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   » Labour to join government

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Labour to join government
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 13 July 2004 09:12 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like that old wily fox Shimon Peres will end up as foreign minister yet again - Labour is now negotiating to join the Likud governing coalition.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 July 2004 09:53 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's nothing more pathetic than an 80-year-old politician who is willing to do anything to hold office. Especially, when his role is to serve as the good cop to Sharon's bad cop. And this would be the second time Peres lusted after, and willingly played, that role. So, actually, he's crossed the line from pathetic to craven.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 13 July 2004 12:19 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There's nothing more pathetic than an 80-year-old politician who is willing to do anything to hold office. Especially, when his role is to serve as the good cop to Sharon's bad cop. And this would be the second time Peres lusted after, and willingly played, that role. So, actually, he's crossed the line from pathetic to craven.

Shimon Peres is a politician who is dedicated to negotiation and peace. Up until now, he has served as the most persistent and committed to dialogue and coordination with the Palestinians.

Peres realizes the imminence and importance of disengagement and his views speak for the rest of his supporters aswell. The overall consensus in Israel is that disengagement is inevitable and should be executed in a calculated, comitted fashion. A new coalition will represent this consensus and will disengage from the territories as Sharon promised.

Labeling Shimon Peres as pathetic and craven is excessive. Especially when we are talking about a man who has been devoted to peace not only in politics, but also by putting facts on the ground. Have you ever heard of the Peres Center for Peace josh?


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 July 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When I saw the news about this, I just said "Crud." Peres does look a bit odd for being so ready to rush into a possibly unworkable coalition government when he's already been in one once and seen what problems can come up.

Now...

What the freaking hell is this obsession with the phrase "facts on the ground", especially by right-wing Israeli government officials? Christ, but I'm getting sick of it. It's just a pithy phrase that doesn't mean anything. It's like the Nixonian "at this point in time".

After all, you can't pick up a fact. It's not a physical entity. A fact is a datum, a mental construct. For example, when I say "the fact is that my car is blue", I can't pick up that item. I can use it as an abstraction to define my car's properties, but it of itself does not exist in a physical sense.

Similarly, if I say "the facts of my experiment show that the Polonium-210 was successfully separated from the Bismuth", the physical item that yields the fact is just a tiny blob of a radioactive sample on a counting plate. The fact is an abstraction which uses something I saw to point to a conclusion I've made.

Even when people say "Fact: The Bush tax cuts have not aided low-income earners", that fact itself, while true, is again not a physical item that can be picked up. It's a datum, derived by examining income information.

[ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 July 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:

Shimon Peres is a politician who is dedicated to negotiation and peace. Up until now, he has served as the most persistent and committed to dialogue and coordination with the Palestinians.

Peres realizes the imminence and importance of disengagement and his views speak for the rest of his supporters aswell. The overall consensus in Israel is that disengagement is inevitable and should be executed in a calculated, comitted fashion. A new coalition will represent this consensus and will disengage from the territories as Sharon promised.

Labeling Shimon Peres as pathetic and craven is excessive. Especially when we are talking about a man who has been devoted to peace not only in politics, but also by putting facts on the ground. Have you ever heard of the Peres Center for Peace josh?


I'm aware of Peres's desire for peace and compromise. However, I believe he has lost all perspective in his willingness to give someone who is not interested in either, Sharon, political cover. Peres is starting to look ridiculous by constantly seeking to prop up someone who has made him look like a fool time and time again.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 13 July 2004 01:15 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
DrConway, to clarify your misunderstanding for future reference:

Indeed 'facts on the ground' is an abstract concept. In the case of Peres, it goes to say that he is not all talk. If you look at his track record, he has been involved in almost all of the peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Not only that, during times of hardship and political stalemate, Peres and his entourage have still worked to develop a progressive relationship between Israelis and Palestinians.

interested?:
Peres Center for PeaceRight to Play (look at second bullet)

I would say that 'facts on the ground' is most similar to functionalism...where steps are being taken in order to improve the situation on a basic level.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 13 July 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Peres is starting to look ridiculous by constantly seeking to prop up someone who has made him look like a fool time and time again.

You're fatalism is not worthy of talk about peace and coexistence. Besides, what does it mean to 'prop up' Sharon? In the end, it will be Peres and Labor who will initiate dialogue. And if Peres becomes foreign minister, or even deputy prime minister...HE will be in charge of negotiations with the Palestinians.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 July 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:
I would say that 'facts on the ground' is most similar to functionalism...where steps are being taken in order to improve the situation on a basic level.

You managed to waste three or four paragraphs saying absolutely nothing. You even admit that the use of the term is to use an abstraction instead of a real thing.

And there are other, better words to describe such concrete things as "taking positive steps to improve a situation".

[ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 July 2004 03:44 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:

You're fatalism is not worthy of talk about peace and coexistence. Besides, what does it mean to 'prop up' Sharon? In the end, it will be Peres and Labor who will initiate dialogue. And if Peres becomes foreign minister, or even deputy prime minister...HE will be in charge of negotiations with the Palestinians.


Not fatalism, but historical fact. And you don't have to go that far back. Just look at what happened from 2001-2003. None of what you say came true. Sharon just jerked Peres around.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 13 July 2004 04:36 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And there are other, better words to describe such concrete things as "taking positive steps to improve a situation".

My point exactly Conway: Functionalism.

Take caution on how you try and spin my words which were originally intended to help you understand why Peres is an important figure. Instead of recongnizing that, you simply dwindled into bashing me personally.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 13 July 2004 05:04 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not fatalism, but historical fact. And you don't have to go that far back. Just look at what happened from 2001-2003. None of what you say came true. Sharon just jerked Peres around.

The difference now is that Sharon is committed to disengagement. He threatened his own party that if they did not vote as one in solidarity of disengagement, that he would consequetially call for elections. quote from todays Haaretz:

"Either all the members of the faction back the government in votes of no confidence or we will have to broaden the coalition. And if you don't want this, and you don't want that," said Sharon to a stunned faction, "we'll have to go to elections." "
-haaretz

I suggest you update yourself on the PRESENT circumstances. -i'm out


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

posted 13 July 2004 05:23 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Besides, what does it mean to 'prop up' Sharon?

Well, supporting Sharon's government by joining the coalition, for starters.

quote:
In the end, it will be Peres and Labor who will initiate dialogue.

So why doesn't Peres let Sharon's government collapse, which would allow Labour to get on with peace negotiations?

quote:
And if Peres becomes foreign minister, or even deputy prime minister...HE will be in charge of negotiations with the Palestinians.

That's just idle speculation.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Starbuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5920

posted 13 July 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for Starbuck        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So why doesn't Peres let Sharon's government collapse, which would allow Labour to get on with peace negotiations?

If the government collapsed it would be unlikely that Labour would form a government. It is even more unlikely that Peres would lead a government.


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

posted 13 July 2004 08:49 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:

The difference now is that Sharon is committed to disengagement. He threatened his own party that if they did not vote as one in solidarity of disengagement, that he would consequetially call for elections. quote from todays Haaretz:

"Either all the members of the faction back the government in votes of no confidence or we will have to broaden the coalition. And if you don't want this, and you don't want that," said Sharon to a stunned faction, "we'll have to go to elections." "
-haaretz

I suggest you update yourself on the PRESENT circumstances. -i'm out


Sharon hasn't committed himself to anything beyond disengagement from Gaza and some window dressing in the west bank. This is nothing. Gaza has never been considered to be part of "The Land of Israel" by the religious fanatics and theocrats in Israel. Sharon has been in office for some three and-a-half years and has done everything in his power to avoid and derail any possibility of negotiations with the Palestinians. His plan to carve up the west band, leaving Palestinians in isolated cantons remains in place. Peres is merely setting himself up to look like an utter fool again.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 13 July 2004 09:01 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, this is somewhat like clockwork. Each time Israel is in a position to need to negotiate to look like good guys, along comes Shimon to act as the 'soft' mediator with the international community and the Palestinians. While he's providing a dovish cover, it's likely that more settlements will be built, The Wall will get bigger and badder, and there will be a stronger military crackdown in the Occupied Territories, etc. Of course, we will also hear that there is 'no one to negotiate with' on the Palestinian side. Either way, Shimon will have played his part and kept the 'international community' (who have clearly spoken on The Wall and other atrocities) at bay with talk of 'peace' and 'understanding' while the bulldozers roll, and the concrete barriers become more entrenched.

There will be 'facts on the ground', alright. It'll mostly have to do with Israel getting the ground it wants....

Also clockwork is that out of the woodwork will come sockpuppets and so-called 'dovish' Israelis (and their supporters) to claim that Israel really means "peace" this time, and we should all stop criticising and let Shimon do his job - after all, he means so well. Eventually - if history is any teacher - the 'facts on the ground' will be such that Peres will be cornered by the rightwing and the Palestinians and he will resign in a fit of pique, and of course, the blame will be put on the Palestinians for not being willing to negotiate with the ever-so-willing Shimon...

CUE - Tanks.

Really folks. Turn the MemoryHole switch from 'suck' to 'blow' and recall that we've been through this before.

First of all - whether or not Peres is called Foreign Minister or Captain of the Imperial Space Fleet will make no difference - he will have no actual power to make Sharon and his toadies (who control the government, afterall) or the military do anything they don't want to do. Anything he tries to do will have to be run by the usual suspects. If he goes too far, the military will ratchet up their incursions in the territories, get a few retaliatory strikes from Hamas or Islamic Jihad, and put Shimon's 'negotiations' out of commission. This will 'prove' that unilateral military solutions are all that Israel can rely on - reaffirming their usual fascist logic. This same script has repeated itself over and over as Israel has gained more and more territory and put the Palestinians in an ever more precarious position.

It is also instructive to note that some of the largest land-grabs in the Occupied Territories, as well as some of the most brutal military behaviour have accelerated under Labor governments - e.g. that of Ehud Barak. The Labor party, from Ben-Gurion to Meir to Barak, has held a view of the conflict with the Palestinians which is every bit as myopic and self-aggrandising as that of the so-called 'hardliners'. Window-dressing is all...

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


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

posted 13 July 2004 10:17 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:
My point exactly Conway: Functionalism.

Take caution on how you try and spin my words which were originally intended to help you understand why Peres is an important figure. Instead of recongnizing that, you simply dwindled into bashing me personally.


Oh no! I have offended the Gods of .. uh, something. Shall I burn a physics textbook on an altar in order to appease you?

I don't give a good goddamn about your sanctimonious lecturing about Peres or about your "help". You used a phrase utterly devoid of meaning and are now trying to dress it up hy using more big words. Bravo.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 14 July 2004 06:08 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quibble:

func·tion·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fngksh-n-lzm)
n.
- The doctrine that the function of an object should determine its design and materials.
- A doctrine stressing purpose, practicality, and utility.
- Philosophy. The doctrine in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states are defined by their causes and effects.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 14 July 2004 05:07 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Wall will get bigger and badder, and there will be a stronger military crackdown in the Occupied Territories, etc.

If the wall is expanded and terrorism continues to decrease, there will be no need for stronger military crackdown in the territories. Soldiers, checkpoints, military operations, and settlers will be nixed. The wall is the first stage of disengaging from the territories.

In addition, regarding the opinion that Peres will wield no power in a coalition government: on the contrary, a unity government would have Labor join on their condition that disengagment be coordinated with the Palestinians instead of executed unilaterally. This would give Labor a high ace in disengagement policy. Furthermore, Sharon is in dire need of Labor at this point in order to counter the split going on within the right wing and the split occuring between the Likud and the the majority Israelis who's consensus opts for disengagement ASAP. (consider the uproar that the referendum caused just a few months ago)


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 July 2004 06:51 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SnowyPlover:
If the wall is expanded and terrorism continues to decrease, there will be no need for stronger military crackdown in the territories. Soldiers, checkpoints, military operations, and settlers will be nixed. The wall is the first stage of disengaging from the territories.

I doubt it. Israel still needs the water on the other side of that wall. It also refuses to allow the PA any kind of true sovereignty over issues like military, airspace, the border with Jordan, etc. Even the 'generous' Barak plan left the PA with little to no authority over these basic issues. The absence of this sovereignty would require (from Israel's logic) the continued presence of the IDF to ensure any number of these things is under their control Moreover, even with the "Wall" up, the checkpoints will continue, because along with the security by-pass roads and other territory that ISrael is unprepared to give up, the WB will be cut into pieces so that travel inside it's borders will still require passing through checkpoints and Israeli controlled territory.

Second, at what point has there been any discussion of moving the settlers among Sharon and his cronies? The fact is that this subject has never seriously been broached.

Furthermore, this entire theory is based on the assumption that the 'military operations' in the WB have only ever been about stopping suicide bombers. But considering that they have been going on since 1967, and the suicide bombings are a more recent phenomenon, there is reason to believe that there are other purposes to The Occupation. Settlements are a key one, as is the control of water supplies and the border with Jordan. Don't kid yourself, this is a lot more difficult than just saying, "Okay, Wall's up, disengage..." Unfortunately, that's the myopic view being bandied about (shamefully, I might add) by its proponents - particularly on the 'left' in Israel.
This (willful?) blindness to the reality of the occupation has haunted 'Labor' and it's supporters for decades.

quote:
Peres will wield no power in a coalition government: on the contrary, a unity government would have Labor join on their condition that disengagment be coordinated with the Palestinians instead of executed unilaterally. This would give Labor a high ace in disengagement policy.

Right on cue. However, if the right wing and the military feel that things aren't going their way, all they have to do is make negotiations impossible - which is easy - and cut the legs out from under Labor. If nothing else, a deterioration in negotiations - and a 'failing' Peres - will give Sharon an excuse to get back in bed with the far right and continue the militarism that he has always loved so dearly. Shimon can resign - AGAIN - and with another 'failed negotiation' in tow, Sharon could head to the polls and get another mandate for a hardline stance having proven the left too idealistic once again. Why should I believe that Sharon will change his stripes after all these years? Heck, why should I believe that ol' Shimon has changed after all these years?

quote:
Furthermore, Sharon is in dire need of Labor at this point in order to counter the split going on within the right wing and the split occuring between the Likud and the the majority Israelis who's consensus opts for disengagement ASAP. (consider the uproar that the referendum caused just a few months ago)

All of that won't matter a bit if negotiations "fail" and the usual business about the "Palestinians not being good faith partners" is dredged up again. Just watch. Your optimism is nice, but history teaches me that it is misplaced.

Fool me once....

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
SnowyPlover
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6431

posted 15 July 2004 03:28 PM      Profile for SnowyPlover     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It also refuses to allow the PA any kind of true sovereignty over issues like military, airspace, the border with Jordan, etc. Even the 'generous' Barak plan left the PA with little to no authority over these basic issues.

Included in the Barak peace proposal was 97% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza. The proposal was aimed at achieving a final status agreement with the end product of an Israeli withdrawal and a Palestinian state. Clinton was careful in setting the parameters of Israeli security guarantees yet not at the expense of Palestinian sovereignty. This meant an international force monitoring Israeli withdrawal. Palestine would become a non-militarized state with control over its airspace. In guaranteeing sovereignty the plan also offered desalinization plants to provide adequate water.

Indeed, Barak's peace plan decided to go for broke. Different from Oslo's Interim Agreement which required accountability from both sides, the Camp David proposal offered a final status agreement. Arafat and HIS cronies rejected a proposal that Israel was committed to fullfilling! How could secondary issues such as airspace and military factor into the equation when Arafat couldnt even get by step one?: Accepting an offer for statehood. Who were they kidding? Israel thought they could achieve an agreement with Arafat and the PA who have constantly passed over the Palestinian people and bypassed their true representation: the silent PNGO community. It's about time somebody on the Palestinian side step up and represent the true needs of the Palestinian people, and execute for that matter.

quote:
Second, at what point has there been any discussion of moving the settlers among Sharon and his cronies? The fact is that this subject has never seriously been broached.

The fact is, that this subject HAS been broached. Just take a look at what has been going on in Israel in the past 6 months. Massive protests against the policy of disengagement which seeks to evacuate settlements followed by demonstrations and refusals to evacuate. People being evacuated from their homes, compensated and displaced to areas within Israel. What happened in Yamit? Truth is that most Israeli's are not willing to sacrifice the fate of Israel for a minority of settlers.

quote:
Furthermore, Sharon is in dire need of Labor at this point in order to counter the split going on within the right wing and the split occuring between the Likud and the the majority Israelis who's consensus opts for disengagement ASAP. (consider the uproar that the referendum caused just a few months ago)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of that won't matter a bit if negotiations "fail" and the usual business about the "Palestinians not being good faith partners" is dredged up again. Just watch. Your optimism is nice, but history teaches me that it is misplaced


This has nothing to do with Palestinian being good faith partners. On the contrary, we've seen that Sharon has marginalized negotiations in favor of unilateral disengagement. What's really bearing is a deep divide on the political spectrum. My point being is that these inter-party quarrels are all stage prop's for what will eventually be a disengagement over a step- by-step process. Ofcourse it doesnt happen overnight...but it is happening. Sharon wont exhaust his militarism because he wont be able to afford it in the future. This is not optimism.

Its important not to undermine the democratic nature of Israel. After Camp David failed and teh outbreak of the intifadeh, Israeli's opted for security...so they voted security. Who's to say that Palestinians are not of good faith anymore? People are much less optomistic today yes, including you Courage...but in exchange for coexistence Israeli's are willing to give up a substantial amount. The Israeli goverment is not immune to the needs and desires of its people. Many people misconstrue the nature of Israeli democracy. It surely isnt fascist logic...thats simply ridiculous.


fooled you twice...shame on you.


From: Archipelago | Registered: Jul 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