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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » The Haifa Initiative

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Haifa Initiative
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 29 May 2004 11:27 AM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Haifa initiative
quote:
Recently, US Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry joined President George W. Bush in supporting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's rejection of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel. Often forgotten, this position violates international law, the same law — affirmed in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 — guaranteeing the rights of Kosovars, East Timorese and Rwandans to return home and, conversely, of those Jews who left home in the Soviet Union.

With Israel and both major American parties in lockstep on this, and absent American press coverage to the contrary, Americans presumably assume no support among Israelis for implementing the Palestinian right of return.

Meanwhile, a quiet revolution happened in Haifa. Recently, over 300 Israelis — Jews and Palestinians — and a sprinkling of internationals, gathered for two days to make their own history on this issue. Co-sponsored by an alliance of Israeli NGOs and the Emil Touma Institute for Israeli and Palestinian Studies, a landmark “Right of Return and Just Peace Conference” took place. With it, the “Haifa Initiative” was launched.

For the first time in their country, Israeli citizens publicly refuted the claim that there is no support among Israelis — particularly Jewish-Israelis — for Palestinian refugees to return home to Israel.



(from an email)

quote:
In the weekend, 26-28 March, 2004 the first Right of Return conference in Israel attracted more than 300 people for two days of extensive discussions, lively debates and a series of recommendations for future activity. The participants learned about the history of the Nakbah, the international and moral legal basis of the Right of Return and of possible way of implementing it.

Throughout the day letters of support and solidarity were read from the various Palestinian refugee communities in the occupied territories, the Arab world and the Diaspora.

The conference was attended by representatives from the various Palestinian communities in the country and abroad; although some of the invited guests from the occupied territories were denied entry by the Israeli authorities. They were joined by Jews and Palestinians from Israel, who came either as individuals or representatives of NGOs.

The initiating NGOs vowed to continue the struggle for protecting the Nakbah memory against its denial in Israel and abroad, for relocating the right of return at the center of peace making in Israel and Palestine and for finding the appropriate political structure in the future that would enable the return of the refugees who had been ethnically cleansed from Palestine. The
initiators and the supporting NGOs are convinced that the return is the key for a better future, not only for Palestinians and Israelis, but for the region as a whole. The rectification of the evils inflicted in the 1948 ethnic cleansing, and ever since, would allow, for the first time, citizens or returnees, to enjoy normal and peaceful life on a democratic and civic basis.

For this purpose, the conference suggested various projects such as educational workshops on the Nakbah, a Nakbah Museum and the institutionalization of a Nakbah day. It also called for a better coordination with the Right of Return organizations in the world, the advancement of practical programs for facilitating the return and an urgent research of detailed schema for a joined political structure that could contain the right of return. These and other proposals would form what can be called ‘The Haifa Initiative’.

Preparations have begun for the convention of the second Right of Return conference in March 2005.

This was by all accounts a historical moment, the significance of which will be absorbed and recognized with time. But this conference has already refuted the claim that the unconditional support for the Palestinian refugees’ Right of Return is a taboo in Israel and a non-starter for peace negotiations for the two people. What the hundreds of people attending the conference showed was that a growing number of Jews and Palestinians in Israel regard the implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return as the only road to a lasting peace and reconciliation in the torn land of Palestine.

Ilan Pappe


[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: salaam ]


From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 29 May 2004 01:03 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
You guys love to kick a dead horse.

Why the change in tactics?

One state solution and right of return is the hot topic lately.

It just strikes me as funny.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 May 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahhh dude, Right of Return has been around since 1948. There is no change. It is not a tactic, it is a demand. It is also a right. The right that protects you, your houshold and your possessions, whould you be forced to move do to war. You would have the right to 'return' to your houshold and your possessions when conflict ends.

Are you sure you don't support it?

[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 29 May 2004 05:27 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The so-called Right of Return is a complete non-starter. While 300 people may have discussed it in Haifa (really not a lot) poll after poll in Israel negate this idea totally. The same polls still support a two-state solution but if the "one-state " issue is pushed I can almost guarentee that Israelis will react terribly to it and even the two-state solution may be lost.

Israel as a National home for the Jewish people will never die . Those here that wish to kill it are engaging in what many in Israel belive is the destruction of the state of Israel. They wont allow it to happen.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 May 2004 05:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The so-called Right of Return is a complete non-starter.

Well ask BW Botha about that, to him majority rule in South Africa was a 'complete non-starter.' After all why would white south African's even think of giving up their privaleges? But there you go. Think up something based in a moral argument, or even a practical argument. Any argument at all, beyond flat out denial would be fine.

Fine thumb your nose at morality. Is not the 'right of return' a fundamental principal upon which your Jewish Homeland is based? To deny others the same right on the basis of race is racist.

This is an Israeli initiative. What have we here? I know that any allusions to Palestinian Arabs haveing 'rights' makes you cross eyed but did you read Pappe's statement?From the text above:

quote:
This was by all accounts a historical moment, the significance of which will be absorbed and recognized with time. But this conference has already refuted the claim that the unconditional support for the Palestinian refugees’ Right of Return is a taboo in Israel and a non-starter for peace negotiations for the two people.

Seems not all Israeli suffer from head-in-sand disease.

[ 29 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 29 May 2004 05:36 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post

[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: mjollnir ]


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

posted 29 May 2004 05:43 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
The so-called Right of Return is a complete non-starter. While 300 people may have discussed it in Haifa (really not a lot) poll after poll in Israel negate this idea totally. The same polls still support a two-state solution but if the "one-state " issue is pushed I can almost guarentee that Israelis will react terribly to it and even the two-state solution may be lost.

Israel as a National home for the Jewish people will never die . Those here that wish to kill it are engaging in what many in Israel belive is the destruction of the state of Israel. They wont allow it to happen.


The "so called" right of return is not Israel's, to choose whether to give or not. It is an innate, uncontestable, and never-dying right. It must not be in Israels hand, as it is the refugees' land that they still own. Again, if that ruins the idea of a Jewish state on the land, well, I again say tough luck. Theocracies are not fit for our modern times, anyway.
So Justice clashes with the idea of Israel as a national home for the jewish people. The question is: Which of the two do people support more?


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

posted 29 May 2004 05:47 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel as a National home for the Jewish people will never die . Those here that wish to kill it are engaging in what many in Israel belive is the destruction of the state of Israel. They wont allow it to happen.


Mr. Kahane? Is that really you?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 29 May 2004 06:50 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
[QB]The so-called Right of Return is a complete non-starter. While 300 people may have discussed it in Haifa (really not a lot) poll after poll in Israel negate this idea totally. The same polls still support a two-state solution but if the "one-state " issue is pushed I can almost guarentee that Israelis will react terribly to it and even the two-state solution may be lost.

Denying one's responsibility for others' misfortune is generally considered a bad thing. But, with a little Mishification it's called 'moral strength'.

"You stole something from me!"

"Yes, I did, but I just don't feel like giving it back right now. It's nice and I've grown accustomed to it. Mind if I keep it? I've got this piece of shit over here, if you'd like it instead."


If we were to witness such an exchange between two people, what would we think?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 29 May 2004 07:40 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Be as critical as you wish my friends Im only stating a fact of Middle East life. The "right of return" for those Palestinians displaced in the 1948 war to Israel will not fly. However the "right of return" to an independent Palestinian state will fly. And many Israelis would support proper and fair monetary restitution for lands lost.

I know many here do not like to face reality but you can be assured that Israelis (most Israelis) from the left to the right will NEVER support the right of return for displaced Palestinians other than to a newly created independent state of Palestine.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 29 May 2004 07:42 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Please stop addressing "everyone" in your posts. It's annoying.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 29 May 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The most farsighted among the Palestinians now understand that the settlements are good for their cause. Michael Tarazi, a Palestinian-American Harvard trained legal advisor to the Palestinian negoitaing team told me, 'Settlements are the vanguard of binationalism' - a single state that would soon have an Arab majority. 'I don't care if they build more,' Tarazi said. 'The longer they stay out there, the more Israel will appear to the world to be essentially an apartheid state.'

He went on, 'The settlements mean that hte egg is hopelessly scrambled. Basically, it is already one state. There are no signs saying 'Welcome to the Occupied Territory.' It's one country, the same electricity grid, teh same aquifers. Except that the three million Christians and Muslims in Gaza and the West Bank don't have the same rights as the five million Jews in Israel and the Arabs in Israel are second class citizens compared with the Jews. Now the cause is justice and equality.' ...
Tarazi believes that the Palestinian strategy should change. 'We have to capture the imagination of the world. We have to make this an argument about apartheid.'"



From Among the Settlers by Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker (May 31, 2004).

[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


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

posted 29 May 2004 08:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excelent.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 29 May 2004 08:25 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
O.K.

The old stuff didn't work so were on to new tactics.

"Rights" and "Apartheid".

It drips with irony.

This is like CAIR-net.org having an online petition condeming terrorism.

Funny.

Saudia Arabia 100% Muslim
Iran 99% Muslim
Jordan 92% Muslim
Pakistan 97% Muslim
Israel 80% Jewish
Israel 20% Non-Jewish

It really is ironic that you would bring up Apartheid.

In the Muslim world it seems to be Islam or nothing. Or close to nothing.

Apartheid in the Muslim world must mean that Islam and Islam only. You don't even get to be the minority in the Islamic world.

Yet. Israel "Free" and "Democratic" is 20% non Jewish.

[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]

[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 29 May 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Saudia Arabia 100% Muslim
Iran 99% Muslim
Jordan 92% Muslim
Pakistan 97% Muslim
Israel 80% Jewish
Israel 20% Non-Jewish

It really is ironic that you would bring up Apartheid.

In the Muslim world it seems to be Islam or nothing. Or close to nothing.


This is such a nonsensical argument that I'm amazed anyone would even try it.

What's the proportion of Catholics to Muslims in, say, Eire, for instance? Is there a marked imbalance? Yes? Does this imbalance therefore mean that the Irish are practicing Apartheid?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 29 May 2004 09:37 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:

Israel 80% Jewish
Israel 20% Non-Jewish

It really is ironic that you would bring up Apartheid.
]



Your proportions don't include the 3.4 million Palestinians who live in the Occupied Territories. Include them and the proportions under Israeli control become 53% Jewish, 47% non-Jewish.

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 29 May 2004 09:38 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:

Saudia Arabia 100% Muslim
Iran 99% Muslim
Jordan 92% Muslim
Pakistan 97% Muslim
Israel 80% Jewish
Israel 20% Non-Jewish

It really is ironic that you would bring up Apartheid.

In the Muslim world it seems to be Islam or nothing. Or close to nothing.

Apartheid in the Muslim world must mean that Islam and Islam only. You don't even get to be the minority in the Islamic world.

Yet. Israel "Free" and "Democratic" is 20% non Jewish.

[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]


What does Iran and Pakistan have to do with the levant? You can't just compare Israel with sporadic Muslim countries. If we were to be geographically correct:

Lebanon: 55% Muslim, 5% Druze, 40% Christian and others (40% non Muslim)

Syria: 85% Muslim (and Druze), 15% Christian and others (although independent sources estimate the percentage of Christians as 20%, but still, 15% non Muslim)

Egypt: 85% Muslim, 15% Christian (15% non Muslim)

Iraq:90-94% Muslim, 6-10% Christian and others (6% non Muslim)

I don't know, but with countries more relevant to the levant (neighbors of Isreal), and not Pakistan and Iran, the picture seems different. Yeah right, you don't even get to be a minority in the Arab world (since this is an Isreali-Arab conflict, and not Israeli-Muslim conflict), but on another note, you become a minority in Israel when you are eradicated and dispossessed.

Of course countries like Lebanon and Iraq and Syria had Jewish populations before Israel meddled in their affairs by planting bombs in Baghdad, throwing grenades at the Alliance Israelite school and the central synagogue in Aleppo, and by bombing the central Beirut Synagogue with Jewish refugees in it in 1982, not to mention sending undercover agents at the time to attack the Beiruti Jews).

[ 29 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

[ 29 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 29 May 2004 11:23 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Funny how the Zionists never talk about those attacks.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 May 2004 11:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yet. Israel "Free" and "Democratic" is 20% non Jewish.


Israel is not democratic. 1/3rd of the people whom it rules are not allowed to participate in government. Why is this? Because those people are Arabs. Legal seperation of race is known as Apartheid, which is not just a nasty word, but an actual philosophy of government.

Also your supposed scientific analysis of population break downs is as unscientific and racist as those who select a number of known Jews who work in the US government, and then say that it proves that there is a jewish conspiracy running the US government.

Please, get a first year textbook on statists and there uses in Sociology before you launch of into more of these psuedo-scientific endeavours. The essential problem is this: You have pre-selected survey sample only to include Muslim countries and one other. A more appropriate survey would take a number of countries selected at random and then break down their religions.

You are doing exactly the same thing that some people do when they pre-select a groups of names based on the fact that they sound Jewish and then devine their results from there.

[ 29 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 30 May 2004 07:26 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Funny how the Zionists never talk about those attacks.


Why would they? How could Israel, as a "national home for the Jewish people" (Macabee, 2004), justify its responsibility for the displacement of Jewish Arabs from their homes, just because it needed cheap labor, which was not fit for their European counterparts. Well, at least the Yemeni Jews were welcomed by being sprayed with insecticide (funny, I thought people were greeted by rice, but still).

How does this relate to the theme of the thread? Well, Israel, keen on silencing and depriving those Jewish, yet also Arab, refugees of their identities and voice (because how could they fit in the artificial polarity it constructed as Arab vis-a-vis Jews?) still uses them as a bargaining chip, a quid pro quo for the Palestinian refugees.
Ella Shohat, Israeli of Iraqi origin, comments that this trade off is absurd since no one asked both refugees whether they wanted to be displaced or traded off.

quote:
Meanwhile, the description that what occurred was a "population exchange," which somehow justifies the creation of Palestinian refugees, is also fundamentally problematic because neither Arab Jews nor Palestinians were ever consulted about whether they would like to be exchanged. While the forced departure of Arab-Jews does not parallel the circumstances of the Palestinian traumatic exodus during the Nakba (catastrophe), one cannot also simply affix terms such as aliya or immigration, because the question of will, desire, agency remains extremely complex, contingent and ambivalent.

http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200105/shohat.htm


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 May 2004 08:06 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Please stop addressing "everyone" in your posts. It's annoying.

I dont address "everyone". And if you find it "annoying" dont read it.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 30 May 2004 12:53 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Someone mentioned Syria.

I have Syria being 90% Muslim. I am probably wrong.

I did however learn something new about Syria.

Did you guys know that Syria has 10,000+ troops in Lebanon.

It doesn't seem to bother anyone that Syria is the Occupier in Lebanon.

You guys have it hot and heavy for Palestine but Syria doesn't seem to be a big issue.

Funny, Eh?


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 May 2004 01:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's so true, Jack: babble is lousy with Syrian cheerleaders and agents. Why, every time the very word Syria is mentioned, we do the Wave.

As it happens, Jack, there have been a number of discussions about Syria on babble. Perhaps before you generalize about everyone else who posts here, you might take the trouble to read those discussions?

Oh, and those statistics you listed above? I think that's what we call scoring an "own goal," Jack. ROTFL.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 30 May 2004 01:38 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
Someone mentioned Syria.

I have Syria being 90% Muslim. I am probably wrong.

I did however learn something new about Syria.

Did you guys know that Syria has 10,000+ troops in Lebanon.

It doesn't seem to bother anyone that Syria is the Occupier in Lebanon.

You guys have it hot and heavy for Palestine but Syria doesn't seem to be a big issue.

Funny, Eh?


Syria does have about 20 000 troops in Bekaa Valley in lebanon.
But, do you happen to know how come syria ended up in lebanon? Syrians were called to Lebanon by President Franjieh (1976 or so) because the lebanese army had totally lost control over the Palestinian refugee camps. So directly or indirectly, this situation was caused by Israel.
Syria ended up staying in lebanon mainly because of the claim that it needs to stay so long as Israel is occupying parts of lebanon.
Naturally syria did have a lot of support (in the latter stages of the civil war) amongst lebanese muslims. It is not difficult to see the israeli connection here: israel supported christian extremist militias, and allowed them to commit massacres under its umbrella. Israel chose a president for lebanon, a loathsome warlord, and forced him upon lebanese people. So syria wasn't viewed in a bad light (by the muslims), and this interplay on the sectarian lines was the worst thing that could've been done to lebanon.
But most of all, syria couldn't have possibly stayed in lebanon without the american/israeli consent. No Way, all three countries had a lot at stake and I truly believe everything was done with mutual consent.

Now a direct comparison between the Syrian presence in lebanon and the israeli occupation of palestine is a little too much. The syrian influence is mostly political: fostering alliances during the parliamentary elections that yield a pro-syrian parliament (then government), but syrian soldiers don't run around killing lebanese people, they are not present in the big cities, they don't tamper with election results. They don't control the TV's, press, etc... (just check what annahar or daily star writes about syria, for example )
There are no lands in lebanon that have been given out to syrians, the lebanese economy does not fall under the whims of the syrian government.
Syria can not possibly stay in lebanon once a unified lebanese front stands up in front of her. The same can't be said about israel in palestine.


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

posted 30 May 2004 01:39 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post

[ 30 May 2004: Message edited by: mjollnir ]


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 May 2004 02:42 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I dont address "everyone". And if you find it "annoying" dont read it.

Yes, you do. And I'll read whatever I want and comment on whatever I want. And I won't pretend I'm another poster, either...


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 30 May 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
Someone mentioned Syria.

I have Syria being 90% Muslim. I am probably wrong.

I did however learn something new about Syria.

Did you guys know that Syria has 10,000+ troops in Lebanon.

It doesn't seem to bother anyone that Syria is the Occupier in Lebanon.

You guys have it hot and heavy for Palestine but Syria doesn't seem to be a big issue.

Funny, Eh?


No no no. You are not off the hook that easily, Jack01. Stop acting like Mary Poppins, throwing a myriad of serious claims from your magical bag, and then not following them till the end, only to replace them with new half baked arguments.

To go back to Syria, and before I play along with you diverting the thread:

Syria itself admits to 15-20% of its population as Christian. Moreover, Churches and monasteries as much as mosques, are exempt from taxes and get electricity and water for free, not to mention getting permits to establish new institutions easily.

Did you know that the only village left today in the world whose inhabitants still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ, is the Syrian and very Christian Maaloula (You know the minorities that "don't exist").

If you have suddenly discovered in your human rights laden heart the urge to defend Lebanon, why don't you open a thread (amazing how this epiphany of concern for Lebanon's occupation stems only in discussions about Israel and Palestine). So much can be said about this topic. Yes Syria's regime is a corrupt, even brutal military dictatorship, and yes Syria maintains troops in Lebanon; However, the last time I checked, Lebanon was still an existing entity (Does anyone remember Palestine), and the Lebanese villages and towns still exist with their Lebanese inhabitants (What happened to the scores of villages like Deir Yassin?). Syria didn't commit ethnic cleansing of the Lebanese that drove them to refugee camps, and won't allow the refugees go back to Lebanon in order not to disrupt the Syrian majority. The Syrians don't speak about a transfer of the Lebanese population.

"funny, eh"?

[ 30 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 30 May 2004 08:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Did you guys know that Syria has 10,000+ troops in Lebanon.

I think that if you did not know that then you should spend less time posting and more time reading about the things that you pretend to have a well informed opinion on. Good news Jack you are starting to learn some facts.

Now let me tell you something. Illan Pappe, the man whose words began this thread, knows about the Syrian troops in Lebanon. He is a professor of History at the University of Haifa, in Israel. He is an Israeli Jew. He has spent most of his life studying the history of both the Arab peoples, and their relationship to his own people.

I suggest that if it is only today that you have discovered that there are Syrian troops in Lebanon, that you spend more time reading the work of people who know much more than you about the situation. I think you should ask yourself why it is that someone, a Jew, an Israeli and a learned historian has an opinion that is so completely in opposition to most of the things you say.

[ 30 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 31 May 2004 12:45 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But, do you happen to know how come syria ended up in lebanon? Syrians were called to Lebanon by President Franjieh (1976 or so) because the lebanese army had totally lost control over the Palestinian refugee camps. So directly or indirectly, this situation was caused by Israel.


Well, technically it was the British who started the whole thing back in 1916. They were the ones who decided to let Jews into Palestine...

*thread drift*

Robert Fisk says in his memoir " pity the nation" that the Syrians basically invited themselves. Assad was worried that a Palestinian state would be founded in Lebanon. He wanted to crush it. However, after Sadat signed the peace treaty with Begin, Syria's leader decided to support the Palestinian any liberation organization. Why did he do that? What was it about the Treaty that made him switch sides?


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

posted 31 May 2004 01:19 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its not necessarily switching sides. Its having a common enemy. The inlfux of Palestinian causes structural problems everywhere.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 May 2004 01:19 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its not necessarily switching sides. Its having a common enemy. The inlfux of Palestinian causes structural problems everywhere.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 31 May 2004 09:48 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
Oh well, since Jack01 has succeeded in diverting the thread from the Haifa initiative, I'll just play along.

At around 1975, there was an urban legend circulating in Lebanon(though it may have been very true) that Henry Kissenger told the Lebanese president Suleiman Franjie that in order to solve the Palestinian problem, they would naturalize the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and, if the Christian Lebanese didn't like it, the Americans have ships waiting to transfer them all to Canada.
How much this is true, I am not sure, but I won't be surprised if at least some of it were, since its logic has been operative before: To compensate for the Jewish Europeans for their genocide by the Nazis and co., the powers that be gave them the land of the Palestinians, who had nothing to do with the atrocities committed. Why wouldn't do the same for the Palestinian refugees with Lebanon?
When the rightist forces (including the Lebanese government) felt it was at a disadvantage with regard to their foes (the leftist and the Palestinian militias), the Lebanese president asked the US for help (like king Hussein did in 1970), so the Americans apologized from intervening directly but hinted that he'd better accept the alliance with their neighbor Syria, since the regime is secular. Assad insisted on formalities (official invitation by the Lebanese government, further legalization of the Syrian intervention by the Arab League) and questioned the Israeli stand on this, so the Americans informed him that as long as the Syrian army does not go beyong a certain limit (red line) in Southern Lebanon, the Israelis are fine. And this is how the Syrian army got to be in Lebanon. This was in 1976, if we survey how the war and the situation in Lebanon evolved, we definitely need an independent thread.

To go back to the Haifa initiative: As long as the Palestinian refugees are not resettled in their lands, peace (true peace, not trademarked) in the middle east remains a joke at best. For 20 years (up till 1968), the Palestinans remained put waiting to be done justice by the international community, but the latter ignored them and rewarded terrorism by giving the Zionist terrorists a state (a super state). After 1967, the Palestininas realized that waiting for the international sense of justice is futile and decided to take things to their own hands. Amazing how only then, did the world know that Palestinians exist, because had not not been for Palestinan militancy post 1967, the world would still be ignorant now about their existence. Moreover, at least now, the refugee issue is still on the list of Palestian negotiators, however, if a hefty Israel-tailored peace (Peace-proper noun) deal is cut, ignoring the refugees' right of return, their bitterness would only grow and grow into epic proportions (waiting for the revenge in 10-20-200 years), instead of that bitterness being depleted and the foundation for acceptance of Israel by the Palestinians and Arabs, once and for all, in the region is entrenched.

[ 31 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

[ 31 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 31 May 2004 10:52 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

Yes, you do. And I'll read whatever I want and comment on whatever I want. And I won't pretend I'm another poster, either...


Well then go ahead but don't whine about it.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 May 2004 11:09 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
liminal, that is a dizzying but fascinating summary of what was going on in Lebanon in the seventies, and it has a lot of verisimilitude.

From a distance and going only by mainstream media reports, it was very difficult to keep abreast of the players in Beirut. And if Dr Kissinger was one of the players, then everything we thought we knew was bound to be wrong anyway.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 31 May 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh well, since Jack01 has succeeded in diverting the thread from the Haifa initiative, I'll just play along.

There is no need to be tetchy, we just skipped from one interesting topic to another and your last post did have a kind of finality to it anyway, i.e." unless the refugee crisis is solved there can never ever be piece in the Middle East. (Or at least in Israel and Palestine.)
I don't know enough about the situation to contradict you in any meaningful way and I sincerely doubt that anyone on this thread, with the exception of Macabee of course, would disagree with you. So let us discuss something else.
Why would the United States, try to convince the Lebanese President to seek an alliance with a Soviet client state?


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

posted 31 May 2004 02:05 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

There is no need to be tetchy, we just skipped from one interesting topic to another and your last post did have a kind of finality to it anyway, i.e." unless the refugee crisis is solved there can never ever be piece in the Middle East. (Or at least in Israel and Palestine.)
I don't know enough about the situation to contradict you in any meaningful way and I sincerely doubt that anyone on this thread, with the exception of Macabee of course, would disagree with you. So let us discuss something else.
Why would the United States, try to convince the Lebanese President to seek an alliance with a Soviet client state?


Dear CMOT, I'm sorry for being tetchy .

Regarding your question, I personally have no idea why the Americans would lobby for Syrian intervention in Lebanon in 1976. I am just repeating what Lebanese government officials, and Frangie's consultants (who were with Frangie in the meeting) have stated in later interviews.

[ 31 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 31 May 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Dear CMOT, I'm sorry for being tetchy.

Not to worry, old son

Why did the Americans trust Farangi to do what he was told? He did criticize the phlange for their close ties to Israel and his son was shot by Gemayel's men as a result. Wouldn't that make him incredibly anti American?


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

posted 31 May 2004 04:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whatever and however it played out the Syrian interevention was nothing like the 1967 invasion Arab countres.

Among the sailent features is the fact that there has been no effort to settle Lebanon by the Syrians, nor is there any outstanding demand to annex any territory. As we can see Israel has made it explicit that it intends to keep territory it has occupied.

[ 31 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 31 May 2004 10:44 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Why did the Americans trust Farangi to do what he was told? He did criticize the phlange for their close ties to Israel and his son was shot by Gemayel's men as a result. Wouldn't that make him incredibly anti American?


No. In the War of 2 Years (1975-1977),Frangie was allied with the Phalangists and the other right wing factions against the leftists who supported the Palestinian groups. The Phalangists/Frangie coalition was advocated by Syria, and it is the Syrian intervention in 1976 that helped them win the war (battle actually). So before 1978, the Phalagists were Syria's allies. After Sadat's visit to Jerusalem, the Syrians switched sides and supported the Palestian groups in Lebanon, so the Phalangists turned to Israel for sponsorship (whatever came first is the chicken-and-egg debate), which didn't quite cut it with President Frangie (no longer president of the republic in 1978), who remained faithful to the Syrians. Of course, I believe that the conflict between Frangie and the Gemayels (of the Phalangists) was exacerbated (if not initiated) by Feudal competition and the fight for power and ascendancy in North Lebanon between the 2 clans.
CMOT, it doesn't work that way in Lebanon's case that when A and B are allied in 1975, they would still be allies in 1978. In fact, A and B would fight against C and D in 1978, then A and D would fight B and C in 1980 and so on. It is very complicated, and this is why most sources fall into the trap of reduction and simplicity, the gravest and most fallacious of which is classifying the warring sides as Muslim versus Chritian, when it fact the war started between Right wing Chritians and Muslims against Left wing Christian and Muslims supporting the Palestian groups in 1975 (the 2 factions differed in economic, politcal, and social agendas), and ended in 1989 by Muslims fighting Muslims on one side, and Christians fighting Christians on the other for unfathomable reasons.

[ 31 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  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