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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Al-Qadhafi brings forth interesting proposal

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Al-Qadhafi brings forth interesting proposal
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 22 May 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Click

quote:
Al-Qadhafi criticised the secretariat of the Arab League for shelving his plan, known as a "white paper", to revive a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian solution.

The one state, from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan, would includes Israelis and Palestinians as equal. Most Arab states, along with the international community, favour separate Israeli and Palestinian states living in peace side by side.

Al-Qadhafi said: "I stand beside the Arab peoples, not with the Arab governments."


That's an interesting suggestion coming from someone who once wore the "terrorist" label.


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 May 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The one-state proposal should be given more attention. But, as I have noted in the past, it would have to be heavily decentralized in order to win acceptance. That other Arab leaders don't push for it is not surprising. Egypt and Jordan, for example, didn't even recall their ambassadors after the Gaza killings.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 22 May 2004 01:27 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by xrcrguy:
Click

That's an interesting suggestion coming from someone who once wore the "terrorist" label.



That's not a new notion, it's an old one: It's name is 'Justice'.

Surely , if a secular, democtratic, non-religious state is established, if the right of return is given to every refugee forced out of his home, if everyone living on the land is given equal rights, then, why would the name be an issue? Call it israel, palestine, whatever ("A rose by any other name"-Romeo&Juliet), I'm sure no one would argue about semantics.


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 22 May 2004 01:43 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
One thing, though for this to work:

The Arab states must clearly state that anyone who left/was forced to leave their countries in 48 (into israel), has the right to come back to his/her property and have full rights of citizenship, and, those states must agree to give equal rights to their citizens regardless of religion.


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 May 2004 06:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that point is moot. It might be good politics, but one of the primary reasons for abandonment of the Arab countries by Jews after the foundation of Israel has been economic. They have been resettled and supported economically. Meanwhile the Palestinian refugees languish in refugee camps.

Much of the Palestinian resentement and the charges of corruption against Arafat stem from his abandonment of the PLO's traditional one state solution stance in 1992, with Oslo. The charge being that he was abandoning the refugees right of return in order to set up his own government for the personal gain of his party.

[ 22 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 22 May 2004 07:04 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
Certainly, I am in no way comparing the two situations, I'm just saying that it should be done so all is proper and just

Just because the refugees were forced out of palestine (now they count in millions in refugee camps, (I know of close to 500 000 in lebanon), doesn't mean they lost their say with regards to the final solution. As such, neither the PA, nor Sari Nusseibeh, nor anyone else has the right to negotiate their rights. Only the one-state solution can give them back what is theirs.

It is high time people stop thinking about what is pragmatic, what is practical, and start thinking about what is just; going back to pre-1967 is anything but.


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 May 2004 07:30 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe the one-state idea is the only practical solution.

Israel has been a constant spear in the side of the Arab world since its creation, and has hence been in a near-constant state of war throughout its existence.

I don't see how a Palestinian state will change this situation. Israel will still be a foreign body in the Middle East. Israel will have to be integrated into the region or it will eventually be expelled.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 22 May 2004 09:25 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Deleted because I didn't clearly understand Al's post. The Colonel's idea is a good one, but I find myself asking wheather Israel has enough land to support 9 million people. I'm also still a bit concerned about how the Uber Fundie population within Israel would react.

[ 22 May 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 22 May 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 22 May 2004 09:30 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The one state, from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan, would includes Israelis and Palestinians as equal.

Why would that cause anyone to give up anything?

The two state solution is dead. Bush and Sharon have killed it. Long live the single, free, democratic, pluralistic and secular state.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 22 May 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Much of the Palestinian resentement and the charges of corruption against Arafat stem from his abandonment of the PLO's traditional one state solution stance in 1992, with Oslo. The charge being that he was abandoning the refugees right of return in order to set up his own government for the personal gain of his party.

I thought you said that the original PLO position was that they didn't want to take all of Israel back. Is that right, or did I miss something?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 May 2004 09:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The orginal PLO position was that there should be a single democratic secular state from the banks of the Jordan to the beaches of the Mediteranean Sea. Do you understand the difference between that and taking all of Israel back from the Jews? The never advocated driving the Jews into the sea, they proposed that all persons, who were not part of the Zionist invasion, would remain in the territory of Palestine.

The rejected Israel, per se, as a 'Jewish' State. In a sense this a rejection of Israel as a politcal entity. Some Zionist like to take the liberty of consturing this to mean a rejection of Jews, since they see Judaism and Israel as inseperably linked. But the original PLO position never rejected Jews as Jews, just the imposition of an religious state in there midst.

It seems to me to be a very reasonable position. I hardly see what the problem is with demanding that your people should be given equal rights under a democratic secular state in the territories where your people have lived for generations upon generations. Suggesting that there is a problem with that is like saying that affirming that 'Italy should be a secular unified democratic state' is akin to taking Canada away from the Catholics.

The charter can be found here:

quote:
Article 6:The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality.Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.


There case is against the Zionist invasion, not Jews. It is in fact an explicitly anti-racist document, as it includes Jewish-Palestinians among their nation.

The PLO position changed at Oslo as a compromise to Israel in exchange for a serious peace initiative. Some Palestinians felt that this was a sell out of the refugees.

[ 22 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 22 May 2004 10:27 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It looks like a damn fine idea and you answered my question quite handly, however would there be enough support for a one state solution on the Israeli side? If the Israeli public got rid of Ariel, would they be willing to accept this?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 22 May 2004 11:51 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
If the Israeli public got rid of Ariel, would they be willing to accept this?

But Ariel Sharon is not the problem. He is a mere superstructure, a manifestation and a product of the system. Israel apologists claim that Sharon is extremist, even mad. He is not. He epitomizes the Zionist ideology, and what he does in public, other "peace loving" parties like labor and their kind do in a clandestine fashion (Ben Gurion, one of the chief architects of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians founded the labor party, the settlements mushroomed after 1993, Perez is responsible for the 1996 offensive on Lebanon where more than 100 civilians were murdered in the UN headquarters,...). What is more perturbing than Sharon's office is that if Sharon is removed, the atrocities would still go on, like they have for the last 56 years, but unattended and unheard of.

More on the just proposal of the one state, and to counter the propaganda of Palestinian refusal of peace because of an inherent racism and bigotry as evident in school curricula:

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.

[ 22 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 23 May 2004 12:49 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
More on the just proposal of the one state, and to counter the propaganda of Palestinian refusal of peace because of an inherent racism and bigotry as evident in school curricula:


The link doesn't work. Are you referring to the Israeli school system or the Palestinian?

quote:
But Ariel Sharon is not the problem. He is a mere superstructure, a manifestation and a product of the system. Israel apologists claim that Sharon is extremist, even mad. He is not. He epitomizes the Zionist ideology, and what he does in public, other "peace loving" parties like labor and their kind do in a clandestine fashion (Ben Gurion, one of the chief architects of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians founded the labor party, the settlements mushroomed after 1993, Perez is responsible for the 1996 offensive on Lebanon where more than 100 civilians were murdered in the UN headquarters,...). What is more perturbing than Sharon's office is that if Sharon is removed, the atrocities would still go on, like they have for the last 56 years, but unattended and unheard of.

What about people like Uri Aveney and Albert Einstien? If Memory serves, they were/are Zionists. I doubt our favorite physicist would have supported the kind of butchery that goes on in the West Bank today. I could be wrong though. He did have a dark side.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 May 2004 01:33 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is the first time I have heard that about Einstein. There is a reference to a quote at The Jewish Virtual Libraray.

quote:
“Zionism springs from an even deeper motive than Jewish suffering. It is rooted in a Jewish spiritual tradition whose maintenance and development are for Jews the basis of their continued existence as a community.”

However that quote is not referenced. Even if it is correct it is actually an explanation of Zionism, not and affirmation of it. Some people dispute its authenticity.

I also have this quote from Einstein (also, undortunately not referenced! -- lol) I got it from GHANDI, EINSTEIN AND BUBER ON ISRAEL AND THE ARABS

quote:
“I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain”...

There is much on this discussion here at Dissident Voice. The article is called: A Myth Exposed: Albert Einstein Was Not a Zionist. Unfortunately all the article reference each other but I have not found a source for that quote, yet this quote is referenced:

quote:
In a letter to the NY Times in 1948, Albert Einstein and other intellectuals warned of the insidious fascism of the Israeli Freedom Party under Menachem Begin, the mastermind of the Deir Yassin massacre. The Freedom Party had its roots in right-wing terrorism and chauvinism and was condemned as “closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

Perhaps Eienstein's uncerestanding of Zionism is best summed up in this article (Was Einstein Right?) from the same site):

quote:
Einstein's was one of the most important names lent to the cause of Zionism. His name and visits and letters raised a great deal of money towards establishing universities and resettling European Jews suffering under violent anti-Semitism long before the founding of Israel.

But even in a cause so dear to his heart, Einstein never stopped thinking for himself. He not only opposed the establishment of a formal Israeli state - he was after all a great internationalist - but he always advocated treating the Arabic people of Palestine with generosity and understanding.


Perhaps the question is better phrased: what kind of Zionist was Eienstien?

[ 23 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 23 May 2004 09:21 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
CMOT
the link was about hate agenda taught in Israeli schools. What is refreshing about it, besides refuting the claim of polarity between good and evil, it demonstrates that neither Israelis nor Palestinians (and Arabs) inherently hate each other: The Palestinians have a valid reason to loathe Israel, but it is perhaps exacerbated by curricula for example to blur the line between an ideology, a policy, and a religion, thus constructing ugly racism out of a justified bitterness (of politics). Similarly, one can't claim that Israeli racism is genetically carved, but it is rather indoctrinated.
How does this relate to the one state solution? The fallacious claim that people can't live with each other crumbles, because like you teach your children hate, you can easily teach them understanding.

Never mind, I googled the article and found a functional link:

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0999/9909019.html

extracts:

quote:
“Our books basically tell us that everything the Jews do is fine and legitimate and Arabs are wrong and violent and are trying to exterminate us,” said Daniel Banvolegyi, a 17-year-old high school student in Jerusalem.

Banvolegyi, who will be a high school senior this fall, and then will be drafted into the Israeli army next summer, said he argues with his friends about what he regards as racism in the textbooks and on the part of the teachers. He pointed out a worrisome example of how damaging the textbooks and prevailing attitudes can be.

“One kid told me he was angry because of something he read or discussed in school and that he felt like punching the first Arab he saw,” said Banvolegyi. “Instead of teaching tolerance and reconciliation, the books and some teachers’ attitudes are increasing hatred for Arabs.”

Banvolegyi spoke about his schoolmates who, he says, “are dying to go into combat and kill Arabs. I try to talk to them but they say I don’t care about this country. But I do care and that’s why I tell them peace and justice are the only ways to work things out.”


or

quote:
Cohen points out that the authors of these children’s books effectively instill hatred toward Arabs by means of stripping them of their human nature and classifying them in another category. In a sampling of 86 books, Cohen counted the following descriptions used to dehumanize Arabs: Murderer was used 21 times; snake, 6 times; dirty, 9 times; vicious animal, 17 times; bloodthirsty, 21 times; warmonger, 17 times; killer, 13 times; believer in myths, 9 times; and a camel’s hump, 2 times."

[ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 23 May 2004 11:54 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He epitomizes the Zionist ideology

My understanding is that there are many factions within the Zionist movement. Some left-wing and some right-wing. I read in the new internationalist that there are Zionists who are involved in the peace movement. Going by what I gleaned from that particular magazine, I believe it is possible to say that there are moderate Zionists. Perhaps this is wrong, but I have no reason to doubt the NI.

Where Does Uri Aveney stand on the one state solution?

[ 23 May 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 May 2004 12:08 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
bump
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 May 2004 01:11 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are there many important Israelis who support the one state solution?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 May 2004 01:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All Israeli's who support the one state solution are important Israel's, as there as so few of them.

I liked the Anrachists in the recent Demonstration who distributed flyers saying: "Two states, is two states to many."


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 24 May 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
CMOT

Regarding Uri Avneri: Despite his endeavor for peace and his moderate, even compassionate language, he still operates within a framework that is somehow unjust, to say the least.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/uri3.html

In his article about the right of return, he does not stir a revolution by acknowledging the refugee problem, for many besides him already have, and like all those, he compromises rectifying this injustice to maintain a certain kind of Israel, mainly as a Jewish state. It is a reiterated cliché: Yes, we created the refugee problems and drove people out of their homes, but they can’t return because they would outnumber us, and disrupt our position as a majority. Well, in Avneri’s defense, he attempts to reconcile those 2 facts by proposing a right of return to some, and compensation to all others (where no one is excluded), and this is one of his pros. However, he writes:

"It is clear that the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel would completely change the character of the state, contrary to the intentions of its founders and most of its citizens. It would abolish the principle of Two States for Two Peoples, on which the demand for a Palestinian state is based."

This, I can’t get myself to tolerate, because it fares as hypocrisy (though it may not be intended to). Changing the character contrary to the intentions of its founders and its citizens overrides the intentions of the native population, and this is racism. Why should the intentions of one group be favored over the intentions of others who have a legitimate cause. Moreover, the character that Avneri talks about was not as such, and was only achieved through ethnic cleansing: We eradicate you to become a majority, but the world must understand that we can not repatriate you because we will cease to be so.

Permitting a limited number of refugees to return serves all the same hypocrisy. It is not strangers seeking refuge in your land, to negotiate how many you will allow, since you are accommodating out of benevolence, but rather the disposed population whose dispossession helped you be on this land.

So Avneri may be moderate with good intentions, but his sense of justice is hindered by a specific ideology, and I always believed that no one can compromise justice. He is a self professed Zionist, and he corroborates my point that no matter how liberal you are within the Zionist framework, you still have a sense of the supremacy of your claim over that of others, regardless of the situation and how ethical it is or not. I long to be refuted.

For an additional commentary on Avneri
http://www.counterpunch.org/katriel0711.html

[ 24 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 24 May 2004 02:22 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
NB_ He does not support a one state solution.

On the other hand, many Israelis strongly support a one state solution, as long as it is purely Jewish ("transfer" comes to mind), as much as many Arabs do, as long as it is purely Muslim.

So a one state solution is not an an anomaly.

[ 24 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 May 2004 03:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but it should be pointed out that the Muslim fundamenalists were a very marginal group until rececntly and even now the voice with the largest voice is still the secular PA groupings. It is not so easy to point fingers in both directions, and simply point to fundamenalist views on both side.

Add to this the fact that it was Israel that set up The Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza strip in the first place and it is eacy to see that the Islam v. Judaism split is something fostered mostly by the Israelis. Just look at the PLO charter prior to Oslo. It has a strictly secualr world view.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 May 2004 06:24 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, but it should be pointed out that the Muslim fundamenalists were a very marginal group until rececntly and even now the voice with the largest voice is still the secular PA groupings. It is not so easy to point fingers in both directions, and simply point to fundamenalist views on both side.

Cue, liminal's post wasn't even about Wahabists.
It was about Avneri's political philosiphy.
Was your response directed at me? What part of my previous post are you responding to?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 24 May 2004 08:12 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, but it should be pointed out that the Muslim fundamenalists were a very marginal group until rececntly and even now the voice with the largest voice is still the secular PA groupings. It is not so easy to point fingers in both directions, and simply point to fundamenalist views on both side.

Add to this the fact that it was Israel that set up The Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza strip in the first place and it is eacy to see that the Islam v. Judaism split is something fostered mostly by the Israelis. Just look at the PLO charter prior to Oslo. It has a strictly secualr world view.



Cueball, and what I've posted contradicts with what you say how? I am not going into how fundamentalist movements were founded and nurtured (for I totally agree with you, and add to the list Egypt which was transformed under Sadat and his international supporters from a highly (understatement) secular nation to a religiously predominant society, and Egypt sets the precedent in the Arab world. What it does , others follow, especially in being the first arab nation to undergo modernization). So pragmatically speaking, and regardless of the authors establishing them, unfortunately, fundamentals exist nowadays, and they are a fact on the ground. Did they exist so conspicuously before the late 1970s? Definitely not.Do they represent all or at least most Arabs or Palestinians? I never claimed such a thing. They are there, and it means that whoever created them has succeeded in implementing their agenda, mainly turning a legitimte claim into a false clash of religions. And as for throwing accusations equally, I am not doing it out of political correctness, for my previous posts (especially the one on Avnery) exhibit which side I believe is right, but I am stating a fact that you can't deny.
So please don't accuse me of what I am not, and don't judge what I don't say, especially in that I don't see myself disagreeing with you.

[ 24 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 May 2004 09:12 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:


Cueball, and what I've posted contradicts with what you say how? I am not going into how fundamentalist movements were founded and nurtured (for I totally agree with you, and add to the list Egypt which was transformed under Sadat and his international supporters from a highly (understatement) secular nation to a religiously predominant society, and Egypt sets the precedent in the Arab world. What it does , others follow, especially in being the first arab nation to undergo modernization). So pragmatically speaking, and regardless of the authors establishing them, unfortunately, fundamentals exist nowadays, and they are a fact on the ground. Did they exist so conspicuously before the late 1970s? Definitely not.Do they represent all or at least most Arabs or Palestinians? I never claimed such a thing. They are there, and it means that whoever created them has succeeded in implementing their agenda, mainly turning a legitimte claim into a false clash of religions. And as for throwing accusations equally, I am not doing it out of political correctness, for my previous posts (especially the one on Avnery) exhibit which side I believe is right, but I am stating a fact that you can't deny.
So please don't accuse me of what I am not, and don't judge what I don't say, especially in that I don't see myself disagreeing with you.

[ 24 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


Wha.. Who...How..?

Anwar Sadat was an extremist? I thought he was secular and liberal(for a dictator) and was shot because he was considered to Western by his fundamentalist opponents.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 24 May 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
Anwar Sadat fostered and encouraged Islamic groups to disrupt and weaken Nasserite groups, which were socialist and secular, and which were faithful to the ideologies of his predecessor and not stounch supporters of his policies: especially that Sadat has implemented a policy of abrupt opening up of the markets-siyassat al infitah- (after Egypt's economy was controlled)that drove most of the Egyptian middle class to ruination (creating a minority of nouveau-riches on the expense of that middle class) . Moreover, he turned Egypt from a secular country to an Islamic country based on the Sharia law in 1980. This is marked by one of his speeches:
"I am a Muslim president for a Muslim state"

However, since he sucked up to the US (surprise surprise, just when The US was recruiting and promoting religious fundamentalists to fight the Soviets) and to Israel, he is portrayed as moderate and peace-loving.

But this thread is not about Sadat, because I was mentioning him as a mere example, however, I just realized how he can't be just thrown uncritically, so it's my fault.

[ 24 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

[ 24 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 May 2004 11:09 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 25 May 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 25 May 2004 11:42 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I long to be refuted.

Can I try, Or where you being sarcastic? The only difficulty is you would probably kick my butt... verbally speaking of course...


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 26 May 2004 12:28 AM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Deleted because I didn't clearly understand Al's post. The Colonel's idea is a good one, but I find myself asking wheather Israel has enough land to support 9 million people. I'm also still a bit concerned about how the Uber Fundie population within Israel would react.

[ 22 May 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 22 May 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


Yes, I do recall a palestinian (refugee) scholar, who was on TV a few years ago. He argued, using detailed maps, how the land is relatively empty. More importantly, he pointed out that most of the land that the refugees were kicked out from is still uninhabited, which would refute the claim that they can't get back to their property. (I must check for more references though, for the argument to hold here)

But at any rate, gaza is 360km2, with no resources whatsoever, west bank is 5600km2, with no access to the fertile tiberius region, and no access to a water front. Israel is more than 20 000km2 It is much more feasible for the refugees to go back to their original homes, in pre-48 borders, not to mention that this move is the only just and fair thing to do.
It is not about resources, it is about the character of the state: Are we going to support a democratic, secular state that will finally bring peace and justice to all, or are we going to support Theocracies?
People can't have it either way anymore , they can't claim to stand for democracy and freedom and secularism everywhere... with one exception. Unless they do believe in Secular Theocracies, which would be beyond my comprehension.


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 May 2004 12:57 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cue, liminal's post wasn't even about Wahabists.
It was about Avneri's political philosiphy.
Was your response directed at me? What part of my previous post are you responding to?

Liminal, actually. I maintain that it is Israel that has cast the mold in a religious conflict. Liminal made an assertion that it was one group pf religious 'fundies' vs. another. I think it is the Palestinians under the PA that represent the secular forces.

quote:
On the other hand, many Israelis strongly support a one state solution, as long as it is purely Jewish ("transfer" comes to mind), as much as many Arabs do, as long as it is purely Muslim.

I disagree with that. Although this idea is becoming more prevelant.

[ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 May 2004 03:10 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
as much as many Arabs do, as long as it is purely Muslim.

So people such as Arafat's in-laws, Edward Said's family and Hanan Ashwari couldn't live in Palestine?

Whither Bethlehem?


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

posted 26 May 2004 08:09 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:
sorry for pasting the whole article:

SEPTEMBER 1999, pages 19-20


I appreciate your apology, liminal, but that doesn't make it any more okay to post an entire article in the thread.

Could you please go back and edit your post, and put a link to the article in question instead, with just a paragraph or two quoted as a highlight? Thanks.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 26 May 2004 10:43 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post

[ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 May 2004 11:24 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank-you very much liminal - that was quick!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 26 May 2004 11:53 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Thank-you very much liminal - that was quick!

Don't mention it. I had earlier provided a link only which didn't work, so I was compelled to post the whole article, however, I googled it and found an alternative link.


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 26 May 2004 01:09 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

So people such as Arafat's in-laws, Edward Said's family and Hanan Ashwari couldn't live in Palestine?

Whither Bethlehem?


Dude, calm down. As far as I can tell, Liminal didn't say anything of the sort. He has no problem with the one state solution, and I assume, would want Arafat's in-laws to come back to a fully democratic Palestine. He was simply saying that a tiny number of Palestinian extremists would like to expell Israel's Jewish population. He did not say that the people you mentioned should be denied access to their homeland.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 26 May 2004 02:54 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
CMOT
Thank you so much for your defence, however, you got one thing wrong: It's not that I don't have a problem with the SECULAR one state solution, but rather it is the only solution I accept: The so called two state solution, to me, rewards ethnic cleansing and ignores the basic rights of the refugees.

Al Q:
Reagrding your question about the Tawils, the Saids, the Ashrawis (and the Mikhaels, hehe), I think you should address it to people who long for establishing a religiously homogeneous state (of any kind), not to me.

Cueball:

The PA is secular, I agree, but you are ignoring the fact on the ground that religious zeal is gaining ground. If not, then why did the PA popularity decline in favor of Hamas? Moreover, have you ever visited the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon? In Ein-El-Helweh camp in Southern Lebanon, The influence of the religious fanatics is uncontested, and even Marxist or atheist Palestinians are intimidated and not allowed in. Again, the growing power of those religious zealots serves the agendas of the poeple who founded them (a la Israel founding Hamas) in eroding the ideologies of the largely secular Arab (and Palestinan) population prior to the late 1970s (or post 1967 to be more exact).
What is ironic is that I never "asserted" that the struggle is a form of religious polarity, but I only stated a fact that there are groups who have such agendas, and they exist. Moreover, I said "just as many Arabs" (which would fit groups in Egypt, for example) and not just as many "Palestininas", and I also said many, not the majority, mainstream, or fringe, or minority. I think "many" is a critical term.
Again, if you answer by saying that the PA is secular, and it it was Israel's intent to cloake the conflict with a religious garb ( both, I concur, that's why I don't like arguing with people whom I agree with), you are not reading my posts carefully, and we are leading the thread into sophistry.

There idea of a one state is gaining ground on babble, however, how do people think the state should be? (and please no one answer secular, Duh). I mean should it be a federal state with a central government? What are the measures people see viable for the emergence of such a state?

[ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 26 May 2004 03:45 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's not that I don't have a problem with the SECULAR one state solution...

What? Could you please explain? I thought you liked the idea of a single secular state.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 26 May 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
CMOT, have you read the whole sentence????

It's not that I don't have a problem with the SECULAR one state solution, BUT RATHER IT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION I ACCEPT.

Meaning that when you say I don't have a problem with the issue, you imply that I am indifferent to several options: mainly that I am fine with either a two state, or a one state solution, or a theocratic state vis-a-vis a secular one. I am not. I am ardently and emphatically against theocracies (be it Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Medievil Spain), and for SECULAR states that safeguard their citizens' rights, regardless of who is the majority and who is the minority (you belong as much as the next group, not less because of your numerical disadvantage). Moreover, in the case at hand, it is the just solution of correcting a historical grievance, whether eradication of a population, or the establishment of a theocratic model for the region, or muffling the cosmopolitan nature of many of the Levant's cities, and polarizing people into ethnically and sectarianly homogeneous ghettos.

[ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 May 2004 07:08 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Al Q:
Reagrding your question about the Tawils, the Saids, the Ashrawis (and the Mikhaels, hehe), I think you should address it to people who long for establishing a religiously homogeneous state (of any kind), not to me.

It looks like I erroneously lumped you in with the ignoramuses who equate "Arab" with "Muslim."

Sorry.


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

posted 26 May 2004 07:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The PA is secular, I agree, but you are ignoring the fact on the ground that religious zeal is gaining ground.

I agree, with your agreement. I was just making the point, because there is a tendency to for some people to point fingers in both directions, and say: "both are wrong! I give up." I see that a lot and it bothers me. Secular political ideas are not only traditional in the PA (and the PLO) but also throughout the Arab world. This has a lot to do with the imposition of Ottoman rule, and its affect on political structures. The Muslim Empire prided itself, and depended upon, its ability to accomodate the large number of religions that it ruled over.

My view is that it is the Zionists that cast the political debate in the religious mode, originally and it is there desire to see it pursued in this manner. There is still huge left-secular resistance to this among Palestinians. Why is Sharon so insistent on getting rid of Arafat and the PA? It is the PA and the secular leadership of the Palestinians that Sharon attacked first, not Hamas, in 2000-2001.

It is in the religious framework that the Zionist claim to all of Palestine resides. Inside a secular political framwork they have no legal rights that are superior to those of the Arab indiginous people. Only when they can stand on their book as opposed to Allah's book do all the norms of secular international law go out the window, and it simply becomes a dispute between faiths.

When a war is cast as only a war of faith, the matter is simply decided on the basis of who has the most guns, not who is legally right or wrong.

So, I guess we are in agreement more or less.

[ 26 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 28 May 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't see how a Palestinian state will change this situation. Israel will still be a foreign body in the Middle East. Israel will have to be integrated into the region or it will eventually be expelled.



Isn't that the equal opposite of aerial sharon's policy toward the Palestinians, I.e. the Palestinians must accept Israel or face horrible retribution in the form of "transfers?"


quote:
Meaning that when you say I don't have a problem with the issue, you imply that I am indifferent to several options: mainly that I am fine with either a two state, or a one state solution, or a theocratic state vis-a-vis a secular one. I am not.

I didn't mean to imply that you were indifferent to a one state solution. Could you please refrain from putting words in my mouth? I will try to read your posts more fully In the future.

quote:
There idea of a one state is gaining ground on babble, however, how do people think the state should be? (and please no one answer secular, Duh). I mean should it be a federal state with a central government? What are the measures people see viable for the emergence of such a state?

I have two concerns:
1) if Hamas and other fundamentalist groups are gaining strength in the refugee camps and if they return to Palestine, won't there beliefs affect they are relationship with the citizens of Jewish descent? won't some of them wish to forcibly convert the non Muslim population? Also, what is to stop groups like the Jewish terror underground from wounding and killng the returning Arabs?

2) Who will fund Palistine? Israel has never been economically viable and has required huge amounts of capital from the West in order to function. A Palestinian state would be in much the same position, and once the Americans found out that the prisoners are running the jail alongside their former jailers, wouldn't they drop the state like a hot rock? Who would there new sponsor be? China? Brazil?
Where does the Palestinian Authority get its money from now?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 May 2004 06:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Among my reason for supporting Oslo and the two state solution was that I believe two states could perform the function of giving people a cooling off period, followed by some kind of federal amalgamation of the two territories. This would lessen tensions and allow for Paletinians to develop their own adminstrative infrastructure. At the same time it could cool out Hamas. Eventually the issue of past crimes and injustices might be handled through'Truth and Reconciliation' hearing along the lines of those sponosored by Nelson Mandela in South Africa. This latter might be part of the process of amalgamting the two states.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 28 May 2004 10:13 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
but Oslo didn't really provide the Palestinians with a independent state.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 May 2004 10:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
nope.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 29 May 2004 12:46 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
nope.

so why support it?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 May 2004 03:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But it was as stepping stone to better things. Eventually I thought the reality of two states would appear absurd once people had a chance to cool out. Then later, a better solution could be found.

If you look at Simon Peres's economic plans drawn up around the time of Oslo, you can see that Israel was looking at integration with its Arab neighbours. Eventually an integrated Palestinian/Israelis state might have been possible. But now?

well...

Well...

We will see.

Looks bleak to me.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 15 June 2004 08:06 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cue, I've been thinking about your " middle way" approach to Mideast peace and I have a few problems with it. If a two state solution is decided upon in order to prepare the inhabitants of both nations for the one state solution, it will take awhile to forge a viable Palestinian state, and to create the truth and reconciliation commission you proposed. In that time, isn't it possible that the empty land that the refugees left behind so many years ago could be settled by Jewish families. New people are arriving in Israel every day, and it might be the case that by the time the Israelis and Palestinians are prepared to merge into one nation, the dispossessed Arabs would have nothing to come back to.
On the of the hand, in order for my other concerns to be dealt with, there would have to be a two state solution anyway. One article by one journalist is not enough to convince me that Israelis and Palestinians would be able to get along overnight.
None of this deals with the refugee problem of course, which is a central issue in the conflict.
What will the refugees do while waiting for the two sides to get their shit together?
Your absolutely certain that the Palestinians couldn't integrate into Lebanese, Jordanian, and Syrian society?

Do you feel it might be possible for Israel to take responsibility for the damage they've caused by fixing the camps to make them more livable?
My idea works thusly: Israeli contractors could use cash from the public purse to redesign the stinking Slums the refugees have been living in for the past 56 years. They gave the settlers running water, paved roads and brand spanking new schools, why couldn't the Israeli government do the same for Palestinians in Exile?
In concert with the government of Palestine, Israeli politicians could transform places like Sabra and Chattila into bustling metropoli. The exiles would be allowed to go back to Isreal to visit their lands.
Technically, this is a three state solution instead of a two state solution.
What do you think? Please feel free to call me a numpty.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 15 June 2004 08:15 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Cue, I've been thinking about your " middle way" approach to Mideast peace and I have a few problems with it. If a two state solution is decided upon in order to prepare the inhabitants of both nations for the one state solution, it will take awhile to forge a viable Palestinian state, and to create the truth and reconciliation commission you proposed. In that time, isn't it possible that the empty land that the refugees left behind so many years ago could be settled by Jewish families. New people are arriving in Israel every day, and it might be the case that by the time the Israelis and Palestinians are prepared to merge into one nation, the dispossessed Arabs would have nothing to come back to.
On the of the hand, in order for my other concerns to be dealt with, there would have to be a two state solution anyway. One article by one journalist is not enough to convince me that Israelis and Palestinians would be able to get along overnight.
None of this deals with the refugee problem of course, which is a central issue in the conflict.
What will the refugees do while waiting for the two sides to get their shit together?
Your absolutely certain that the Palestinians couldn't integrate into Lebanese, Jordanian, and Syrian society?

Do you feel it might be possible for Israel to take responsibility for the damage they've caused by fixing the camps to make them more livable?
My idea works thusly: Israeli contractors could use cash from the public purse to redesign the stinking Slums the refugees have been living in for the past 56 years. They gave the settlers running water, paved roads and brand spanking new schools, why couldn't the Israeli government do the same for Palestinians in Exile?
In concert with the PA, Israeli politicians could transform places like Sabra and Chattila into bustling metropoli. The exiles would be allowed to go back to Isreal to visit their lands.
Technically, this is a three state solution instead of a two state solution.
What do you think? Please feel free to call me a numpty.


Cut-Me-Own-Throat, this isn't discworld, this is the real world.
Are you proposing that the refugees live permanently in refugee camps, albeit slightly better ones?
Besides, do you think Lebanon, Syria or Jordan would accept such De-Facto Nationalization of the refugees? Ever heard of the Lebanese Civil war? Well, any move to naturalize the palestinians will lead to civil war in lebanon that will permanently destroy the country, seemingly as the first one came close to doing just that.


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 15 June 2004 09:39 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cut-Me-Own-Throat, this isn't discworld, this is the real world.
Are you proposing that the refugees live permanently in refugee camps, albeit slightly better ones?


I apologize for my shitty logic, but the emergence of a single Palestinian state would take time, and I don't think that it's reasonable to expect the Palestinians in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria to wait for five to ten years while politicians on both sides of the conflict prepare for a merger. In order to be happy about going home, you first need to have food to eat and water to drink. I am simply trying to figure out a way to prevent the refugees from suffering while there state is being formed.
My ideas are horribly flawed, I admit.
settler style compounds are, now that I think about it, an awful idea. They would cost the Palestinian and Israeli governments arm and a leg to operate, and be a target for all kinds of fundie wingnuts.
If you were guaranteeing the safety of the refugees during the foundation of a single Palestinian state, what would you do?

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 15 June 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
This is a puzzler innit?
The situation in the camps is intolerable, illiteracy, no running water, guns, mini-wars, no health-care etc... So obviously this has to change.
Now how to improve the situation in the camps without it being a stepping-stone towards naturalization, which is NOT an option? I don't know, it is tricky and I guess that's the reason why the camps aren't touched, the status-quo persisting. Improving the situation to the point where the palestinians are de-facto citizens of these 3 countries is improving it too much. I know, it's a horrible thing to say!

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: mjollnir ]

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: mjollnir ]


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 June 2004 04:23 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is a puzzler innit?
The situation in the camps is intolerable, illiteracy, no running water, guns, mini-wars, no health-care etc... So obviously this has to change.
Now how to improve the situation in the camps without it being a stepping-stone towards naturalization, which is NOT an option? I don't know, it is tricky and I guess that's the reason why the camps aren't touched, the status-quo persisting. Improving the situation to the point where the palestinians are de-facto citizens of these 3 countries is improving it too much. I know, it's a horrible thing to say!

If there can be no improvement in the living conditions of the refugees, the one state solution wouldn't work. I worry that if the 3 million refugees, many of whom have been educated in Wahabist schools, are invited back to Palestine that bloodshed would ensue. Is it possible that the camps could be secularized before the merger?

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 16 June 2004 08:23 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
There has to be an improvement, its inhumane not to do it. How do you propose to introduce the improvement in the living conditions without the threat of slow naturalization?
In lebanon, the confessional balance is critical. The christians are gradually shrinking in numbers, (about 40% of the population now, more than 55% at the inception of lebanon). 500 000 palestinians will just reduce the christians into a minority, and lebanon will suffer the fate of the other arab states. What keeps it intact is this confessional balance that shouldn't be tampered with.
So how to do it taking into consideration all the people, not just the palestinians and the israelis?

From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 16 June 2004 09:41 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
CMOT
You have raised a very interesting point.
Before the 1990s, Palestinian refugees were tended for by the UNRWA (UN agency for refugees), so they had their schooling and their health services covered. Despite being confined to camps, Palestinian schools and medical centers were quite decent. This is not to mention the amount of money spent by the PLO to supplement such services, and grant scholarships for Palestinian students in universities.
Come the 1990s. The PLO was busy doing Israel’s bid for a promise of a few meters of land in return. The UNRWA had drastic budget cut downs. In Lebanon, for example, the physical status of the camps was atrocious after years of wars, battles, and massacres taking place in their vicinity. Who filled the gaps? Who is filling the gaps in the West Bank and Gaza? Fundamental Islamic groups, opening schools, providing water and medical infrastructure. The deprived follow those who provide them with the most basic services. 1970s- highly secular community. 2000s-religiously zealous community. Of course, the whole situation is exacerbated by time passing with no solution in sight. The refugees have been dispossessed since 1948, and not a finger is lifted to solve this. This is what they see of Israel- Zionist terrorism that ethnically cleansed them, and Israeli regime that continues to do so. I think that when Israel views them as animals that can be pushed and harrassed, instead of regular human beings with rights, denigrating them at every chance it gets (as evident by some posters here even), don't expect the Palestinian refugees not to reciprocate such views. Every generation is much more radical than its predecessor, in result, and keeping the status Quo will do nothing but to feed this radicalism and to boost the bitterness.
What is the pragmatic solution? First, giving funding to the UNRWA. The UN is the most impartial caterer of basic needs, and it should manage to operate decent schools and hospitals like it used to, not to mention improve the empirical living conditions. This way, there is no fear of nationalization, while giving human beings their most fundamental needs to exist. This also serves as the first step in pulling the rug from beneath fundamental groups.

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 16 June 2004 10:34 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Why is nationalization seen to be such a horror in these scenarios? It wouldn't diminish their land claims, only (hopefully) their suffering, wouldn't it?

And wouldn't any (ethnic?) Palestinian born after '48/'68 (respectively) have a right to citizenship in the country of his or her birth, regardless of the status and rights of his or her parents?


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 16 June 2004 10:34 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
edited because for the third time in two days I've double posted without realising it. Maybe it's a Mac thing.

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 June 2004 10:37 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edited because it was a meaningless piece of drivel.

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 17 June 2004 12:38 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In lebanon, the confessional balance is critical. The christians are gradually shrinking in numbers, (about 40% of the population now, more than 55% at the inception of lebanon). 500 000 palestinians will just reduce the christians into a minority, and lebanon will suffer the fate of the other arab states. What keeps it intact is this confessional balance that shouldn't be tampered with.


Isn't that similar to what isreali politicians say when they refuse to acknowledge the right of return?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 17 June 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:


Isn't that similar to what isreali politicians say when they refuse to acknowledge the right of return?


There is no correlation whatsoever. You can not compare both situations.

The Palestinian refugees come from Haifa and Galilee, not from Tripoli and Beirut. The sectarian balance in Lebanon was not achieved via ethnic cleansing, and the Christians’ percentage of the population does NOT owe to dispossessing Muslims in Mount Lebanon and Bequa’a and sending them to Tel Aviv. Lebanon is a critical mosaic of minorities that was shaped by centuries of marginalized groups seeking sanctuary and coexisting, regardless of their religion and language, and nationalizing 400,000 non-native and non-indigenous refugees will only relinquish the confessional balance and will drive towards sectarian homogeneity (we all know how the powers that be will just love that. This deliberate and despicable process has been going on for the past century), besides being unfair to those refugees, who are not portable commodities but human beings. I don’t believe Lebanon did anything to deserve settling the region’s problems on its expense, nor to forfeit its unique character just to appease culpable parties. There is always the discourse about Israel’s right to exist, however, I think it is Lebanon’s right to exist that we should talk about, a country which was neither founded by terrorism nor through driving people out of their lands, a country that is grounded in plurality and coexistence, regardless of the earnest campaigns to disrupt the message it conveys. It has already paid an exorbitant price for the region’s conflicts (100 000 dead, total destruction, and a smear to its reputation as a sanctuary for the oppressed minorities) and deserves to live in peace.

As for the Israeli rhetoric about confessional majority: You should keep in mind that such majority was only constructed via eradicating those same refugees, and had it not been for chasing them out of the land, the Jewish population would not outnumber the indigenous Palestinian one. It is not like there is a natural critical balance (like Lebanon), and you are getting a million refugees from Sudan or Italy. Had this been the case, no one has any right to complain.

It is a right of RETURN. By definition, you return to where you came from in the first place.

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 17 June 2004 11:53 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think it is Lebanon’s right to exist that we should talk about, a country which was neither founded by terrorism nor through driving people out of their lands, a country that is grounded in plurality and coexistence, regardless of the earnest campaigns to disrupt the message it conveys.

Their wasn't ethnic cleansing when Lebanon was founded? I'm very surprised. Imperialists usually do their best to squash native opposition to their presence. I would have thought that the French would have had the same mindset that they had 34 years later when dealing with the Algerian uprising.
Of course, most of those people are long dead and I have absolutely no way of communicating with dead Frenchmen, so I'll have to settle for you. tell me, what was the French strategy when sorting out Lebanese malcontents?

Hey! We've just had an entire conversation about the Palestinian refugee crisis without flaming each other! Go us!


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 18 June 2004 12:03 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for the Israeli rhetoric about confessional majority: You should keep in mind that such majority was only constructed via eradicating those same refugees, and had it not been for chasing them out of the land, the Jewish population would not outnumber the indigenous Palestinian one.

But we both agree do we not, that the rights of Jewish families living in Israel now, must be respected no matter how illegitimate the claims where to begin with? That's what the charter said, right?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 June 2004 04:59 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do you feel it might be possible for Israel to take responsibility for the damage they've caused by fixing the camps to make them more livable?

How about move the settlers out and move the refugees in?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 18 June 2004 07:48 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

But we both agree do we not, that the rights of Jewish families living in Israel now, must be respected no matter how illegitimate the claims where to begin with? That's what the charter said, right?


Israel may have been established via land grabbing and terrorism, but after 56 years, you have an existing and fully functioning society of 2nd and 3rd born generations, many who had no choice in being there, and can not be blamed for the actions of the state-founding politicians, or even their grandfathers for what was done. As such, they gained legitimacy in being there, and they do have a right. Calling for banishing them would be no better than the atrocities done to the Palestinians since 1948. It would be a crime as well. This, however, does not by any means exonerate the ruling Zionist structure from its responsibility for the Palestinian ethnic cleansing, and allowing those refugees to return to their native land is an imperative, but should not, by any means whatsoever, be mutually-exclusive to safeguarding the rights of Israelis. However, the longer the conflict is unresolved, and the longer refugees are denied their most basic rights; their bitterness and desire for revenge will grow at an exponential pace.

You know what the biggest problem is? In conflicts, whole populations are demonized or glorified, as if they are not humans, just a mere body of collective attributes. When people understand that others are human beings just like them, who in most of the cases share their same premises of doing something out of their lives, of raising families or of leading careers, of enjoying the pleasures of life, and of having personal euphoria or tragedy, people would be much better off.

So, CMOT, to answer your question, you betcha we are in agreement on this one.


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 18 June 2004 02:37 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
would there be enough support for a one state solution on the Israeli side?

Good question. If peace is the objective, then what would be acceptabel to the Israeli side also counts.

And the answer is no. On the Israeli side, no one of any importance supports a single-state solution, including those in the peace movement.

Peace Now's position is available at http://www.peacenow.org/nia/news/haaretz022004.html


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 18 June 2004 05:38 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK Lim, now what about the other question, which was:

quote:
what was the French strategy when sorting out Lebanese malcontents?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 18 June 2004 05:58 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Good question. If peace is the objective, then what would be acceptabel to the Israeli side also counts.

And the answer is no. On the Israeli side, no one of any importance supports a single-state solution, including those in the peace movement.


Yes, and that's why the two state solution needs to happen before we get a one state solution.
Check out out Cuball's posts on the subject.
When I say I endorse the two state solution it should not be assumed that I automatically endorse the official Israeli version, which would leave the Palestinians with bugger all. I like Gush Shalom's version much more, which would create a fully functioning Palestinian state next to Israel with full diplomatic relations with the Israeli government. The two sides can then work towards a merger. It should be noted that many Palestinians don't see a single state as an option. It won't be politically feasible for a while yet, but it will probably come.
I just hope that Yasser Arafat does not become president of the new Palestinian republic. I want Mustafa Barghouti to lead the country.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 18 June 2004 06:04 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeremy Miltram supports the one state solution, although, I don't know whether most Israelis consider him important enough to listen to. It's sad, he sounds like a good guy.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 18 June 2004 06:36 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
On a related note:

Arafat offers refugee guarantee

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3818915.stm

What a sellout! Maybe with enough concessions and lots of groveling he'll get to keep his cherished position for a few more years!

[ 18 June 2004: Message edited by: mjollnir ]


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 18 June 2004 07:03 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
OK Lim, now what about the other question, which was:


My God, CMOT, you are one determined fellow .

France enjoyed great support by the inhabitants of Mount Lebanon (the core of the modern Lebanese state), so in the newly created Lebanon (at the behest of the Maronite Bishop Howayek) it already had a considerable advocacy, and all through the 23 years of mandate, it hardly encountered any nationwide resistance. The only up rise against French hegemony spilled over from the Grand Syrian Revolution in 1925 (In Syria, it was far from the docility in Lebanon) by the Druze (since the revolution started by the Druze in Jabal; El Druze in Syria), but even this did not result in grave consequences to Lebanon (unlike Syria where Damascus was heavily bombed).
You should keep one thing in mind, though. The image of France in the Levant is very paradoxical: On one side, it was utterly despised for its colonial ambitions, on the other, it was viewed with so much respect for its cultural, social, and political achievements (I know it defeats logic to loathe and admire simulataneously). For example, though never colonized by France, the Egyptians viewed France as an echelon of contemporary civilization. All modernization projects followed French models. Middle Class students headed to France’s universities, and despite British colonialism for 60 years, the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian professional classes learned French instead of English. It was the same for many Lebanese, and even Syrians. You should also bear in mind that the relation of France to the Levant differed drastically from that to North Africa where the terror regime was not repeated in Syria and Lebanon with the same ferocity.

Now it’s my turn (hehe), CMOT: when you profess to being a Zionist, what exactly do you mean by Zionism, and accordingly, what’s your position regarding the Palestinian refugees?

[ 18 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

[ 18 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

[ 18 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 18 June 2004 09:19 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
CMOT,

this is taken from www.al-awda.org
(al-awda=the return)

"The state of Israel refuses to allow Palestinian refugees to exercise their right of return citing three main arguments; first, that there is no space in Israel for the refugees to return, second, that the return of Palestinian refugees would threaten security and lead to conflict, and finally, that the return of the refugees would jeopardize the Jewish nature of the state. With regards to the first argument recent research shows that 78% of the Jewish population of Israel resides on 15% of the land. The areas where Palestinian villages were demolished lie mainly uninhabited. At the same time, all Jews worldwide are encouraged to immigrate to Israel based on the Israeli Law of Return. As for security concerns, Palestinian refugees broadly accept that exercising their right to return would not be based on the eviction of Jewish citizens but on the principles of equality and human rights. The final argument though is a testament to Israel's false claim that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a Jewish democracy, and this oxymoron should not be confused with real democracy."


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 18 June 2004 10:04 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now it’s my turn (hehe), CMOT: when you profess to being a Zionist, what exactly do you mean by Zionism, and accordingly, what’s your position regarding the Palestinian refugees?


Well, that is a complex question. But, since you provided a equally complicated answer to mine, I will respond in kind.
I am not a religious man. I don't believe in God, and I certainly don't believe that Israel was promised to the Jews by anybody. I am also not Jewish.I am a Zionist in that I feel that a strong case can be made for continued support for Israel. Not because of god, but rather because of finances. I worry that if the West stopped funding Israel, it's health system, education system etc would disintegrate. Oranges cannot support of 6 million Arabs and Jews, Not if they want a decent welfare state. Tourism is important but by itsef cannot sustain the socialistic programs Israelis depend upon. Of course, they haven't been spending Western money on social programs. Instead, they have been spent shit loads of money on the occupation. As a result, the unemployment rate in the country has skyrocketed, there are many homeless people on the streets and crime is on the rise. Tel Aviv is apparently an awful place for that kind of thing. If they removed the generals, ditched the settler movement and allowed more civilians into positions of power while at the same time ending the draft and the occupation, I think you would see a far different and healthy Israel.
My grandma, who was an atheist by choice, Scotts Presbyterian, by birth was a Zionist. But she didn't believe in the kind of militaristic garbage that Sharon is supporting. I want what I feel she wanted, a prosperous, secure and tolerent state. I have realized that a two state solution isn't just. But I also believe that it is a stepping stone to a single state solution. The refugees can come back to their lands, but a few at a time. If they all came back at once, the situation would quickly become untenable, which is why I believe we must focus on educationing and secularizing Palestinian young people in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. They have to be prepared to go home.
I hope this answers your question.

[ 19 June 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 19 June 2004 04:29 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How about move the settlers out and move the refugees in?


Yes, that would work for some of them, but those coumpounds are only designed to hold several hundred thousand people. No matter how this the one state solution is achieved, at least some of the refugees will have to stay behind in their host countrys for a little while. We might as well make them as comfortable as possible while they wait to go back to their homes.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 June 2004 04:56 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
well, there's no law that says the settlements can't be expanded for the use of Palestinians, but it would require tearing down the "security" wall.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 19 June 2004 06:21 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for security concerns, Palestinian refugees broadly accept that exercising their right to return would not be based on the eviction of Jewish citizens but on the principles of equality and human rights.

How did they come to that conclusion?

Did the group conduct a poll in the camps?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 20 June 2004 10:27 AM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+0wwBmeXf269wwww3wwwwwwwhFqnN0bItFqnDni5AFqnN0bIcFqcpwcn5BoDowDDzmxwwwwwww/opendoc.htm

quote:
``My flowers are plastic, not like the real ones I would grow in my own garden,'' said Hamash's wife, Miasr, 38, gesturing at a vase. ``When we are home, I'll make the house nice, much nicer than this, because it will be ours forever.''
...
"We want our own land. We don't want money for it, and we don't want other land in Palestine or anywhere else,'' said Hamash, his voice rising with agitation. ``Even if it's heaven, it's not enough. I don't want heaven. I want my land"

Why don't you explain to them that they have to wait until they are fully secularized before thinking of repatriation ? I think you'll find it much harder to convince them of that logic than it is to convince me.


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 June 2004 10:30 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sidescroll. SIDESCROLL!
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 June 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why don't you explain to them that they have to wait until they are fully secularized before thinking of repatriation ? I think you'll find it much harder to convince them of that logic than it is to convince me.


ummm...I don't speak Arabic. Hey! I've got an idea! how about we both go to Palestine, go to the camps, You tell them, and I hide behind you?

I'm sorry, but I am not Palestinian, if I was, it would probably be easier for me to understand the connection the inhabitants of Palestine had with their land. Unfortunately I have to see things from a pasty, atheistic Westerners point of view. My anticlerical spidey sense tells me that Wahabist thought is a bad thing and must be expunged. While it may not be the most important thing, it's still near the top of my list. Of course, the same thing will have to happen in Israel as well if a single democratic, pluralistic nation is to be founded.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 20 June 2004 03:36 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
errrr....
They were secular, they were the most secular in the middle east, alongside egypt, prior to al-nakba. Even extending to the 70's and 80's they were still secular.
I wonder whose fault is it, that landed them in this sad state of affairs?
Let me see your logic, when addressing them:

"...The whole world has betrayed you, treated you worse than cattle, Much Worse.And now, that this treatment drove you into a line of thinking the World doesn't approve of, we can't give you back your rights until you reform your minds. Let it take 50 years, let it take 100 years. Is it too much to ask?"
Methinks it is.


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 20 June 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
If we ever do go to palestinian camps, just remember that I'll be the one doing the hiding.
Methinks I'm wearing yellow colours today.

From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 June 2004 06:58 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dosen't the prospect of Fundie nutbars coming back in the returning waves of refugies make you just a wee touch edgy?
O.K., my purposal was unjust. How do you purpose we deal with this very real possibility? Is their a solution.

[ 21 June 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 04 July 2004 01:06 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Regarding Uri Avneri: Despite his endeavor for peace and his moderate, even compassionate language, he still operates within a framework that is somehow unjust, to say the least.

I realize this is a little late, but:

From the information you have given me, I gather that Mr.Avneri is mildly ethnocentric.
Quite frankly, I don't care. I believe Israel should deal with Yasser Arafat. In my opinion Arafat is corrupt and autocratic. He also wants peace so I feel he should be allowed to be at the table. I think Avneri should be granted the same respect and do not believe he should be dismissed as a hypocrite simply because they are some things in his philosophy of which you do not approve.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca