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   » Two state solution?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Two state solution?
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 01 July 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Michele closed the last thread before I had a chance to respond to Macabee so I started a new one. I don't know how some people have the time to write all the posts they do and still see the sun once in a while.

You said:

quote:
From my view, there are some who would advocate for a two-state solution however I fear many more here would advocate for the dissolution of the Jewish state to be replaced by a secular state of Palestine/Israel. At least that seems to be the consensus here.


I am more optimistic than Macabee. I believe more people here would like to see a cessation of ALL violence and a viable two state solution as soon as possible. I'm sure we will hear all kinds of pre-conditions on what the states should look like and who should be allowed to live there and what shape the table should look like when they negotiate the solution but I am interested in seeing who believes a two state solution that would allow the two sides to live side by side within secure boundaries is a good thing (to quote Martha Stewart).

I started looking at past posts and tried to guess who would say YES and who would say NO. So, to make things easier I made a list of most of the participants of the Middle East Israel/Palestine forums and ask that you come forward with your vote. I apologize in advance if I left someone off the the list.

A simple YES or NO.

al-Qa'bong
aRoused
beluga2
CMOT Dibbler
Courage
Courage
Cueball
DrConway
Fidel
HeywoodFloyd
josh
Justice
Khadiija
lagatta
Macabee
Michelle
Mr. Magoo
MyName
praenomen3
Rufus Polson
Sarcasmobri
skdadl
WingNut
worker_drone


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 01 July 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Courage,
Sorry, I included you twice which does not mean you get two votes.

From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 01 July 2004 08:55 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In alphabetical order, yet.

What were you saying about seeing the sun once in a while?


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

posted 01 July 2004 08:58 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, I don't answer complex questions with "yes" or "no". Nor do I produce on demand.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 01 July 2004 09:07 PM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
lists scare me
From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 01 July 2004 09:10 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sorry, I don't answer complex questions with "yes" or "no". Nor do I produce on demand.

Did you put an X on your ballot or write something?


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 01 July 2004 09:19 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In alphabetical order, yet

Yes, but I included Courage twice.


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 01 July 2004 09:35 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Should the negotiating table be round, square or rectangular?
From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 July 2004 12:03 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Elliptical. Then I can integrate the area in polar coordinates and have a grand ol' time.

(Psst. Asking people for their opinions is fine, but I would suggest that you make your question more open-ended than a simple yes or no. If you want my answer, here it is:

Some days I wonder if the two-state solution is viable. Othet days I think it is. Ultimately, it matters not to me how the region is constituted - one-state, two-state or no-state - as long as the peoples in that region can make a lasting peace wrought of a partnership among equals.

And on my really lousy days, I often sarcastically remark that we should just pave the entire Middle East from Haifa to Teheran.)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Starbuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5920

posted 02 July 2004 12:33 AM      Profile for Starbuck        Edit/Delete Post
Hey Khadiija,

You left me off! I also have a difficult time with a yes/no answer but if push comes to shove (as it often does in the Middle East) I would say: Yes.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 July 2004 12:33 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
People are neither secure nor free when they separate themselves into tribal enclaves.

However, if both the Palestinian people, free from coercion, and the Israeli people can agree to set borders and define a relationship, ratified democratically by the majority on either side, then who am I to say they are wrong?


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

posted 02 July 2004 12:59 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Khadiija! Welcome to the board!
I believe in a one state solution but I believe a two state solution must come first. No one, in Israel or Palestine is prepared to accept a one state solution at the moment. they will, just not right now.

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 02 July 2004 06:10 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your question, and demand for response, is preciously close to the "stand up and salute" demands sometimes posted to babble by regressive trolls. That being said, you seem to be in good faith.

Your question is flawed in that it papers over vast amounts of wooliness in terms of what you mean by a 'two-state solution'. And no, 'where both sides can live in peace' is not enough clarity to make a rational decision on a yes or no answer to your question.

I am in favour of a two-state solution.

I am in favour of a one-state solution.

I am mostly, in favour of a solution.

Welcome to babble.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 July 2004 08:39 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It amazes me how some here want to obfuscate on this question.

Yes I know some get their shorts in a knot when asked something that appears black and white OR appears to be demanding. However this is easily overcome by others who give their full reasons and explanations.

Khadiija asks a fair question and deserves (IMHO) a fair answe from those who participate.

I believe in a two-state solution. One that recognizes fair borders and allows two contiguous states as decided by the populations in a fair and democratic procedure. Anything less denies both the Jewish dream of statehood and nationalism as well as the Palestinian desire for independence and statehood. Anything less is a recipie for continued misery. Anything less, IMHO, belies at its heart a discriminatory attitude agaist both Israelis and Palestinians.


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

posted 02 July 2004 09:05 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are you so interested in seeing a list, Mishei?

That said, I would like Courage's second vote. Half of me votes yes, when I consider worldwide examples where two (or more) ethnic groups live together in peace...vendettas of old forgotten. Countries like Canada or post-Apartheid South Africa. The other half votes no, when I consider countries broken apart by secular and ethnic infighting...people who are actually angry at corrupt officials or industrialists but take that anger out on their neighbours. Countries like the former Yugoslavia or the present Iraq (soon to be Shia-Sunnistan and Kurdistan, by my reckoning).

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


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

posted 02 July 2004 09:17 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
Why are you so interested in seeing a list, Mishei?


[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


Scars that's a question you would have to ask him or the originator of this thread.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 02 July 2004 09:24 AM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wasn't asked, but here's my two cents anyway. I believe in a one state solution that recognizes the Palestinian right of return, the right of Israeli citizenship to all those of Jewish ancestry, and the right of religious parties to exist. The reason I don't support a two state solution is that it doesn't resolve the central issues and while it may quell the violence for a while, Israel would probably become another Northern Ireland.

I think that a state could be formed by dividing the population into two distinct voting blocks, Jewish and non Jewish. The Jewish community would have 60% of the seats in Israel and 40% of the seats in Palestine and vice versa with a 50/50 upper house. This would force the communities to work together in coalition governments and would be able to resolve ongoing issues around water, land claims etc... while ensuring that each community would still have the security of real political power regardless of population distribution.


From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 02 July 2004 09:40 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's rich, Macabee, coming from someone whose middle name is 'obfuscate'.

I notice that even you didn't answer with a simple YES or NO.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 July 2004 09:58 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I haven't been part of these discussions much lately, but I was asked, so: I would still cast a temporary Yes vote, much as a number of others have above.

fiberal's constitutional solution is intriguing on paper (well, on screen), but I think that at this point it is still too much an abstraction, and I doubt that most Israelis and most Palestinians would be ready for it.

The calendar keeps turning over, of course.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 02 July 2004 11:11 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would give a qualified Yes. I've always supported a two-state solution, not because it's particularly ideal, but because it always seemed the only practical and feasible solution. Now I'm not so sure. I fear that the way things are going now, Sharon's slicing-n-dicing of the future Palestinian state may be inflicting enough permanent damage to render it entirely unviable. So maybe jumping directly into a single binational state is all we've got left.

But then, I've always seen a 2-state situation as merely a temporary stage, leading eventually to some kind of accomodation between the two groups, once enough time has passed for the blistering mutual hatreds to fade away.

Of course, there will be no solution at all as long as the Overlords in Washington continue giving their unbridled support to the most extreme elements within Israel.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Starbuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5920

posted 02 July 2004 11:48 AM      Profile for Starbuck        Edit/Delete Post
fiberal sicophant,

Your idea is very interesting and idealistic. I doubt there would be enough cooperation to even have the streets cleaned. I think each side can flourish if they don't have to deal with fighting each other all the time. Then maybe as neighbours they could trade with each other and share. It seems to me that a two state solution is the one that comes closest to the desires of each group. Yes, there are people on each side hoping the other would just go away but that is not going to happen.

CMOT Dibbler your response on two states now and one state later was interesting. Do you believe the 2 sides will grow together peacfully or do you think one of those states will eventually invade and conquer the other?


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 July 2004 12:44 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And now, back to reality:

quote:
Start with the question of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu promoted the no-state resolution by arguing that some of the traditional powers of statehood, such as importing weapons and controlling airspace, would imperil Israel. "Just say no to a Palestinian state!" he told the Likud delegates. A decade ago, Sharon shared that view. As prime minister, however, he has turned the argument around. The Palestinians can have a state, he says, as long as it doesn't include an army or control of its airspace and borders. This is like telling your boss, "Sure, I can work the weekend—as long as it doesn't include Saturday or Sunday."

But Out


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

posted 02 July 2004 12:51 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
CMOT Dibbler your response on two states now and one state later was interesting. Do you believe the 2 sides will grow together peacfully or do you think one of those states will eventually invade and conquer the other?


invade no, integrate yes. I subscribe to Gush shalom's version of the two state solution which, if you look at it, virtually guarantees a single state anyway. GS wants Israel to open its borders to Palestinian goods, to open up diplomatic relations etc. in today's globalized economy these kinds of policies will eventually lead to the foundation of a single nation.
It would be a foolhardy to create a single state right a way, since the two sides have lived apart for 56 years. Israelis and Palestinians would fight in the streets, and bloodshed would ensue. Two states would allow both sides to calm down, and pave the way for a solution that deals more effectively with the refugee crisis.

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


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

posted 02 July 2004 01:03 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
And now, back to reality:

But Out


Wingy, we are discussing peace here, not war. The article isn't realevant to this discussion.


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

posted 02 July 2004 01:20 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So are you suggesting there can be peace without the absence of war?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 02 July 2004 01:31 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

in today's globalized economy these kinds of policies will eventually lead to the foundation of a single nation.

Speaking as a Canadian, no they bloody well won't. We've got all that with the US and culturally we're growing apart not towards each other.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Starbuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5920

posted 02 July 2004 01:41 PM      Profile for Starbuck        Edit/Delete Post
CMOT Dibbler, I agree, opening up their markets to each other and
an exchange of diplomats would be a good start. I was on a Gaza beach a number of years ago and thought that when the violence ends the Palestinians will have a tremendous tourist asset. I can see it becoming a real draw for Israelis and others in the region.

The two state solution allows for each side to maintain their national identity without constantly fighting each other. Sometimes I wish the Quebec question would be resolved one way or another and not hang over us all the time.


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

posted 02 July 2004 04:25 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
So are you suggesting there can be peace without the absence of war?

Of course not. It's just that This forum is crammed with threads about the conflict, but very little positive discussion ever come out of them. We are actually having a decent brain storming session about ways in which to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I would hate to see that ruined by another shouting match.

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 July 2004 04:26 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I prefer a one-state solution. That said, if Israel dismantled the settlement blocks, pulled out the army, and rebuilt its wall on the
Green Line there really wouldn't be anything for me to complain about. Two-state seems fine to me, too.

Call me a pragmatist.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 02 July 2004 04:36 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

Speaking as a Canadian, no they bloody well won't. We've got all that with the US and culturally we're growing apart not towards each other.


Sorry Rufus, I shouldn't be making sweeping generalizations about economic theory. Do you see trade playing any role in the push for a single state?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 02 July 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your idea is very interesting and idealistic. I doubt there would be enough cooperation to even have the streets cleaned.

Fair enough, I appreciate that this idea is quite a departure from normal schemes to resolve the Palestinian question. But it is the only scheme that I have heard of that would not require a full a dismantling of the settlements or denying the right of return or a war in the making over water or security. And perhaps I should be a little more clear, an upper house can have a very limited mandate as there needs to be some dispute resolution mechanism, and I do think that a parliament is a more effecient mechanism than bi- lateral relations. I actually think that this might be a strong case for sovereignty association. Even stronger than Quebec .


From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 02 July 2004 09:46 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
CMOT Dibbler & aRoused, thank you for the welcome messages!

quote:
This forum is crammed with threads about the conflict, but very little positive discussion ever come out of them. We are actually having a decent brain storming session about ways in which to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I would hate to see that ruined by another shouting match.


CMOT Dibbler, you are right. There is so much negative energy spent on fighting here, it is refreshing to see some positive postings. I think the two sides are closer than they appear sometimes.

From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 July 2004 01:50 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course not. It's just that This forum is crammed with threads about the conflict, but very little positive discussion ever come out of them. We are actually having a decent brain storming session about ways in which to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I would hate to see that ruined by another shouting match.

I appreciate that. But without concrete ideas how on how to deal with the obstacles to peace, any discussion is purely academic. Personally, my sympathies lie with that expressed by aRoused. It matters little what type of solution as long as there is a solution.

But I will bow out lest there be a shouting match. Good luck.


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

posted 03 July 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
shit. Now I have guilt.

All right Wing, which parties would you say are most likely to give the Palestinians there own state under the conditions set forth by Gush Shalom?


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

posted 04 July 2004 12:08 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
bump
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 04 July 2004 12:50 AM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I found it interesting that Israel's biggest concession to an Arab state was the Camp David deal under Begin. I wonder if Israelis are more likely to trust a deal made by a right wing prime minister than one made by a left leaning leader?
From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 July 2004 06:56 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
All right Wing, which parties would you say are most likely to give the Palestinians there own state under the conditions set forth by Gush Shalom?

I think the question is: how do we by-pass the parties and impose direct democracy?

One of the great problems with any sort of prolonged conflict is that economic dependencies develop out of it.

I am using a notebook and the battery is low.

Have look:

http://www.ap-agenda.org/initiative.htm


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 04 July 2004 11:12 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd would have nearly been convinced/ sold APA's proposal had they not been so arrogant or on the verge of hateful for postering stuff such as this. I'd think if you wanted to convince someone they're would be better and smarter stuff then this.

t-shirt

[ 04 July 2004: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 04 July 2004 11:16 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On a more positive and practical side I suggest alternatives such as this.

one voice

[ 04 July 2004: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 July 2004 11:29 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyway, the point is, between the Israeli power structure, arms manufacture and sale, and the economy as a whole, the war is now worth something to many people and is not so easy to stop· Likewise, on the Palestinian side, with control of the arms trade comes control of criminal organizations that participate in protection rackets, the drug trade, gambling, prostitution, and other black market goods and services.

Therefore, the only way to advance peace is to remove the process from those who have a vested interest, economic or otherwise, from the process.

How? I think that should be the area of discussion.

Justice, a T-Shirt cannot hate. Trying to sideline or marginlaize one voice because of something I am sure you hunted to find objectionable is part of the problem. Especially when you are so patronizing as to say "sorry, I don't like you. These people are much nicer."

The only way any process can succeed is to be as inclusive as possible. And that might mean being open to voices you would rather not hear.

You can not expect any one group to listen to you if you refuse to listen to them.

[ 04 July 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 04 July 2004 11:51 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
Khadiija,

I support a two-state resolution.

I think the demand for a one-state resolution amounts to a demand to continue the war until Israel is defeated (i.e. forever).

I think the demand that Palestinian refugees and their three million descendants be allowed free access to Israel also constitutes a demand to continue the war until Israel is defeated (i.e. forever).

Financial compensation to refugees and two states - a Jewish one and a Palestinian one - is the only real possibility for peace.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 05 July 2004 12:15 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am sure you hunted to find objectionable is part of the problem. Especially when you are so patronizing as to say "sorry, I don't like you. These people are much nicer."

I guess curiosity killed the cat. All I did was go to the home page and scrolled down and clicked on the map at the bottom for closer look and… vallah to my amazement that is sadly what I found.

I'm not ashamed at saying these ones are nicer they clearly we're not openly patronizing or being offensive. I also don't doubt that both have good intentions, both are fairly reasonable one is more practical and less utopian.

quote:
Anyway, the point is, between the Israeli power structure, arms manufacture and sale, and the economy as a whole, the war is now worth something to many people and is not so easy to stop• Likewise, on the Palestinian side, with control of the arms trade comes control of criminal organizations that participate in protection rackets, the drug trade, gambling, prostitution, and other black market goods and services.

Sadly I think we are all aware this but what is even sadder is that these are not the only please that power structures need to be fixed in fact these problems maybe side effects of bigger problems.

quote:
The only way any process can succeed is to be as inclusive as possible. And that might mean being open to voices you would rather not hear.

I'm willing to listen to anybody this is where I support the ideals of J.S. Mill and Chomsky.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 July 2004 01:12 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The majority of Israelis would like to be accepted as a state among the nations of the Middle East and enjoy economic and cultural relations across the region. However, nations in the region continue to view Israel as a foreign entity and do not recognize its right to exist as a state.

Is this an actual concern? Hasn't Isreal signed peace agreements with its arab neighbours in the Levant?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 06 July 2004 12:10 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
Justice,

Getting back to you about your post last week...

quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
[QBI don't think your comparison of Chomsky to the fanatic you mentioned is valid.[/QB]

I don’t think Chomsky says the Jews control the world’s media, either – my comment was mostly facetious. However, as in the article I quoted above from the Palestinian Authority’s principal mouthpiece, Chomsky does postulate a propaganda conspiracy. In Chomsky’s account, almost all media in democratic nations produce propaganda to control the thinking of the citizens.

(Chomsky doesn’t say all media is always propaganda, for course – after all, he’s principally published in the West, often by the media he labels propagandist.)

This notion of a thought control conspiracy should marginalize Chomsky to the lunatic fringe. I find it interesting that it doesn’t.

Nothing seems to marginalize him. For example, to support his notion of a propaganda conspiracy, Chomsky argued that Western media grossly over-reported the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge. They’re not such bad guys, said Chomsky. And he still says so. As recently as the late 90s, Chomsky was claiming that reports of deaths caused by the Khmer Rouge are exaggerated by a factor of 1,000. So, if by most accounts the Khmer Rouge caused 2 million deaths, Chomsky says, no, no, only 2,000.

Why does he say this? Is he some sort of Cambodian-hater on the model of the neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust? Not at all. He denies the Cambodian holocaust in order to defend his lunatic theory of the western media as propaganda.

And much of the Left considers him a saint. What does this say about the Left?

I've simplified things somewhat here (that's obvious, isn't it?) But if you’re interested in a detailed analysis Chomsky’s views on the Khmer Rouge, here’s a good start: http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 06 July 2004 12:19 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This notion of a thought control conspiracy should marginalize Chomsky to the lunatic fringe. I find it interesting that it doesn’t.

Such a statement marginalizes you to the lunatic fringe.

Chomsky's argument is the "manufacture of consent" and if anything underlines the validity of his theory it would be the recent coverage on the build-up to the war against Iraq.

And your much debunked slur against Chomsky and Cambodia is too old and too stupid to be bothered with.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 06 July 2004 01:17 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Go to a newspaper and ask them to publicize your event. Ask if you can get more coverage if you purchase an ad. Then tell me that monied interest don't influence what the media reports.

You can find fault with Chompsky. I do. But please don't reduce his theories to misrepresentative one line statements to do it. It just implies that you are incapable of handling the difficult version.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 08 July 2004 05:22 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
Pogo,

Of course money influences the news - in many different ways.

For example, people with money need good information. That's one reason The Globe and Mail provides more detailed coverage of most stories than the Toronto Star.

My point isn't that the influence of money on news isn't an interesting subject. It's just that Chomsky hasn't anything intelligent to say on the topic.

More precisely, I don't think Chomsky is interested in saying anything intelligent. Rather, he's a propagandist.

And part of the reason he's so popular with much of the Left (given its current state of ill-health on matters of foreign policy) is that he provides an excuse to ignore contrary opinions.

If the New York Times is merely an instrument of Western propaganda, why should we pay any attention to it?

On the other hand, the Left "knows" the Guardian is accurate because it provides a mirror image of the Left's prejudices.

And why does it provide this mirror image? Because the Guardian sells to the anti-Blair Leftist demographic. (Which of course is one of the ways money influences the Guardian and other newspapers forced by competition to sell into a niche market.)


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 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