouldn't remain in Israel. But some of us can't accept a religious state in which some citizens are privileged based on their religion or ethnicity. It's totally odious, undemocratic, and racist. And in the case of the West Bank, we are dealing with outright oppression and colonialism, and the worst kinds of state violence. That's why I and others think a single, secular, democratic state is the ideal solution. Realizable? I doubt it.

As to the question of safety. Is Israel really working out as a safe haven? In fact, as left wing critics of Zionism predicted, it is turning into a death trap. As Josh says, this kind of apartheid won't bring long term security. To hope for that is a delusion. New York City or Los Angeles are far safer places to be Jewish -- in a multi-ethnic, secular, liberal democracy (well, for now). Because one can't come in and push people off and expect that history will sew that end up neatly and leave it in the past. Actions have consequences, and historical hurts don't disappear. The irony of this statement, given the history of persecution of Jews, is tragic.

Personally, Macabee, I think you are sincere and not merely being tactical, but I think conflating anti-Zionism and anti-semitism dangerous and ill-advised. It is not doing anyone any favours, except maybe anti-semites. It gives them cover to express their anti-semitism through criticism of Israel. I recognize that many (by no means all) Jews are emotionally identified with Israel, and that to them, to be anti-Israeli is to be anti-Jewish. I also recognize that the reasons for this are connected with the consciousness of historical persecution. And by the same token, I recognize that anti-semitism is on the rise, and there are those on the left who veer dangerously towards anti-semitism. I would argue that an anti-semite can't be a leftist, just as I would argue that a Zionist can't be a leftist. But in many ways that is artificial. I think it is incumbent on the left to be very clear in recognizing and condeming anti-semitism when it creeps into our midst, but it is also incumbent on those who genuinely wish to combat anti-semitism not to muddy the waters by identifying all Jews with Israel.

I recognize that heated criticism of Israel may reinscribe or echo historical traumas for many Jewish people, and such criticism may even overlay other (anti-semitic) sentiments that are rooted in history and social identites that are bigger than any one of us, but for which we need to take responsibility. This still doesn't justify what Israel is doing, or mean that critics of Israel are wrong. The question is how do we talk honestly and openly about all this, within a common frame of reference, in which we are recognizing this complexity, and not dehumanizing anyone?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 16 April 2004 01:29 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Le Monde diplomatique

-----------------------------------------------------

November 2000


MIDDLE EAST: THE FAULTLINE

Children in the line of fire
_________________________________________________________________

Demonstrations are nothing new in Palestine. They took place under the
British and then - as now - the press accused people of pushing their
children into the line of fire. Eyad Serraj is head of the Mental
Health Community Centre in Gaza and a firm believer in peace. The
question of the children angers him.

by EYAD SERRAJ
__________________________________________________________
_______

Some people ask why Palestinian mothers
push their children into
the line of fire and then cry over their dead bodies. At first
sight, the question may seem logical. But the premise is
pathological.

The right question is why do our soldiers kill these children? And
in some cases in cold blood, taking aim with pinpoint accuracy.
This question should logically lead to another. What are we doing
here on Palestinian land? Instead, these same people prefer to look
the other way. It is easier to see these children as hoodlums and
devils, who actually provoke the soldiers into killing them.
Perhaps these children don't want to live, they say. Anyway, how
can their mothers have any maternal feelings?

We need to think about what lies behind this question. If
Palestinian women have no feelings for their children, then the
Palestinians are not really human. And if we're not really human,
then we're not even equal to animals. After all, dogs and cats care
for their young in times of danger.

This line of thinking is reminiscent of how white South Africans
used to think of blacks. How Europeans colonisers thought of native
Americans and Aborigines. How Nazis thought of Jews.

The premise rules out that the Palestinians are defending their
land and their dignity - a basic human right. It suggests that
Palestinians are violent for the sake of violence and that they
hate Jews just because they are Jews. Those who believe this seem
not to know - or do not want to know - that Israel is occupying
Palestinian lands. And that this occupation is continuous,
destructive and profoundly humiliating. And that it has been
condemned by many Israelis and by Jews across the world.

Original text in English



______________________________________________________________

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 1997-2000 Le Monde diplomatique


http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/2000/11/08mideastchild

[ 16 April 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 16 April 2004 01:47 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a difference, Cueball, between moralizing to someone and considering actions in a moral light. I understand the position which states all opposition to Empire is valid in all cases, period. I disagree with it. I do believe there are principles which override that impetus. But neither am I a pacifist who would utilize non-violence in all circumstances in order to make a moral point.

I believe that I am looking towards the end-game: A struggle against apartheid rule. I do not believe that violent resistance can be as effective in reaching a bi-national consensus as non-violence; I do believe that violent resistance (particularly given the sad predominance of suicide-bombings) strengthens the hands of territorial maximalists like Netanyahu, whose ultimate goal is nothing less than the expulsion of the Arab population from all of Eretz Israel. It fossilizes the image of 'intractable struggle' that has so discouraged our friend Wei-Chi.

I also reject the notion that, as a Westerner, my obligation is to throw out analysis and criticism and simply passively support any and all resistance. If I advocate non-violence (or any other tactic) it is because I firmly believe that it is the best manner in which to achieve a just peace; which is what we are all after, is it not?

Nighty-night, all.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 April 2004 02:17 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rasmus raven:
I would argue that to deny the history of anti-semitism and persecution of the Jews would be more than insensitive. All of us in the west need to take responsibility for this. Also, no matter how much we perceive that Jews in North America aren't oppressed, non-Jews have to appreciate the deep scars and hurt of a history of persecution and oppression, and to understand why people feel they need a safe haven -- and that this desire is very legitimate, and grounded in trauma.

I have argued precisely this point, although you state it far more clearly than I have ever been able to.

I want to clarify that while I fully appreciate the feelings of insecurity wrought by the collective trauma inflicted on the Jewish people of this world, it strikes me that the basic emotional feeling in which this is based is essentially counterproductive to a rational understanding of how to achieve peace in the Middle East. The desire for security among Israelis does not exist in isolation; if it did, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. However, it intersects with the fact that the territorial gains and disputes in the Middle East bring Israel into direct conflict with other peoples.

It is clear that the desire for security among Israelis is being mistakenly equated with the annexation of land, when it is precisely this annexation that is engendering continued insecurity due to the ongoing terrorist attacks under the umbrella of the intifada.

How can it best be proven that a gain in security would come from a new way of approaching an old problem?


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

posted 16 April 2004 04:18 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have retracted the stament about moralizing, already. Well enough.

quote:
I believe that I am looking towards the end-game: A struggle against apartheid rule. I do not believe that violent resistance can be as effective in reaching a bi-national consensus as non-violence; I do believe that violent resistance (particularly given the sad predominance of suicide-bombings) strengthens the hands of territorial maximalists like Netanyahu, whose ultimate goal is nothing less than the expulsion of the Arab population from all of Eretz Israel. It fossilizes the image of 'intractable struggle' that has so discouraged our friend Wei-Chi.

In the short run, suicide bombing might strengthen the hand of the right, yet is is apparent to me, that the history shows that the mode of Arab opposition to Israeli expansionsism is irrelevant in the long haul.

Suicide/victim bombing was non-existent before 1980, and yet Israel persisted in clipping of pieces of land for the entire 30 years prior to that, under one pretext or another. it is apparent that Netanyahu, Sharon et al, and whomever their decendents are, will continue the policy no matter what means of resistance the Palestinians choose.

Show eveidence that things are otherwise? In fact the suicide campaign of the 1989 is the context that Oslo was created in.

In the light of a specific struggle surounding the West Bank I might agree, about these tactical differentiations. But this is no longer such a struggle. The Bush invasion of Iraq, in fact the entire principal that the US will and can invade at anytime anywhere, has changed that dynamic.

At this time multiple struggles are taking place from Colombia to Iraq. The only hope is to bleed the monster dry by attrition.

The Bushies are right this is an international struggle against totalitarianism, like ww2. However, they are the totalitarian facists who must be resisted.

quote:
The Palestinians must take ownership of the problem and present their own solution. The first step is to acknowledge that their will never be a viable state in the West Bank.

This is fine. I am mostly concerned about your statement against violent resistance, based on the arguments that I have presented in my posts above.

Now is certainly not the time to add grist to the mill of the Bush/Sharon propoganda machine by lending our voices to a condemnation of Palestinian tactics. Now is the time to focus on the imoral, illegal and genocidal activites of the state of Israel, which is the central cause of the suicide/victim attacks.

[ 16 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
'topherscompy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2248

posted 16 April 2004 04:37 AM      Profile for 'topherscompy        Edit/Delete Post
i am generally pacific, but i can see violence as necessary, even just in some cases. an occupying army is a legitimate target, and a target that should be fought by those oppressed and occupied by any means at their disposal. but the end game must be justice, not revenge. in this specific case, both are fighting from revenge, and justice will not, under current circumstances, even show up on the radar. a shift to complete non-violence would be seen as a weakness to be exploited by the other side. but i do think that violent resistance by palestinians should be focussed entirely on the iof, and under no circumstances could i justify the targetting of civilians in israel. (the settlements are another story; generally they should not be targetted, but those settlers that use palestinian olive growers for target practice should be treated as auxillaries to the iof.)


quote:
How can it best be proven that a gain in security would come from a new way of approaching an old problem?

since the world at large has made this conflict our business, by supporting one side or the other with words and arms, and no one seems to want to butt out and let the two opposing camps solve this problem between themselves on an equal footing, the only other option to end the conflict (with the exception of complete annihilation of one or the other) is intervention.

something has to come between the opposing sides - time, space, blue helmets - and allow each to regroup and learn something the failures of both the other and the self. of course, this in itself is a new way of approaching the same old conflict. palestinians must realize they will never suicide themselves to freedom; israelis must learn they will never occupy their way to security - it's time for the rest of the world to convince both that with only their king left on the board stalemate is inevitable, that the game is over, that nobody wins, and that unless everyone wins, nobody wins.

un involvement could make a difference, but that won't happen unless enough governments (and the right ones) see it in their interest to give the un option a try. a few boycotts won't make this happen. a day of protest, even world-wide and dwarfing the anti-war protest of last year, won't do it. weeks, maybe months, of protest - a hundred million people in the streets - general strikes, might be enough of a push. a monumental task to be sure, even assuming that this level of commitment to solving the conflict and establishing some kind of justice for israeli and palestinian alike exists. i'm not so sure it does. still hopeful though.

whether the plan is for one state or two, that should be up to those living on the ground in israel and palestine. ideally, i would choose one secular state with equal protection for all it's citizens, but that will not work unless palestinians and israelis both want to make it work. in any case, the body bags need to stop being filled as a first step.


From: gone | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 16 April 2004 08:17 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DrConway:
[QB]

Oh, for chrissakes.

You repeat this over and over and over and over like a holy fucking mantra.

For probably not the last time, get it through your obtuse head that nobody here in this message-board wants to take away the Jewish homeland or anything of that sort.

ReallY/ I would ask you to just read some of the posts above responding to my simple message. No Doctor it seems quite clear to me that many here would deny Israel and the Jewish people a state of their own.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 April 2004 10:08 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From reading your posts, Macabee, it is clear that you are not interested in fostering peace in the Middle East. Furthermore, it is clear that you advocate for the transfer of an ethnic group from their homeland (a little practice known as genocide).
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 April 2004 10:13 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What responses specifically, Macabee?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 April 2004 10:29 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Suicide/victim bombing was non-existent before 1980, and yet Israel persisted in clipping of pieces of land for the entire 30 years prior to that, under one pretext or another. it is apparent that Netanyahu, Sharon et al, and whomever their decendents are, will continue the policy no matter what means of resistance the Palestinians choose.
I am not sure if you are not understanding me or if I am just unclear.

If Palestinians opt for a single state solution, then they would accept that all land including Gaza and the West Bank is part of Israel and therefore Israeli "clipping" would no longer be releavant. Correct?

quote:
In the light of a specific struggle surounding the West Bank I might agree, about these tactical differentiations. But this is no longer such a struggle. The Bush invasion of Iraq, in fact the entire principal that the US will and can invade at anytime anywhere, has changed that dynamic.



But is is a specific struggle. I would submit to you it is Bush and Sharom who would argue that the situation here and in Iraq are both part of the so-called war against terroroism. It is they who would link the two struggles so why would you play by their rules?

It is Sharon who would argue the Palestinians are incapable of peace and for the audiences he needs to persuade, in Israel and North America, every suicide bombing helps his cause.

I will suggest to you one last time and then I give up, they, Israel and the United States, fear much more what I am suggesting to you now than any number of suicide bombers.

Every suicide bomb justifies the occupation. Every suicide bomb justifies another land grab. Every suicide bomb causes the world to look away while Sharon and Bush decide the fate of Palestinians.

A demand for a single state with equal and constitutional rights and a call for an end to violence by Palestinians will completely change the dynamic and establish for the world who the true enemies of peace are. And finally, Israel will be forced to defend their system of Apartheid which is, indefensible.

This is a strategy for victory (and admittedly a long term strategy) cueball and therefore revenge is not part of the equation. So, in my closing sentence I will ask, is victory for Palestinians the goal or bleeding the beast dry?


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

posted 16 April 2004 10:36 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
ReallY/ I would ask you to just read some of the posts above responding to my simple message. No Doctor it seems quite clear to me that many here would deny Israel and the Jewish people a state of their own.[/QB]

Lots of people don't like the idea of basing a state on a religion or ethnicity, and believe in pluralistic societies based on common values instead. I would also be against the idea of a country being founded for Mormons, or for Jehovah's Witnesses, or for Catholics (yes, I don't like the idea of the Vatican being a state), or for any other religious group. I am against Islamic governments.

I am also against governments that give preference to one ethnic group over another. For instance, from what I've heard (and others can correct me if I'm mistaken), Germany used to have very ethnocentric citizenship laws, where your father had to be a German citizen in order for you to be a citizen, or something like that - otherwise you could only be a landed immigrant. Which, of course, would insure that people from other parts of the world or of other races couldn't become citizens. I don't think it's still like that there, but from what I've read, their citizenship laws are still nothing to write home about.

And what is "the Jewish people"? You talk about them as if they are all a bloc - like they all identify Israel as their homeland.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 16 April 2004 10:38 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ReallY/ I would ask you to just read some of the posts above responding to my simple message. No Doctor it seems quite clear to me that many here would deny Israel and the Jewish people a state of their own.

I don't enter these discussions (because I have so little to say) except to point out where I think there's bad debating going on. Macabee, you can't ask a poster to re-read other posts and have them come up with a conclusion you have reached but haven't provided evidence for. By this, I mean you should specifically quote where you think a denial of a state for Jewish people was made. Unless you mean that a one-state solution is such a denial, and if so, you should just state that plainly.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 16 April 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good call, Hinterland.

One-state or two-state. I can't figure out who it is that will compromise. Palestine has been at war for over 50 years! Now, I won't argue that it will go on forever, but why would it stop now? Who will compromise? I just don't feel there are enough moderates left alive to lead, on either side.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 16 April 2004 02:01 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The sad reality wei, is that there will be no negotiated solution...I can't think of any warring people who have successfully negoted peace (if there are,I would love an example). Usually peace comes after one side is defeated and capitulates. I think that is the destiny of this conflict. It is clear that with Bushes latest decision to support Israel, we are getting close to the end game in this situation.

So what will the Palestinians do...step up the war and get beaten back harder, or try non-violence. To any peace loving person their course of action should be clear.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 16 April 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought you didn't want to be here anymore o? Impulse control problems?
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 16 April 2004 02:08 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its true..I am sick..I can't help myself...stop me!!!!
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 April 2004 02:13 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The sad reality wei, is that there will be no negotiated solution...I can't think of any warring people who have successfully negoted peace (if there are,I would love an example).
Canada. For one.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 16 April 2004 02:14 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Grow up.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 April 2004 02:18 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
ReallY/ I would ask you to just read some of the posts above responding to my simple message. No Doctor it seems quite clear to me that many here would deny Israel and the Jewish people a state of their own.

You make the statement, you back it up. It's not my job to do your research for you.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 16 April 2004 02:18 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can't think of any warring people who have successfully negoted peace (if there are,I would love an example)

Any two people who were once warring and are now at peace are examples of this, although how they got to that peace might have been riddled with appalling events. I don't think the point is to look at warring people. Maybe we should be looking at successful, multi-ethnic states. We happen to live in one. Although these are complicated situations, they are the reality for the people who live there, and by necessity require complicated solutions, not simple, winner-take-all end-games.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 April 2004 02:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would alos point out there has been an uneasy peace, but a peace nonetheless, in Norther Ireland which came about when the British government dropped preconditions for negotiation.

Pre-conditions are used, as exampled by Sharon, to prevent negotiations from ever occuring.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 16 April 2004 02:24 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How is Canada an example?My history may be a little rusty but didin't theEnglish beat the Freanch? The Europeans definately beat the Native population..and the reason why we are not American is becaus we won the war of 1812....
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 April 2004 02:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now that this thread is over 100 posts, and about Ireland, I think I'll close it.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca