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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Arabs for Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Arabs for Israel
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 31 May 2004 02:45 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
here is an interesting site.

Arabs for Israel


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

posted 31 May 2004 03:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As you'll see if you click on the last link at the bottom of the page, that site is run by an American woman named Nonie Darwish.

Nonie rilly rilly likes to fly the American flag.

Nonie is also a hysterical bigot, as you can see from this essay on her own site.

Nonie writes charmingly well-considered prose such as this:

quote:
It is the norm for Arabs to deny a fact (however blatant) and blame others rather than admit to the wrongdoing and apologize. Honesty is not rewarded.

Only a racist would care about Nonie's ancestry. A social historian, however, would note that she was apparently unhinged by 9/11 and yet has barely noticed any number of other atrocities, at least not if they were committed against Muslims.

(Where did she get that spelling?)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 31 May 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where did she get that spelling?

Probably from her good friend Dubya.

Barf- emotion needed again.

[ 31 May 2004: Message edited by: kuba ]


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 31 May 2004 03:26 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sounds sort of like Jews for Jesus.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 31 May 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Nonie's essay has racist elements, sad to say.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 May 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee I suggest you see a film called Bhopa. It details the conflict between a young Black anti-apartheid activist and his police officer father.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 31 May 2004 07:21 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Sounds sort of like Jews for Jesus.

A direct hit!

Christians - 0 : Lions - 1


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 31 May 2004 08:26 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lost in the misht is the fact that the PLO (as the representative of a wide swath of Palestinian society) long ago recognised the right of Israel to exist within recognised and secure borders, in accordance with international law. As early as January 1976 Arafat explicitly affirmed the PLO's recognition of this right as a prime piece of their negotiating starting-points.

Granted, the PLO has never stooped to accept the absurd (and unheard of in international law) notion that the Palestinians should recognise Israel's abstract "right to exist" - a kind of platitude that is extended to no other state in such vague and broad terminology.

Arafat has reiterated the PLO's acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist within the confines of international law over the past 25+ years including in 1988 when he acknowledged "the right of all parties concerned in the Middle East conflict to exist in peace and security, and, as I have mentioned, including the state of Palestine, Israel and other neighbors, according to the Resolution 242 and 338."

Recall that it Israel which has denied the right of Palestinians to form an independent sovereign state within workable borders since 1948. The settlements - which are official Israeli policy, not just a random aberration of a few 'extremists' - are part and parcel of this denial.

[ 31 May 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 31 May 2004 09:39 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Arafat has reiterated the PLO's acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist within the confines of international law over the past 25+ years including in 1988 when he acknowledged "the right of all parties concerned in the Middle East conflict to exist in peace and security, and, as I have mentioned, including the state of Palestine, Israel and other neighbors, according to the Resolution 242 and 338."

I thought that Arafat wanted a bi national state in which both Israelis and Palestinians could live together...

quote:
Lost in the misht is the fact that the PLO (as the representative of a wide swath of Palestinian society) long ago recognised the right of Israel to exist within recognised and secure borders, in accordance with international law. As early as January 1976 Arafat explicitly affirmed the PLO's recognition of this right as a prime piece of their negotiating starting-points.
Granted, the PLO has never stooped to accept the absurd (and unheard of in international law) notion that the Palestinians should recognise Israel's abstract "right to exist" - a kind of platitude that is extended to no other state in such vague and broad terminology.


First you say that the PLO have accepted Israel's right to exist and then you say they haven't?
Which is it?


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

posted 31 May 2004 11:21 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We remember with deep sadness and respect the brave Arabs, known and unknown, who were killed or severely punished for promoting peace with Israel; a special thanks to President Anwar Sadat of Egypt who was killed at the hands of Militant and Radical Islamists after he signed the peace treaty with Israel.

Wow, Anwar Sadat.

So I take it that in the official American view:

-You can be a ruthless unelected dictator and lock up your country's finest in prison.

-You can unleash your henchmen to beat and hurt students protesting against the economic catastrophe caused by your policies

-You can foster and nurture extremist religious fanatics who preach nothing but hate

-You can play the religious card further and turn your country from a secular state based on a secular constitution to a theocracy based on interpretations of religious scripts, rendering 20% of your citizens of a different religious affiliation as second class citizens, not to mention going against the will of the majority of the population, who, although lucky to have their religion be the official state's, are ardently secular.

But suck up to Israel and the US, and you are considered moderate, progressive, and a "brave Arab".

Bullocks.

[ 31 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 01 June 2004 03:58 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I thought that Arafat wanted a bi national state in which both Israelis and Palestinians could live together...


There have been a number of positions put forward by the PLO and the PA over the years. It is important not to mistake a negotiating position and the stated positition of the PLO founding charter, for instance, which is that there should be a bi-national state. The 1988 letter recognizing Israel's right to exist are the first official recognition of Israel by the PLO and represent and change in position from supporting a bi-national state to one in line with the original Israel position of partition as authorized by the UN in 1948. Oddly once the PLO more or less accepted the 1948 position of Israel and the UN, Israel has now rejected even that.

Needless to say none of these positions put forward by Arafat, or the PLO or the PA, have said that the Jews should be removed from Palestine. That is a common falsehood.


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

posted 01 June 2004 04:13 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure it's a common misconception, but it plays well to the same crowd that thinks Saddam flew aeroplanes into the World Trade Centre.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 01 June 2004 05:13 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
First you say that the PLO have accepted Israel's right to exist and then you say they haven't? Which is it?

Both, actually. The PLO has accepted Israel's "right to exist" in the concrete sense of the term, ie. to not be obliterated, to not be attacked, to have secure borders, to enjoy self-determination, etc. In other words, the same "right to exist" enjoyed by every state in the international system.

They have not, however, accepted Israel's "right to exist" in the abstract sense that Courage describes. Nor should they have to. That sense of the term, as commonly used, does not refer to Israel's security or self-determination or anything like that, but to Israel's "right" to have been created in the first place. Asking Palestinians to accept that "right" is to ask them to accept that the disposession of their homeland was an inherently legitimate act -- in effect, to ask them to apologize abjectly for having been in the way of the creation of the Jewish state.

To use a Canadian parallel, our First Nations can and should be expected to recognize Canada's "right to exist", in the concrete sense described in the first paragraph above. They should NOT, however, be expected to recognize any abstract "right for Canada to have been created in the first place". That would be to ask them to accept that the invasion and theft of their lands by Europeans was a correct and legitimate act, an entirely unreasonable expectation -- and one that could only have a poisonous effect on any possibility of a negotiated settlement of differences.

As Courage points out, no other country in the world is granted an abstract "right to have been created". Every state, including ours, was founded on some combination of war, invasion, ethnic cleansing, massacres, genocide, and other terrible things. Israel is no exception, and the Palestinians should not be expected to treat it as if it were.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 June 2004 07:30 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So then why is the "right to exist" question as even you define it, posed ONLY to Israel?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 June 2004 07:51 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Huh. I thought the question was being posed to Palestinians everyday in the form of missile fire and tanks.

And do not Israelis at he highest levels of governmemnt routinely argue there is no Palestinian people?

Typical hypocrisy. You should be ashamed posting a racist diatribe though we are becoming used to it.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 01 June 2004 11:07 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingie's right: I think you've got it backwards, Mac. The "right to exist" question isn't posed to Israel, it's posed to the Palestinians. It's they who are asked to recognize Israel's "right to have been created", and then condemned as monsters if they don't. I've heard our own Norman Spector use that line of argument in order to point out a deep and gaping flaw in the Palestinian character -- that they don't recognize their obligation to give up their land to somebody else.

Now that Israel exists, and isn't going away, Palestinians can be expected to accept that fact and live with it, but they can't be expected to like it. That's entirely unrealistic. It's a bit much to expect the Palestinian population to mass-convert to Zionism.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 June 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
Wingie's right: I think you've got it backwards, Mac. The "right to exist" question isn't posed to Israel, it's posed to the Palestinians. It's they who are asked to recognize Israel's "right to have been created", and then condemned as monsters if they don't. I've heard our own Norman Spector use that line of argument in order to point out a deep and gaping flaw in the Palestinian character -- that they don't recognize their obligation to give up their land to somebody else.

Now that Israel exists, and isn't going away, Palestinians can be expected to accept that fact and live with it, but they can't be expected to like it. That's entirely unrealistic. It's a bit much to expect the Palestinian population to mass-convert to Zionism.



No one denies the need for a Palestinian state and many would accept it as a non-secular state. But in these circles ONLY Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is questioned and even denied many wanting its dismantling. That is anti-Semitism. Talk about ass backwards!!

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 01 June 2004 02:31 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
So then why is the "right to exist" question as even you define it, posed ONLY to Israel?

Actually, it's the other way around: Israel, and it's supporters have raised the question.

There is no other state on the planet that is conferred an abstract and unconditional and unlimited "right to exist". Acceptance of this demand is to cast off the basic notion of reciprocity that underpins the state system. By agreeing that Israel can exist within secure borders and as long as it exists in peace with its neighbours, the PLO is simply affirming one of the essential tenets of the state system embodied in the UN Charter: that states not only have 'rights' but duties and responsibilities to other states and peoples. Suggesting that a state simply has a 'right to exist' means that all kinds of outrages (like occupations, expansion, settlements, aggressive warfare etc.) could be justified under the rubric of 'existence'. Israel has rejected this conditionality and reciprocity.

What is more telling, is that few supporters of Israel's current policies seem to have any kind of solid reasoning for why this demand - so out of step with international law and practice - should be considered a primary negotiating tenet.

Why the exception?

Let's turn the question on its head, hypocrite: What if Palestinians demanded the simple 'right to exist' for a Palestinian state without conditions like secure borders, respect for its neighbours etc.? Recall that this would mean that the Palestinians could simply decide that their state existed from the Mediterrannean to the Jordan.

I'm betting you'd be Mishtified by that one...

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 01 June 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the top:

Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is questioned because in order to support it, Palestinians have to assent to giving up the rights to their land. Indeed, including Tel Aviv. A Palestinian state is quite a different matter---no one disputes that the land belongs to the Palestinians except for fanatical settler thieves. There is no symmetry here, Mac.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 01 June 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is no other state on the planet that is conferred an abstract and unconditional and unlimited "right to exist". Acceptance of this demand is to cast off the basic notion of reciprocity that defines the state-system.

I thought Palestine had a conferred and unconditonal right to exist.

You guys are confussing the heck out of me.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 01 June 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nope. None of the Mideastern countries have a Right To Exist, including a Palestinian state. They only have levels of legitimacy. The argument is that Israel has a lower level of legitimacy than a prospective Palestinian state due to circumstances both at genesis and in the present.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 01 June 2004 03:30 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As early as January 1976 Arafat explicitly affirmed the PLO's recognition of this right as a prime piece of their negotiating starting-points.

So, In '76 Arafat was prepared to accept a two state solution?...
I'm about to get hit with the stupid stick aren't I?


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

posted 01 June 2004 04:05 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

So, In '76 Arafat was prepared to accept a two state solution?...
I'm about to get hit with the stupid stick aren't I?


To the first question, the answer is "not exactly". What the PLO did was to support a UN Security Council resolution tabled by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in January 1976. The resolution - which was vetoed by the United States - essentially affirmed UNSC 242 and called for "appropriate arrangements...to guarantee...the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all states in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries."

Resolution 242 reads:

quote:
The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.


So essentially, we have the PLO accepting Israel's 'right to exist', but on the condition that Israel accept standard agreements on reciprocity with other states and generally decent behaviour. Obviously, this doesn't necessarily mean a 'two-state solution', because the specifics of Israel's political/ethnic make-up is not mentioned.

As for the "stupid stick": don't worry, not a lot of people know this stuff. It's been carefully ommitted and/or forgotten in most popular media depictions of the conflict.

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 01 June 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Nope. None of the Mideastern countries have a Right To Exist, including a Palestinian state. They only have levels of legitimacy. The argument is that Israel has a lower level of legitimacy than a prospective Palestinian state due to circumstances both at genesis and in the present.
And exactly what history book do you read? And how far back do you go? With this skewed thinking Canada has no right to exist and our Aboriginal people have a far stronger right to dismantle our governemnt and take over.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 01 June 2004 07:23 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
And exactly what history book do you read? And how far back do you go? With this skewed thinking Canada has no right to exist and our Aboriginal people have a far stronger right to dismantle our governemnt and take over.

You never miss a chance to miss a point. Nice to see nothing changes in Misheria....

Canada has no abstract "right to exist", it has a contingent "right to exist" under certain conditions of legitimacy. Those conditions include not only defining and fixing it's borders (and therefore renouncing expansionist claims) but for ensuring that it's neighbours can live without fear of aggression and the like. These conditions have never been met by Israel. Moreover, international law has laid the condition on Israel that it immediately withdraw from lands illegally occupied in the wake of the 1948 and 1967 wars. It has also failed to comply with this demand.

As for the analogy with Canada's treatment of its Aboriginal Peoples, it has taken great strides toward including Aboriginal people as equal (and in some cases advantaged) members of the Canadian body politic. Canada has assumed responsibility for those it governs (by virtue of finding themselves within it's defined, fixed borders) including those to which harm was done by the creation of the state and by subsequent discriminatory and abusive state policies. The level to which Canada has redressed or 'righted the wrongs' is debatable, but it cannot be denied that Canada has sought to include its Aboriginal peoples within its democracy and extends them full Constitutional rights, including a privileged position when it comes to issues like self-governance and the like.

In the case of Israel, it effectively kicked people out, took their stuff, and keeps them as far outside the body politic as politically and militarily possible. Rather than attempting to take responsibility for its wrongdoings and find manners of redress, compensation, and - most importantly - include its victims in the new polity as equal members, Israel has essentially denied all responsibility for their suffering, blamed the victims and systematically oppressed them through various political, economic, and military measures. It has continued to illegally expand it's territorial control into areas not ceded to it by international law, and has repeatedly engaged in acts of aggression against it's neighbours and further afield. Moreover, it has systematically discriminated against the members of that ethnic community who were not effectively cleansed from Israeli territory in 1948 and after the creation of Israel (yes, the ethnic cleansing continued for 20-30 years...).

But hey, other than on those absolutely essential points, the situations are entirely analogous....

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 June 2004 01:27 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
No one denies the need for a Palestinian state and many would accept it as a non-secular state. But in these circles ONLY Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is questioned and even denied many wanting its dismantling. That is anti-Semitism. Talk about ass backwards!!

Show me where I have denied Israel's basic allowed existence within clearly defined borders or withdraw the assertion that I am an anti-Semite.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 03 June 2004 02:47 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since that smear was apparently directed at me, I second Doc's request.

Question for Mac: who here has ever "accepted" a "non-secular" Palestinian state? When have any of us expressed a liking for theocratic governments?


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 June 2004 07:44 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

Show me where I have denied Israel's basic allowed existence within clearly defined borders or withdraw the assertion that I am an anti-Semite.



You are paranoid. Please show me where I "asserted" you were an anti-Semite. Secondly, please confirm that you support a Jewish state "within clearly defined borders ".

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 June 2004 11:53 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First: It's not my job to do your own research for you. YOU alleged, rather broadly, as below:

quote:
But in these circles ONLY Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is questioned and even denied many wanting its dismantling. That is anti-Semitism.

Since you did not single anyone out, then presumably, "these circles" is a big tarbrush that includes everyone but yourself.

Thus, you are being asked to back up that statement or withdraw it.

[ 03 June 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 June 2004 12:04 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I will not withdraw it. I have made this point in the past and will make it in the future. Those who wish to see the end of the Jewish national dream of a homeland ; those who engage in language advocating the end of a Jewish state engage in anti-Semitism. That is my honestly held and passionate belief. If you dont like it disagree but I will never retract it.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 03 June 2004 12:05 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

You are paranoid. Please show me where I "asserted" you were an anti-Semite. Secondly, please confirm that you support a Jewish state "within clearly defined borders ".


Please tell me what is so special about a "Jewish State", so that you would demand it so fervently.
I just want to know why people would support secularization everywhere and still insist on this exception. Please,I want to know what makes it such a special case?
Besides, supporting a Jewish state in Israel means denying the right of return of the 3mil refugees. Why would people support THAT?


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 June 2004 12:08 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And Macabee, those who accuse others who do not support the concept of a state based on religion of anti-semitism, especially other Jews, are engaging in McCarthyism at best, racism at worst.

[ 03 June 2004: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 June 2004 12:12 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That is my honestly held and passionate belief.

Hardly a tight argument.

Hitler and Torquemada were pretty honest and passionate about their beliefs themselves.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 03 June 2004 12:14 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
And by that token, those whose land was stolen, and are demanding it back, are engaged in anti-semitism, right?

Yes, why don't we go to a refugee camp (has any of you seen the inside of a refugee camp? tin houses, no running water, no schools, no education, guns everywhere, etc.., a genuine human calamity) and tell the people there that, while they are demanding their rights, they are engaged in anti-semitism, since they are not accepting the state of Israel as a national home for the jewish people on their land.

And how DARE they still hold on to the deeds for their houses and lands? They should have burnt those documents, anything short of that is anti-semitic. How dare they teach their children about Palestine?

LOGIC!


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 03 June 2004 12:33 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, why don't you tell the Palestinian grandmother sitting in Lebanon why she shouldn't want to return to her home? I actually don't think it would be very hard to write to her or to contact her somehow. Why don't you organize a letter-writing campaign to elderly Palestinian refugees telling them that they are Jew-haters for wanting to return to their homes within the Green Line? After all, for wanting to return to their homes, they clearly want to destroy the Jewish state, right? So wanting to go home is equivalent to anti-Semitism, right?

All those refugees, ipso facto anti-Semites, right?


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Prefect
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4938

posted 03 June 2004 01:12 PM      Profile for Prefect     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, living in the West, we're all in the luxuary of having opinions and defending them from the safety of our computer.

Which is why I try to be a moderate. Living in the comforts of the West, my opinions should not have as much legitimacy as those of a Palestinian whose home was just demolished, or an Israeli whose child was just murdered by a suicide bomber.

But some, such as this person, and that weesel sock-puppet of an opportunist like Irshad Manji feel that they can kick-start movements that actually have legitimacy from the safety and comforts of their Western suburban homes.

Give me a break.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 June 2004 02:31 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Hardly a tight argument.

Hitler and Torquemada were pretty honest and passionate about their beliefs themselves.



Comparing me to Hitler and Torquemada should be a violation of babble regs. I will pass this on to the moderator.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 03 June 2004 02:37 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh good, Mac! Deflect!

It wasn't a direct comparison anyway---he was pointing out the flaw in your appeal to emotion. All sorts of unsavory people are passionate, and yet they are guilty. You are guilty too.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 03 June 2004 02:44 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I will pass this on to the moderator.

Who will hopefully weigh it against you repeated and sly insinuations that many babblers are anti-semties. Also against babble policy I think.

So is sock puppetry I think. Shall we ask the moderators to confirm what we believe, that your IP address is the same as Mishei/Lakesh and whoever else you have posted as in the last few years, we all have some guesses I am sure? Maybe if enough complain we can democratically expose your dishonesty.

Macabee, you poison debate and this site. Shame on you.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 03 June 2004 04:35 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great, Macabee. You have an honestly held and passionate belief that 2 and 2 make 47. I guess bad math makes for good politics, in your view.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 June 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The increment of insinuation, dI, may be positively correlated with the constant of expression, E. Thus, in this instance, the Macabeean statement of insinuation is as below:

dM = E dI

Integrating and removing the constant yields M = EI, as has been backed up by empirical data.

QED.

Macabee may not be able to do math, but I can!


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 03 June 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Funnily enough, he can't do politics either.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 June 2004 06:35 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

Comparing me to Hitler and Torquemada should be a violation of babble regs. I will pass this on to the moderator.

That's right Mish; you're Hitler.

As has been pointed out, Lakesh, I was criticizing a fallacy in your reasoning process.

Besides that, Udo, I'd be the last person on babble to accuse a dissembler like you of being "honest."


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

posted 03 June 2004 07:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, if you can't tell the difference between an analogy, and a direct assertion about someone, then that's too bad. But in fact, YOU are the one who claimed that babblers in general are anti-semitic (again!). And don't pull this "where did I say that?" crap. You claimed that the people in "these circles" are anti-semitic.

Whereas, al-Qa'bong was pointing out a logical flaw in your argument by using an analogy.

So, nice try.


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

posted 03 June 2004 11:30 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I decided to edit this because I got more pissed off each time I thought about this thread.

Macabee, I have had it up to here (points at the moon) with your insinuations, tar-brushings, drive-by smear jobs, and your general lack of consideration for the laziness and hurtfulness of broad generalizations that serve to do nothing but derail threads.

You do this every day, day in and day out, and you remain the most unbelievably obtuse blockhead I have ever had the displeasure to deal with, since you are apparently so incapable of seeing any logical connections that you react with astonishment when told the blindingly obvious - which is that your statements are incorrect and lazy assertions of half-baked half-truths at best and outright falsehoods at worst.

You are an intellectually lazy oaf who can't be bothered to use your head for anything other than raising the entropy of the universe.

[ 04 June 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 04 June 2004 03:21 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You are an intellectually lazy oaf who can't be bothered to use your head for anything other than raising the entropy of the universe.

Good one.

The man's clearly under a bit of pressure, considering nature's abhorrence of vacuums.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 June 2004 08:02 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All right, enough already, Doc. I know it's infuriating, but let's not go overboard, okay?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 June 2004 08:33 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see so I have a strongly held opinion. I believe that today, those who would engage in rhetoric demanding the dissolution of the world's only Jewish state is engaging in anti-Semitism. This pisses off many here to a point where, despite what Michelle may think, at least one person here felt comfortable comparing my actions to Hitler.

And this is OK because you so hate it that my definition of anti-Semitic behaviour is not to your liking. That seems about it, no?

Now for the record, and I know you probably will not like this either but my view of anti-Semitism is shared by almost all mainstream Jewish groups in North America from the left leaning American Jewish committee to the more strident ADL. It is shared by midle of the road Canadian Jewish groups like ARTZA (a left leaning pro-Israeli group that brought Ayalon and Nusseibah to Toronto) to the more strident Bnai Brith.

Yes Yes I know ALL these Jews and their groups are wrong and everyone here is right.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2004 09:39 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You can have every organization in the world define it that way, but that does not make it so. You know your argument is tenuous when you have to appeal to numbers. You've never addressed the question whether someone who holds an honest belief that states based on religion is wrong, whether that be Israel or Pakistan, is ipso facto anti-semitic or anti-Muslim.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 04 June 2004 10:02 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only one bringing up the question of Israel's right to exist is you, Macabee. No one else is.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 June 2004 10:05 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
You can have every organization in the world define it that way, but that does not make it so. You know your argument is tenuous when you have to appeal to numbers. You've never addressed the question whether someone who holds an honest belief that states based on religion is wrong, whether that be Israel or Pakistan, is ipso facto anti-semitic or anti-Muslim.

You may have a view that something is "wrong" but if that view means the erradication of a Jewish democratic state and homeland then it is anti-Semitic.

The Jewish experience, in my view is unique. A persecuted minority almost wiped out as a people because they had no way to defend themselevs and no one to defend them. Their dream of having a land where they need not rely on the largesse of the rest of the world (much of which either passively hate them at worst or disregard them at best)to defend and protect them is fianally realized. And then along come those who wish to once again relegate the Jew to the whims of a world that could care less.

As a Jew I cannot abide this and I cannot abide those who promote such an outrage. That is why these Jewish groups support a Jewish state and in this case Josh it is you and those who think like you who are wrong. My opinion, I suppose Dr. Conway will come up with another asinine mathematical equation (does he think this somehow intimidates me?) but those
who will deny and wish to destroy the Jeiwish state are in my opinion and in the opinion of virtually every major Jewish group in the world engaging in 21st century anti-Semitism.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2004 10:34 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I take it then Macabee that you would consider those who advocate a one-state solution to be anti-semitic, meaning that they hate Jews. You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it right. It would be like me calling you a racist because you support a state that displaced Arabs and Muslims. I would not do so, because that is not objectively and universally true. Just as opposing a "Jewish" state does not objectively make one anti-semitic.

And your comment that Israel needs to no help from others is laughable. Without the billions of dollar in US aid each year, the state would be in bankruptcy. And what do the US taxpayers get for that aid: continued impediments to peace such as the settlements, and violation of US law when Israel uses attack helicopters for offensive purposes. But at the behest of the AIPACs of the world, US taxpayers are supposed to fall in line like sheep and sign over the money no questions asked.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 June 2004 10:43 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Well, I take it then Macabee that you would consider those who advocate a one-state solution to be anti-semitic, meaning that they hate Jews.


It means that they hate a Jewish state and today, anti-Semitism can be defined in that manner. It differs from classical anti-Semitism which engaged true bigots. It is however possible to have anti-Semitism as an outcome of rhetoric and behaviour without being hateful.

Demanding the eradication of the only Jewish state is behaviour whose consequence is anti-Semitic.


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

posted 04 June 2004 10:54 AM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
# of Free Demcratic Jewish Countries: Israel.

100% of Jewish countries are free and democratic.

# of Free Muslim countries. 1-Mali.

1 out of 39? 3%.

So if your Jewish living in Israel the one state solution makes sense to you because?

"Hey, I'm free living in Israel and I'm going to go for the one state solution based on a 3% batting average in the Muslim world when it comes
to freedom."

Lets kick that dead horse a few more times.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2004 11:02 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

It means that they hate a Jewish state and today, anti-Semitism can be defined in that manner. It differs from classical anti-Semitism which engaged true bigots. It is however possible to have anti-Semitism as an outcome of rhetoric and behaviour without being hateful.

Demanding the eradication of the only Jewish state is behaviour whose consequence is anti-Semitic.


Pretzel logic.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 04 June 2004 11:02 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It doesn't mean they hate anything or anyone. I don't think most advocates of Canadian Federalism hate Québec, or most advocates of Québec independence hate Canada. Idem the different sides in the debate on further European integration (except a small minority of far-right racists, who hate Jews, Muslims, Roma and just about everyone else).

And then there are the anarchists, who say: "two states is two states too many".

These accusations of "objective anti-semitism" really annoy me. Real anti-semites are people who hate Jews. There are plenty of them around. A cursory search on just about any topic pertaining to Jewish history or culture turns up scads of them. the "Institute for Historical Research", the Zundelites and all the rest of the sorry bunch. And yes, they are still sometimes very, very dangerous.

In general groups hate other "non-Aryans" as well, though...

Like Josh, I'm opposed to the principle of states in which access to rights or citizenship is based on religion, whether Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Israel. However given that those states exist and represent or have given rise to peoples, those peoples do have a say in their future, as long as they aren't oppressing anyone else. Hence there is a case for a two-state solution, but it must be a solution that is equitable for Palestinians and Israelis.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2004 11:06 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
# of Free Demcratic Jewish Countries: Israel.

100% of Jewish countries are free and democratic.

# of Free Muslim countries. 1-Mali.

1 out of 39? 3%.

So if your Jewish living in Israel the one state solution makes sense to you because?

"Hey, I'm free living in Israel and I'm going to go for the one state solution based on a 3% batting average in the Muslim world when it comes
to freedom."

Lets kick that dead horse a few more times.


One for one, eh? Of course, some are more free, democratic and equal than others. The one-state solution makes sense because it is the only way to truly end the conflict, on the basis of peace and justice. And one state doesn't presuppose a powerful central state dominated by one side. There are other examples in the world where decentralization and a degree of power sharing exist.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 04 June 2004 11:13 AM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
# of Free Demcratic Jewish Countries: Israel.

100% of Jewish countries are free and democratic.

# of Free Muslim countries. 1-Mali.

1 out of 39? 3%.

So if your Jewish living in Israel the one state solution makes sense to you because?

"Hey, I'm free living in Israel and I'm going to go for the one state solution based on a 3% batting average in the Muslim world when it comes
to freedom."

Lets kick that dead horse a few more times.


So what if you are muslim/christian arab living in israel? What if you are a refugee with LEGAL claim to the land? Did you consult them when you came out with the magic 100% number?
A democratic state is democtratic with respect to all its people. That includes the 1mil arabs currently there, who are tagged on their ID cards, and who have passports with different sequence numbers, and who don't participate in the government, don't get proper funding for their schools, who are stripped from their land day in day out, and are fervently encouraged to immigrate (but hey they are living in a democracy), they should be grateful). It also includes the refugees who got kicked out from their land, whose rights are protected by any decent law of humanity.
So, Israel is only democratic when it comes to part of its population, all in all, it comes out as a theocracy to me.


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 04 June 2004 11:48 AM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
mjollnir,

20% of Israel is non-Jewish.

1.2 million people.

You would have thought with all those wars and with 50 years gone by that at some point the Muslims in Israel would have either left or maybe they decieded that Israel was their home.

You would think that Saudi Arabia with 100% Muslim population and all that oil money would have taken both the Palestinians and the Arab Muslims in Israel into their country.

Oh, wait that never happened. Its funny how the Muslim world rails against Israel but all those poor Palestinians are still living in refugee camps.

After 50 years you would think between Syria, Jordan, Iraq and S-Arabia they would all have permanant homes.

Funny, Eh?


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 June 2004 11:52 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I support the one-state solution. If you think that makes me an anti-semite, Macabee, you're delusional; also, this 'objective anti-semitism' stuff in so Stalinist in nature it insults any sense of decency.

But so be it. You consider the dissolution of a Jewish state to be anti-semitic. Macabee, you have work to do. The primary obstacle to a viable two state solution is the occupation and the settlements (hand in hand, as they say). I trust you will be doing everything in your power to change the 'facts on the ground' that are making the two-state solution less and less viable.

I look forward to seeing your prescence now in the the constructive threads centered around how to defeat the settler movement, remove the settlements, get the military out of the West Bank and Gaza, etc. Contrary to what you might think, I have respect for those who actively work towards the two-state solution. If I thought it could be reasonably achieved, I would support it. The reason I support the one-state solution is because I do not think two states can exist while one state has military and territorial control over wide swaths of another's territory; the settlers have all but eliminated all hope of a contiguous Palestinian state.

One might say, using your logic, that the settlers are anti-semitic, bent on the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Or, more frighteningly, the re-enactment of the nakba.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 June 2004 11:55 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jack 01:

And who exactly was defending Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.? Your supposed concern for the Palestinian refugees rings rather hollow.


p-udiddi-l-yded-onk


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 04 June 2004 12:13 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It means that they hate a Jewish state and today, anti-Semitism can be defined in that manner. It differs from classical anti-Semitism which engaged true bigots. It is however possible to have anti-Semitism as an outcome of rhetoric and behaviour without being hateful.
This rhetoric is very interesting. If it is possible to be an anti-Semite without being "hateful" or a "true bigot", then anti-Semitism no longer becomes a position of evil, but instead a mere ideology no different from internationalism or whatever. Thus the term becomes devoid of the sense of horror that history has given it. In effect, Macabee has consented to the devaluation of the word "anti-Semitism."
quote:
Demanding the eradication of the only Jewish state is behaviour whose consequence is anti-Semitic.
But Macabee, you still haven't answered my question, which I think is fair and logically follows from this. Does the Palestinian grandma in the refugee camp become an anti-Semite (whatever this now means, now that you continue to bleach it of meaning) because she believes she has the right to return to her home within the Green Line? Because surely if all the Palestinian grandmothers had that right, and the right to bequeath their homes to their children as most people do, then Israel would cease to exist.

The desire to go home thus becomes equal to anti-Semitism. Doesn't it, Mishei? So why not write to them and tell them that their desire to go home is evil! Surely people don't want to be evil, right, Macabee?


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 04 June 2004 12:20 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Tommy,

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

If it was Israel that would be one thing. Its not.

Any place that Non-Muslims bump into Muslims there is conflict. Islam doesn't believe in "One-state" solutions. Islam is hardwired to not get along nicely with others.

The idea that a "secular" Palestine would exsist in a two state solution is comical too.

Let me know if you can get Mr Ed back on his feet.

If it makes you feel better you can get Mr Ed stuffed. It would aleast give the appearance that the horse isn't dead.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 04 June 2004 12:38 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
mjollnir,

20% of Israel is non-Jewish.

1.2 million people.

You would have thought with all those wars and with 50 years gone by that at some point the Muslims in Israel would have either left or maybe they decieded that Israel was their home.

You would think that Saudi Arabia with 100% Muslim population and all that oil money would have taken both the Palestinians and the Arab Muslims in Israel into their country.

Oh, wait that never happened. Its funny how the Muslim world rails against Israel but all those poor Palestinians are still living in refugee camps.

After 50 years you would think between Syria, Jordan, Iraq and S-Arabia they would all have permanant homes.

Funny, Eh?


Why don't you ask those 20% if they consider themselves to be Israeli? I had a conversation with one yesterday, she says she is Palestinian, inspite of what her passport says. So no, they don't consider Israel to be their home. they consider the land of their fathers and grandfathers to be their home. If Israel is the politcal entity on that land, that doesn't mean they are Israeli.
Israel would have loved for them to live for KSA or other places, but I don't think they want that. Why would they want to be separated from their land that they so dearly cherish?
And those poor palestinians are still living in refugee camps because israel keeps denying their right of return. Do you understand the concept of right, Jack?
Their permanent home is Palestine, or at least on palestinian land. They still dream of it. The thing that bugs israel the most is that, 56 years later, these people still consider themselves palestinian and they still want to return to their
home.
Please tell me why should they abdicate their right of return and live in a foreign country, or is that too funny, eh?


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 04 June 2004 01:08 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
I'm confussed.

In all these wars the idea was that the Jews were going to be driven into the sea.

So some of the locals loaded up and left. The idea was that once the Jews were dead/gone they would go back?

But the Jews didn't loose.

So today someone who probably wasn't born has a "right" to return to their grandfathers land.

And eventhough peace has been discussed and negotiated my entire life peace never happened.

So today the Jews should say what the heck and let every Tom, Dick and Mohammed roll on back to Israel for a big one state solution?

And this shared one state solution makes sense because Islam is a religon of peace?

I think what killed the horse was the Jug of Kool Aid everyone has been drinking from.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 04 June 2004 01:11 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So today someone who probably wasn't born has a "right" to return to their grandfathers land

Uh...isn't that the exact same logic Israel's founders used to displace the Palestinians in the first place?

(edited to add)

Oops. I forgot about Jack's anti-Islamic bigotry.

Ka....PLONK!

[ 04 June 2004: Message edited by: black_dog ]


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

posted 04 June 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It means that they hate a Jewish state...

"They" don't "hate" a "Jewish" state.

"They" are opposed to a European colonialist adventure that has dispossessed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and which is today oppressing millions more.


The Jewishness of Israelis is incidental. Being Jewish might matter to Zionists, it makes no difference to opponents of Israeli policies. Call them "Franj" or "Barbarians" or whatever, the salient point is that they are invaders and oppressors.

This is pretty clear to most babblers, despite the continued PR efforts of flacks who don't have a moral or rational leg to stand on, and so must haul out the "antisemite" slur.

[ 04 June 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 04 June 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
[qb]
So some of the locals loaded up and left. The idea was that once the Jews were dead/gone they would go back?
[qb]

"Some of the locals loaded up and left"? Well, it must be the work of one super convincing travel agent. The locals (at least you called them local) could not resist the lure of stinking overcrowded refugee camps, so they left their houses, properties, fields, bank accounts, "loaded Up" and rushed to the refugee camps.

quote:
So today someone who probably wasn't born has a "right" to return to their grandfathers land.

No, but someone born in Guatemala to a Jewish mother has that right. Why not, more space will be provided once the "locals load up and leave"

quote:
So today the Jews should say what the heck and let every Tom, Dick and Mohammed roll on back to Israel for a big one state solution?

Every Tom, Dick, Mohamad, and Jean (which you maliciously overlooked), as you said, "roll on BACK", ie, go back, ie, it implies that they came from there in the first place for them to "roll BACK".

quote:
And this shared one state solution makes sense because Islam is a religon of peace?

This one state solution makes sense because it fulfills the right of an ethnically cleansed population, who has the right to the land it was erased from. What does Islam have to do with it?

[ 04 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 04 June 2004 02:27 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
black_dog,

The Israelies are carpet baggers.

No one wanted them in 36-37-38.

In 1945-8 after how million were dead did they make their play for Israel.

Shame on them. Tired of Genocide they picked a spot to make their final stand.

Oh, wait it wasn't their final stand. They got tired of getting theirs asses kicked and fought back.

Holy cow their still there.

But for the sake of fairness here is my idea.

All the Muslims in North America can be traded for all the Jews in Israel.

5 million people load up hop on a 747. 10,000 round trips later no Jews in Israel and 5 million ex-north american Muslims can then fight with the Palestinians over an Islamic vs. Secular Palestine.

After all the Jews are out of the New Palestine who then gets to be the next bogeyman in the Islamic world?

India, Russia, USA oh wait the Islamists are already at war with any religon other than their own.

[ 04 June 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 04 June 2004 02:39 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
liminal,

quote:
This one state solution makes sense because it fulfills the right of an ethnically cleansed population, who has the right to the land it was erased from. What does Islam have to do with it?

Once everyone figured out that the peace process was hoax you now need to change tactics.

Now that the fence is going up the idea of a "one state" solution starts to get thrown around.

No one was ethnically cleansed they left because their own people told them that if they sided with the Jews that there would be hell to pay. They thought it would be days before the Jews were driven out. Days turned into 50 years. Go figure.

What does Islam have to do with it?

Everything. Arafat couldn't agree to peace because the Islamists would have killed him.

Part of the Muslim dynamic is to fight "oppressors". Islamic reasoning is that anyone who isn't Islamic is an oppressor.

Israel can't exsist in the Muslim world because Islam is the one and only true religon.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 04 June 2004 02:43 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But for the sake of fairness here is my idea.

All the Muslims in North America can be traded for all the Jews in Israel.

5 million people load up hop on a 747. 10,000 round trips later no Jews in Israel and 5 million ex-north american Muslims can then fight with the Palestinians over an Islamic vs. Secular Palestine.

After all the Jews are out of the New Palestine who then gets to be the next bogeyman in the Islamic world?

India, Russia, USA oh wait the Islamists are already at war with any religon other than their own.


Well, this oughta do it for Jack.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 04 June 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
black_dog,

Just for giggles.

Where should the Jews go?

This land which has so many "rights" attached to it obviously belongs to the Palestinians.

Europe doesn't want the Jews. My idea of the Muslim for Jew swap got you rolling your eyes.

What to do?

You folks feel that the Jews stole the land and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from it.

So technically the Jews should load up and leave.

Your in charge black_dog. Where do you want them to go?


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No one is suggesting they go anywhere. They have a perfect right to be there. But it does not therefore follow that they are entitled to have a religious state on some, or all, of the land in question.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 June 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
My opinion, I suppose Dr. Conway will come up with another asinine mathematical equation (does he think this somehow intimidates me?)[/b]

"Why am I not surprised?"(TM)

Permit me to introduce you to this thing we call sarcasm. I was making a sarcastic riff on your tendency to inflexibly and unalterably attempt in every way to minimize the volume of actual debate and maximize the volume of irrelevant twaddle that needs to be got over before the volume of debate can be resumed.

Of course, as usual, you miss the blindingly obvious.

Intimidate you? If I wanted to intimidate you, Macabee, I'd use linear algebra.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 04 June 2004 03:40 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Josh,

Fair enough.

But instead of focusing on Israel as a religous state lets start in Muslim world.

As a percentage if you wanted to move the world towards secular government the big win would be Islam.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2004 03:46 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I certainly am all in favour of there being secular governments throughout the world. The biggest obstacle to peace in the world is religion. But the perfect doesn't have to be the enemy of the good. The war often must be fought one battle at a time.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 June 2004 04:05 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jack_01:

Tell you what. You are probably not going to find a more anti-theocratic crowd than this one. I would love to hear your ideas about how we can support secularists in Pakistan, Jordan, India, etc. Let's start a thread on it. There are amongst us (I humbly include myself) with a fair degree of knowledge of the history of Arab secularism and the rise of militant Islam - it is a discussion worthy of its own thread. Instead of hijacking this one, why don't you do a little research on the subject and start a new thread?


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 04 June 2004 05:01 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm a militant secularist and not fond of any religion, certainly not the more hardline versions of the Abrahamic monotheistic ones. But Jacks statements on Muslims and Islam are contrary to babble policy. (Read the FAQ page). They are also horrifyingly ignorant - Muslims aside, they demonstrate an appalling ignorance of JEWISH history.

Not all predominantly Muslim societies demonstrated the tolerance and conviviality of the best periods of Muslim Spain, or the society in Iraq at the other end of the Arab world that hosted one of the most important Jewish communities for centuries. There were moments of intolerance, bigotry and what would now be called fundamentalism in earlier Muslim societies, but absolutely NOTHING to compare of the witchunts, pogroms and persecutions against Jewry in Christian Europe.

Those damned Christians were equally intolerant of black cats, Renzo hastens to remind me. He also remembers the Hadith about Muhammad cutting off part of his robe rather than disturbing his sleeping cat Mouiza.


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

posted 04 June 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread. I don't think I even want to bother reading it all. Hopefully nothing too terrible happened.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca