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   » The Emerging Case for a Single-State Solution

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Emerging Case for a Single-State Solution
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 September 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We should deny this privilege, and anything that follows from it. One of the things that follow from it is a two-state solution in which Jews enjoy privilege in one of those states (and, presumably, non-Jews in the other one). We should endorse what we should always have endorsed: a single state that privileges nobody, a state where the primary address from one of its members to another is that of "citizen."

Read the rest


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 09 September 2004 10:53 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good article, well-written and powerfully argued. I suppose my largest problem now, with the two vs. one debate, is that it seems to be getting bogged down (and I don't mean simply by 'objectively pro-occupation' - to turn someone's language twisting around on them - commentary; the Left is guilty as well)in speculation.

It seems to me, and I believe it was Norman Finklestein that planted the seed in my head, that it really doesn't matter how many states come out of this so long as those that do follow the rule of law and basic morality. We seemed to have moved away from the universal - human rights, democracy, anti-colonialism - and towards the particular without bridging the gap between.

It is ironic, I know, that I would say this: My very first post on babble was the introduction to a topic entitle "One-State". And it is not as though I now disagree with that sensibility nor my reasoning. Perhaps, however, I feel that the cart has been put in front of the horse.

Mind you, the same goes for those who rally around the two-state solution and dismiss any talk of one-state solutions. The two-state framework led to the disastrous gang of Arafat and his thugs running rough-shod over the previously varied and dynamic resistance movements within Palestine, legitimizing a centralized and corrupt bureaucracy that was unable to service the needs of the Palestinian people nor mount an effective counter to Sharon's belligerence.

Did I just do a hi-jack?

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 September 2004 11:11 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Plagiarizing myself again:

"All states come to an end sooner or later. Either they get absorbed into others, or their names, peoples, and borders change over the centuries and eons.

The entire range of southern Europe was all once the Roman Empire. That state no longer exists, and its borders have been substantially modified, and indeed the ancient Romans are now the Italians."

It may be that the one-state solution will be the catalyst in eventually merging all Middle East nations into one without national divisions or religious divisions getting in the way.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 September 2004 12:19 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Imagine there's no heaven..."
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 10 September 2004 12:51 AM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
For what its worth, I don't have any specific objection to an ... ethnically focussed state of any sort in principal (I think there are tonnes of them extant, ranging goodness), as long as it does all good things, and doesn't screw over its minorities, and isn't a theocracy.

Full disclosure: I have a simple bias for smaller states over larger ones. I generally get more turned on by the idea of statelets, rather than superstates. Given my druthers, I'd break up the US, China, Russia and probably India, and either reverse some of the European Union stuff, or else break all the members states into twos and threes. (I'd break most Canadian provinces into component parts as well).

So I have to admit that aside from my reasons for not believing one state proposals have any specific merit, they also kind of creep me out.


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

posted 10 September 2004 08:17 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The "emerging case" scenario is more in WingNut's mind than real. No serious thought is being given to such a proposal for many reasons not the least of which is the understanding that the Jewish peoples' dream of a national homeland has been realized and accepted in the state of Israel.

Those who wish to see its dismantling, though not necessarily themselves anti-Semitic, do engage an anti-Semitic concept that has no place in today's world.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 September 2004 10:24 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for the credit there, Macabee, but I didn't write the article. But when did a fact ever get in the way of your hyperbole, eh?

Those who advocate for a two state solution advocate a form of racism we all had hoped had died with Apartheid and which has no place in today's world.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 September 2004 10:28 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From tha article my friend could not be bothered to read:

quote:
Presumably, the more realistic alternative is a two-state solution. But is this really more realistic? The entire sweep of Israeli history argues against it. There is not a single moment in the history of Israel, and in particular of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, in which Israel was prepared to recognize a viable, independent Palestinian state existing along its borders. (The Barak proposal at Camp David is often offered as a counterexample. However, I fail to see how a demilitarized state that does not have control of its borders, its airspace, its aquifers, or many of its central roads is considered a viable state. If there is a non-starter, that was certainly it.) There is no reason to believe that Israel is to be enticed into a two-state solution, so the question then becomes one of the terms in which it is to be confronted.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 September 2004 10:38 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Those who wish to see its dismantling, though not necessarily themselves anti-Semitic, do engage an anti-Semitic concept that has no place in today's world.

So finally after getting hammered on the head repeatedly about this you finally change your tune.. a little.

So now if someone says a one-state solution is preferable, they're not a conscious anti-semite, they're an unconscious anti-semite?

What balderdash.


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

posted 10 September 2004 10:46 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Those who wish to see its dismantling, though not necessarily themselves anti-Semitic, do engage an anti-Semitic concept that has no place in today's world.

Gee, I never knew secular democracy was an "anti-Semitic concept."


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 10 September 2004 10:47 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
It reads as an interesting concept.

The major problem I have, aside from the various objections the article deals with in a manner I find a bit superficial and overly optimistic, is that it directly violates or contradicts a whole series of UN resolutions which have been seen for the past 60 years as the basis for any solution.

I haven't the foggiest idea how the standard two-state solution being proposed can be achieved any time soon but those UN positions are the international consensus as well as the international law. So advocacy for a one-state solution is a larger problem than the author admits.

Not that the UN is God, but I was brought up as one of those proverbially multilateralist UN-admiring Canucks. I think lots of others around the world will have the same problem of accepting a one-state solution that violates established UN policies.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 September 2004 11:13 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I haven't the foggiest idea how the standard two-state solution being proposed can be achieved any time soon but those UN positions are the international consensus as well as the international law.

In the context of what is happening on the ground, the UN resolutions are meaningless.

The UN resolutions are based upon a demarcation point. However, settlement activity, the wall, roads, etc ... have all rendered the demarcation point obsolete.

You will recall that Sharon, with the support of the US administration, now says any future settlement must include West Bank settlements being added to Israel.

There is no real possibility of a two-state solution.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 10 September 2004 11:15 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

So finally after getting hammered on the head repeatedly about this you finally change your tune.. a little.

So now if someone says a one-state solution is preferable, they're not a conscious anti-semite, they're an unconscious anti-semite?

What balderdash.


I have held this position consistantly. That you refuse to accept it doesnt make it "balderdash" it only speaks to your inability to understand.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gentlebreeze
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4562

posted 10 September 2004 11:33 AM      Profile for Gentlebreeze     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
The "emerging case" scenario is more in WingNut's mind than real. No serious thought is being given to such a proposal for many reasons not the least of which is the understanding that the Jewish peoples' dream of a national homeland has been realized and accepted in the state of Israel.

Those who wish to see its dismantling, though not necessarily themselves anti-Semitic, do engage an anti-Semitic concept that has no place in today's world.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


This is, of course, mostly nonsense. To suggest that proponenets of a secular, democratic, and fully inclusive society are either knowingly, or unknowingly, engaging in anti-semitism is absurd. I hope that in the future you more carefully consider what you type.

Sadly though Macabee is at least partially correct when he/she points out that the "one-state" solution is not really a serious consideration (at least for most Israeli jews). Unless a very powerful effort is made to convince them otherwise, the concept will remain a fringe, and strictly academic proposal. I believe the effort is worthwhile, but I suspect it will be fruitless for the forseeable future.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Gentlebreeze ]


From: Thornhill | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 September 2004 12:32 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Unless a very powerful effort is made to convince them otherwise

Do you mean US pressure?

If we agree there will never be a two-state solution and we agree the single state solution is unlikely, that leaves .... continued violence?

quote:
He (Sharon) said protecting the 8,000 Jewish settlers in Gaza "takes an enormous security effort," while underscoring "the strategic importance to Israel" of the West Bank.

Mid-East Online

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 10 September 2004 12:55 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Folks, ignore the crap. He is, whether he knows it or not, engaging in modern-day apologetics for ethnic-cleansing and is therefor objectively pro-occupation and supportive of the murder of and theft from Palestinians.

Sauce for the goose . . .


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 September 2004 01:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is, of course, mostly nonsense. To suggest that proponenets of a secular, democratic, and fully inclusive society are either knowingly, or unknowingly, engaging in anti-semitism is absurd. I hope that in the future you more carefully consider what you type.

Of course this is nonsense, but what Macabee has done is redfine the term Antisemetism so that it has variable meanings that suit his/her propoganda objectives. On another thread I pointed out that the objective is to change the meaning of the word, but continue to insist that the social prohibition against antisemetism should stand.

A seemingly clever slieght of hand.

In fact Macabee admitted the fact that his defintion of antsemetism does not necessarily mean hatred of Jewish people, here on this thread, Liar, liar pants on fire

MaCabee:

quote:
The logical conclusion of my argument is that those who engage in advocating the end of the Jewish state are engaging in anti-Semitism. It does not mean you hate Jews it means the argument is an anti-Semitic one which denies the Jewish people a homeland.

The important thing to note therefore, is that antisemetism, according to Macabee, is not necessarily racism, but could also be a none-racist politcal position.

My feeling is that he/she needs to do this because there is no logical and morally consistent way to justify Israeli behaviour in the West Bank, so for lack of any arguement, MaCabee tries to redifine the moral lanscape itself through language manipulation, so that there is a new morality exclusively available to Israel and its Zionist defenders.

Macabee's thesis is a fascinating study in Orwellian-double think.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 10 September 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Do you mean US pressure?

If we agree there will never be a two-state solution and we agree the single state solution is unlikely, that leaves .... continued violence?


I think this is the most likely outcome, actually.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 September 2004 07:17 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As long as poor Israeli's and Palestinian's are at each others throats, then who will protest the 11% unemployment rate and sado-monetarist policies of right wing politicos there?. The rich Israeli's and Palestinian's aren't the ones being shot at or bombed. They thrive amidst chaos.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 11 September 2004 10:28 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the world's most international country, we need to make an extra effort to understand ethnic states, which are still common in Europe, where the majority of Israelis have roots.

Take Germany. When Israel was founded, and for many decades thereafter, the German Citizenship Law was:

quote:
. . . based upon the principle of the jus sanguinis ("right of blood"): a child inherits German citizenship from German parents. The jus sanguinis concept of citizenship and nationality dates from the era of the French Revolution. It was first adopted by a German state - Bavaria - in 1818 and underlay the 1913 nationality law that is the basis of the Federal Republic's current citizenship laws.

Children born before January 1, 1975 received German citizenship only if the father was a German citizen at the time of the child's birth.

A child born to a German mother and foreign father before 1975 became German only if the mother requested German citizenship for the child before December 31, 1977.

A child born out of wedlock to a German mother is German. If only the father is German, the child may receive German citizenship if the father acknowledges paternity before the child turns 23 or if the father acknowledges paternity and marries the mother. A child by a German citizen becomes a German if the child is under 18.

Ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the Soviet successor states can claim citizenship under the "Right of Return".


Then on Jan. 1, 2000, the Red-Green coalition moved Germany out of the 19th century and leaped straight to the 21st. Well, not entirely:

quote:
Children who are born in Germany to foreign nationals will receive German citizenship when one of the respective child’s parents has resided lawfully in Germany for at least eight years and holds entitlement to residence or has had an unlimited residence permit for at least three years. Most children who acquire German citizenship at birth under the above arrangement will also acquire their parents’ citizenship under the principle of descent (depending on the other country’s laws).

For this reason, such children will have to decide within five years of turning 18 – in other words, before their 23rd birthday – whether they want to retain their German citizenship or their other citizenship. They must opt for one of their two nationalities (which is why this is called the requirement to opt):

In the event that they declare that they want to retain their foreign citizenship, they lose their German citizenship. This is also the case when such a child does not make any statement to the authorities before his 23rd birthday.


(Note the default assumption that blood is primary.)

quote:
Should the respective individual decide to keep his German citizenship, he has to provide proof before his 23rd birthday that he has lost his other citizenship. Exceptions are possible, particularly when renouncement of the other citizenship is not possible or would be unreasonable.

And this liberal new law has an odd twist:

quote:
Before the new legislation, foreign nationals were granted entitlement to naturalization only after 15 years of residence in Germany. Now, a foreign national is entitled to naturalization after having lawfully resided in Germany for eight years when he meets the following requirements:

3. He must be able to support himself without the help of welfare benefits or unemployment assistance (as in the past, this requirement does not have to be checked in the case of foreigners who are under 23 years of age; the receipt of unemployment assistance or welfare benefits does not have a detrimental effect on the individual’s application when the respective individual is not responsible for the situation).


Germany is still the German state. Israel is still the Jewish state. For Czechs and Slovaks in 1919, such an idea was not oppression, it was liberation. So in 1949, the creation of Israel would have been liberation -- except for those inconvenient Palestinians. I say nothing more, because I expect only a Jew can truly feel and express the depth of the tragedy that has befallen Israel.

[ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 September 2004 02:03 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I say nothing more, because I expect only a Jew can truly feel and express the depth of the tragedy that has befallen Israel.

I dunno, Wilf, Palestinians have been feeling the depth of this tragedy since 1948.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 11 September 2004 02:19 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
I dunno, Wilf, Palestinians have been feeling the depth of this tragedy since 1948.

Of course, and we can all understand that. The tragedy that many Israelis feel is, however, unique.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 11 September 2004 03:17 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wilfried, perhaps you or our other legal minds (paging josh, jeff and...?) could correct me on this but I believe a lof of the underpinnings of Israeli law are indeed inspired by Germany and the German-speaking world. Not forgetting that the founder of Zionism was an Austrian and it appeared as one of the many nationalist movements in the Austro-Hungarian empire. And I believe the "Yekkes" (German-speaking Jews) had a disproportionate influence in early Israel, though I imagine the majority of Jewish refugees and emigrants to Palestine were Yiddish speakers from Eastern Europe - no doubt due to the high educational level and status of the Yekkes.

There is no question but that the trauma of "scientific genocide" will have a deep impact on the consciousness of Israelis long after the last Holocaust survivor has died of old age. And you are right that every history is unique.

Here is an interesting twist on the German "ethnic" approach to immigration: the automatic entry and assistance to Jewish immigrants - not just former DPs from Germany itself, Central and Eastern Europe but largely post-Soviet Jews: German aid to Jewish immigrant community

Some Israelis and Palestinians - thinking most specifically of the close friends, Daniel Barenboim and the late Edward Said - have been trying to work across the trauma of the Shoah and of the Nakba to attempt to understand each other's narratives. But as they have shown, this must go along with a commitment to right the injustice being done to the Palestinians. After all, they were not the guilty party in the mass murder of European Jewry, nor was Germany alone in that respect.

[ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 11 September 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In fact much of Israeli jurisprudence is based on the British system.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 11 September 2004 03:39 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is true, Macabee, of course. I was thinking more in terms of cultural imprint on jurisprudence and approach to legal matters. I know more about the imprint on the labour movement, thinking of the book "From Vienna to Jerusalem" and other studies by Johny Bünzl, a son of Viennese Jewish refugees who was born in Britain, in fact, during the war.

I know that cultural conflict between German and Yiddish speakers has become pretty much a moot point in contemporary Israel, superceded by the Askenazi - Sephardic cultural conflict. Of course having visited Israel many times, you know more about that than I do - my knowledge is at best second-hand, from Israelis I know, and largely based on written sources.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 September 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course, and we can all understand that. The tragedy that many Israelis feel is, however, unique.

Saddest tragedy of all the creation of the state of Israel was a tacit acceptance of the pan-European effort to resolve the so-called "Jewish problem" by population transfer. One often ignored aspect of Zionism is that accepts the racist pardigm, wherein it is desireable for Jews should live in a seperate state, not in any state, anywhere as equal citizens among many peoples. I reject it.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 September 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am really not understanding the recent tone of this thread.

No question that Europe -- all of Europe -- is still struggling with a world-historical spiritual crisis brought on by its long history of celebrating blood-knowledge, blood-loyalty, blood-lust, blood-etc. Not that every other culture on earth has not played some variant of that game, but Europe's was particular, and the Europeans have consciously taken on the challenge to it.

No question that they are not all the way there yet. No place I know of is. The European colonies -- like us -- certainly aren't.

But are some people here arguing that progressives for that reason should USE the horrific blood-logics of the past to rationalize any unjust status quo anywhere?

That shocks me deeply. It seems obvious to me that we argue against any such status quo, although it also seems fair to me to acknowledge the efforts made by some states to work through their own guilty histories.

The states that disturb are those that look backwards to the injustices and prejudices and fantasies of the past to justify their own misdeeds now.

Given the horrific legacy of European colonialism in the Middle East, I simply cannot understand the tone of some references here to the Palestinians in particular.

And I can agree, in a banal sense, that every people's history is unique; but then, also in a banal sense, human history is everywhere and always recognizable, as Voltaire said. So where does that get us with the bleeding bodies, exactly?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 11 September 2004 09:09 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Saddest tragedy of all the creation of the state of Israel was a tacit acceptance of the pan-European effort to resolve the so-called "Jewish problem" by population transfer. One often ignored aspect of Zionism is that accepts the racist pardigm, wherein it is desireable for Jews should live in a seperate state, not in any state, anywhere as equal citizens among many peoples. I reject it.


Problem historically however and in reality is much different.

With the exception of this small point in history , the history of Jew-hatred leading to pogroms and mass murder is manifold. Jews have no reason to believe and hope that others will treat them with dignity and respect given that it has rarely happened throughout the ages.


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

posted 11 September 2004 09:15 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Jews have no reason to believe and hope that others will treat them with dignity and respect given that it has rarely happened throughout the ages.

I understand how you can say this, but I really don't think you speak for other Jewish people. Tacit in this statement is that non-Jews can't be trusted to treat Jewish people with dignity and respect. There is a particular brand of racism and exceptionalism here that is a bit troubling.

[ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 11 September 2004 09:25 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree it is troubling. More troubling however is the historical fact that jews have been discriminated against, villified and murdered by non-Jews in virtually every country in Europe since their forced expulsion from the biblical land of Israel.
The hisotry of this hatred culminated in an almost succesful attempt to annhilate the Jew from Europe. You will forgive me then my skepticsm of those who want Jews to accept the largesse of the world around them.

And as for speaking for other Jewish people, this was an unecessay statement. No one speaks for everyone. However, one can when part of a group get a sense of what people feel and think. One can reflect such a feeling.


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

posted 11 September 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
It may have been an unecessary statement, Macabee, but there it is. You don't speak for other Jewish people, so I take your fear of persecution by non-Jews to be mostly your own.

As much as I understand the sorrow of a people subjected to such a systematic and cold-blooded genocide within living memory, I don't think the lesson from that was that Jews will always be a target for the the worst atrocities non-Jews can imagine.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 September 2004 09:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
With the exception of this small point in history , the history of Jew-hatred leading to pogroms and mass murder is manifold. Jews have no reason to believe and hope that others will treat them with dignity and respect given that it has rarely happened throughout the ages.


No people have been treated with dignity and respect throughout history. The only places where they have has been in the secular states.

The exceptional ferocity of the attack of the NSDAP against the Jews, and a number of other subject peoples, has less to do with the particullar racist virulence of racism against Jews, and everything to do with the modernization of the killing machine used agains the Jews.

Ineracial and inter-religious slaughter against minorities is common place, the obviouse exmaple being black people and Gypies. The solution, is not rabid nationalism, but de-nationalization of state structure. Israel is a backward step in this process.


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

posted 11 September 2004 10:16 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Eminent historian Robert Wistrich has documented Jew-hatred in his book "The Longest Hatred". Quantitatively and tragically qualitatively he shows impirically that the Jews have suffered the longest most sustained form of religious/ethnic discrimination in history to present day.

It is a sad but true fact of history that ought not be watered down to satisfy consciences or world guilt.

As well, I would ask you respectfully not to use the racial epithet "gypsy". It is preferrable to use the Roma people. They themselves consider the term gypsy a racist slur and we should all respevct that no matter how romanticized you wish to define the term gypsy. Thank you.

Wistrich: Longest Hatred

[ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


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

posted 11 September 2004 10:32 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is preferrable to use the Roma people. They themselves consider the term gypsy a racist slur and we should all respevct that no matter how romanticized you wish to define the term gypsy.

Yes, it is...anti-Roma. Christ, coming from you, this is almost an insult to the Roma. Anyway, Macabee, I notice you haven't responded to the thread I started about rounding up Muslims. What are you, anti-semitic?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 12 September 2004 12:58 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

Yes, it is...anti-Roma. Christ, coming from you, this is almost an insult to the Roma. Anyway, Macabee, I notice you haven't responded to the thread I started about rounding up Muslims. What are you, anti-semitic?


You have absolutely no call to write about me in this manner. It is rude and offensive.

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

posted 12 September 2004 02:34 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While it may be true that Jews have been hated far longer than any other collectivity in human history, it may also be true that there is no older collectivity among humanity than Jews.

Throughout history, other collectivities who have been hated have been wiped out or assimilated. Every other people has disappeared, while the Hebrews survive.

Isn't it odd that their survival hasn't been contingent upon having a nation-state for most of that time?


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

posted 12 September 2004 04:32 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Eminent historian Robert Wistrich has documented Jew-hatred in his book "The Longest Hatred". Quantitatively and tragically qualitatively he shows impirically that the Jews have suffered the longest most sustained form of religious/ethnic discrimination in history to present day.

Tell it to the Sikhs, Armenians and the Tamils. Your messed up brother. No doubt your 'eminent' historian set out to prove the conclusion he came to. The word Sikh, Armenian or Tamil do not even appear in the review of Wistrich's book you linked to. How can you claim that survey that does not include all possible evidence is empirical?

The review, shows very clearly that the book is entirely Eurocentric. What more needs to be said.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 12 September 2004 09:44 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you have research that proves Westrich wrong I urge you to have it published. I'm sure it would be both welcomed and a best seller. If not I will go wih Westrich over Cueball.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 September 2004 09:48 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mac, it's not a question of being "wrong"; all Cueball said is that Westrich's history is Eurocentric.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 12 September 2004 10:34 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
No people have been treated with dignity and respect throughout history. The only places where they have has been in the secular states.

We should be a bit careful in our enthusiasm for secularism.

One of the world's stongest and loudest secularists, who has devoted his life to the principle of separation of church and state, is perhaps better known for his fulminations against "the Whore of Rome" -- the Rev. Ian Paisley, whose younger followers delight in painting walls with the traditional secular Ulster slogan "No Pope Here."

Couldn't happen in tolerant Ontario?

Well before 1867, we had public education to age 16, in two publicly funded systems - the majority groups' public schools, and the minority's separate schools (which in a very few corners of the province were Protestant Separate Schools.) They ran to age 16, after which you paid private tuition fees. The right to this system was entrenched at Confederation. After a while, we extended the public system to the end of high school -- for public schools only.

For generations, Catholic kids faced the dilemma at age 16 they still faced in my Peterborough neighbourhood in 1958 when I turned 16. Their choices were stark. Switch schools to the public system, leave all their friends behind, and walk around the halls of a strange school thinking "everyone can see my parents couldn't afford the tuition fees" -- not a popular option. Pay the tuition fees, which for most parents in my neighbourhood was a hardship if not an impossibility. Or the most popular option, leave at the end of Grade 10 and get a job, as their parents had done.

For generations, the Orange Lodge had a stranglehold on Ontario politics, and perpetuated this. Then it faded from view, which only meant that it retreated behind the walls of the Masonic Lodge and continued to run the Conservative Party and perpetuate this gross and fundamental injustice on the backs of generations of 16-year olds. (If we starve them out, they'll give up their separate schools.) Ian Paisley would have been proud of our stand for secularism.

The NDP and Liberals campaigned in the 1970s to end this. None spoke better than Dan Heap, reminding us that secular principles were no excuse to treat working-class Catholic kids as an underclass. Finally, the "education premier" Bill Davis, who had certainly been uncomfortable all along, finally got up his nerve to complete the Catholic school system. At the next election, many Masons sat on their hands, as Ian Paisley would have advised in the face of such treachery, and his party lost power.

We have few lessons to give on the virtues of secularism. I say this as a public school supporter who was a public school trustee at the time of the completion of Ontario's separate school system.

If secularism can be perverted to the aid of anti-Catholicism, can it be perverted to the aid of anti-semitism? I'm no expert, but I expect it has been.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 September 2004 10:39 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wilfred, anyone who can describe either Ian Paisley or the Orange Lodge, in Ulster or here, past or present, as "secular" is not using the same dictionary I am, and is possibly not living on the same planet.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 12 September 2004 11:42 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The high and noble principles that the Orange Order was founded to uphold" include, in Canada:

quote:
to use our influence in the promotion of Civil and Religious Liberty; to support the public non-Sectarian School System

The Orange Order quite sincerely believes that

quote:
The "Battle of the Boyne", as it is called, is widely recognized for securing the widest measures of civil and religious liberty for all inheritors of this first great step toward the 'democratization' of the western world.

They are proud that, as they see it,

quote:
We are utterly anti-sectarian and wish to promote a new sense of inclusiveness and understanding across Ulster and the rest of our United Kingdom.

. . . the democratic revolution here in Britain in 1690 was pioneered by King William III, and remains the foundation for the civil liberties enjoyed not only here in the UK, but in much of the Commonwealth Federation and the United States.


There's no point detailing the history behind this. The point is, they strongly believe that it is not they, but the other side, who are sectarian opponents of "civil and religious liberty for all."


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 September 2004 11:52 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So who are you going to quote next, Wilfred: the Ku Klux Klan?

Protestant White supremacists have always believed that they have The Word and everyone else should knuckle under to it. What is your point in obsessing about their psychoses?

The point is democracy, how it thrives, the basic principles of democracy -- like separation of church and state, eg. In the entire history of modern democratic thought, Wilfred, I cannot think of anyone but you who has considered King Billy a serious contributor.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 12 September 2004 12:10 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You have absolutely no call to write about me in this manner. It is rude and offensive.

Oh, I most certainly do have call to write about you like this. You have devalued the whole concept of racism and ethnocentric hatred with your baseless accusations of anti-semitism. When you criticise someone for using the term Gypsy for Roma, which has only recently become the accepted term for the people for us here in the West, you are doing this to score debating points. This is contemptuous, and you know that. So, hiss and shriek at someone else, because, as I've told you before, I don't believe you.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 12 September 2004 12:31 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
So who are you going to quote next, Wilfred . . . In the entire history of modern democratic thought, Wilfred, I cannot think of anyone but you who has considered King Billy a serious contributor.

If I'm to be assumed to be in agreement with anyone I quote, I'd best quit quoting anyone.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 September 2004 12:47 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't remember who first raised the red herring of the "secular" state on this thread, but I can't imagine why it was done.

In modern democratic theory, democrats care about the separation of church and state -- as in, the one doesn't interfere with the other.

The kind of secularism you seem to fear, Wilfred, is the unfortunate (in my view) French variant, a terrible betrayal of the pre-revolutionary French Enlightenment, from which the rest of us learned our much deeper understanding of the separation of church and state.

Any serious democrat can see what is wrong with the current puritanical proscriptions of religious dress in French schools or public institutions. No serious democrat cares what the hell anyone is wearing, and all individuals should feel free to witness to their private religious or ethnic affiliations however they choose, as long as they are not disrupting the study or work of others.

At the same time, all serious democrats understand that democracy depends heavily on the defence of an excellent public school system that is absolutely non-sectarian. It need not be "secular" in the sense that it forbids education about the religions of the world; it simply cannot indoctrinate anyone in any religion. That is not the place of the school system in a democracy; it is the place of churches.

We create democrats in our schools, or democracy dies. And I would say, from the evidence of this thread, that we appear to be moving in the latter direction pretty quickly.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 September 2004 12:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And a PS to Wingy:

Wingy, I don't know how this happened to your thread. I am sorry for contributing to the drift, but for some reason, some people seem to have wanted to turn this into a discussion of the school system in Ontario.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 12 September 2004 12:54 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think non-sectarian = secular. The assumption would have been that non-sectarian schools were Protestant, but not identified with a particular Protestant sect. Gradually the public schools in Canada have become secular, but some were started by Protestant churches.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 12 September 2004 12:57 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
The kind of secularism you seem to fear, Wilfred

Please re-read my post. I don't fear secularism. I fear the way secularism can be perverted.

quote:
No serious democrat cares what the hell anyone is wearing

You haven't taught Grade 8 recently. Dress codes preserve both civilization and order.


quote:
At the same time, all serious democrats understand that democracy depends heavily on the defence of an excellent public school system that is absolutely non-sectarian.

That's a good secular argument. It's perversion was when many people seriously argued "the public schools should be non-sectarian, THEREFORE let's freeze the separate school system until it withers away, no matter how many 16-year olds we hurt in the process."


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 September 2004 02:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this drift is interesing actually. Sometimes good to define terms.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 September 2004 06:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Any serious democrat can see what is wrong with the current puritanical proscriptions of religious dress in French schools or public institutions.

I think we should follow the French and be much more rigidly secular in Canada. Religious people have to learn to keep their religious practice private and out of public view as much as possible. Let them do what they want in their mosques and churches and temples and dens of iniquity. Apparently there is even a verse in the Bible that fundamentalists don't like very much because it says that prayer and religiouys observance should be done only in private and it condemns any public display of religiosity.

Ideally, I wish Canada would evolve into the kind of society where you can be freely topless or even bottomless at beaches - but where you will be fined it you wear any conspicuous religious symbols or clothing. We need to turn the tables on the religious freaks and make their clothes and habits illegal while encouraging anything that is about hedonism and free love.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 12 September 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Setting aside the human rights issues that this would raise, I think that could be counterproductive. Closet fanatics can be more dangerous than open fanatics.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 September 2004 06:30 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know, I know, its just that I get so physically sick whenever i see any public displays of relgiosity in Canada (ie: yarmulkes, turbans, bourqas, hijabs, nuns habits, the craps that Hassidic Jews wear etc...). I wish we could have a big bonfire of the vanities and rid ourselves of all that and take these poor souls to Prado and Armani to get re-outfitted.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 12 September 2004 07:15 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

Oh, I most certainly do have call to write about you like this. You have devalued the whole concept of racism and ethnocentric hatred with your baseless accusations of anti-semitism. When you criticise someone for using the term Gypsy for Roma, which has only recently become the accepted term for the people for us here in the West, you are doing this to score debating points. This is contemptuous, and you know that. So, hiss and shriek at someone else, because, as I've told you before, I don't believe you.



While you are entitled to your opinion I can tell you that when you claim this of me you by extention say the same of many many others who hold the same view as do I. Have we all "devalued the whole concept of racism and ethnocentric hatred with [our] baseless accusations of anti-semitism" ?

People such as:

Elie Wiesel
Jeff Rose
Dr. Philip Berger
Simon Wiesenthal
Alan Dershowitz
Phylis Chesler
Abe Foxman
Sir Martin Gilbert

just for starters.

All these people hold that to advocate for the destruction/dismantling/eradication of the Jewish state of Israel is to engage in 21st centiry anti-Semitism.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 12 September 2004 08:49 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I know, I know, its just that I get so physically sick whenever i see any public displays of relgiosity in Canada (ie: yarmulkes, turbans, bourqas, hijabs, nuns habits, the craps that Hassidic Jews wear etc...). I wish we could have a big bonfire of the vanities and rid ourselves of all that and take these poor souls to Prado and Armani to get re-outfitted.
Very tolerant of you...


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 September 2004 09:13 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

All these people hold that to advocate for the destruction/dismantling/eradication of the Jewish state of Israel is to engage in 21st centiry anti-Semitism.


And Canada did our part when we shut our doors to Jews trying to get out of Europe in the 1930's. We welcomed Nazi war criminals though. Many were living in Canada and collecting Canadian pensions under their real names. Same with the Yanks.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 12 September 2004 09:16 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually many are still here!!

Helmut Oberlander a former member of a nazi killing unit still enjoys Canada.

Oberlander

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]The Record

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 September 2004 09:22 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll bet he's got a family doctor, too.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 12 September 2004 11:26 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So the logic is, if I understand it correctly, we need a racist state to combat racism. Is that it? Because that is sure what is sounds like?

It must work because Chechens are safe in Chechnya and there has never been an indigineous people exterminated.

You know what is even more important? There has never been a case of genocide in a secular, democratic, state with constituional guarantees of human and minority rights. Both Jews and Palestinians would be safe there.


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

posted 12 September 2004 11:52 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I know, I know, its just that I get so physically sick whenever i see any public displays of relgiosity in Canada (ie: yarmulkes, turbans, bourqas, hijabs, nuns habits, the craps that Hassidic Jews wear etc...)


The condition you’re suffering from is called Xenophobia.
I recommend you or seek psychiatric help or perhaps move to France.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 13 September 2004 12:11 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
There has never been a case of genocide in a secular, democratic, state with constitutional guarantees of human and minority rights.

Yugoslavia, before it broke up, was a secular, democratic, state with constitutional guarantees of human and minority rights, wasn't it? But then it broke up, and we got Bosnia and Kosovo. The constitutional guarantees prevented such an event. The break-up was unconstitutional. But it happened.

And wasn't the USA a secular, democratic, state with constitutional guarantees of human and minority rights, when they committed genocide on the Native (aboriginal) Americans?

I'm not saying these are comparable to what could happen in the Middle East. I'm saying that dogmatic statements make me nervous.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 September 2004 12:15 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The condition you’re suffering from is called Xenophobia.
I recommend you or seek psychiatric help or perhaps move to France.

Moving to France wouldn't be bad at all - the food, the wine, the chateaux of the Loire, the Riviera o who could ask for anything more?!

I love cultural diversity - as long as it isn't religious. I'm all for Balkan folk dancing and Chinese restaurants - I just don't want pernicious religious traditions that try to interfere with and regulate peoples sex lives and diets getting any foothold in this country.

We should make it a condition of citizenship that all Jews and Muslims must eat a chunk of pork, all Hindus must eat a steak and all Catholics have to gring a communion wafer under their heel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 13 September 2004 12:22 AM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by Cueball:
"The exceptional ferocity of the attack of the NSDAP against the Jews ... has less to do with the particullar racist virulence of racism against Jews, and everything to do with the modernization of the killing machine used agains the Jews."

You're flat out wrong here cueball. To give just one example, the diversion of trains from military transport in order to transport Jews to Auschwitz illustrates a level of fanaticism seldom seem in the history of the world.

"Ineracial and inter-religious slaughter against minorities is common place"

Commonplace? What planet do you live on? Commonplace on the scale of six million dead? On the scale of 90% of the Jews of occupied Europe murdered? If this is so common and it has to do with the modernization of means, why hasn’t it happened since?

"The solution, is ... de-nationalization of state structure. Israel is a backward step in this process.[/qb][/QUOTE]


Well, go to it, cueball! Get Syria and Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan … get them all to de-nationalize!

And when you've suceeded, let me know, and I'll join your campaign to de-nationalize Israel.

In the meantime, the demand the Israel should "denationalize," has a whiff of antisemitism about it. Really, it's nothing but a demand that Israel should disappear.

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: MyName ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 13 September 2004 12:23 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

All these people hold that to advocate for the destruction/dismantling/eradication of the Jewish state of Israel is to engage in 21st centiry anti-Semitism.

And by this do they mean, as you do, that the creation of a secular democratic state would constitute that "destruction/dismantling/eradication"? Or do they mean that advocating "pushing the Jews into the sea" constitutes anti-Semitism? Or are they vague enough that their statement could be interpreted either way? Those are two very different positions, as I'm sure you know.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 13 September 2004 01:27 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Moving to France wouldn't be bad at all - the

We should make it a condition of citizenship that all Jews and Muslims must eat a chunk of pork, all Hindus must eat a steak and all Catholics have to gring a communion wafer under their heel.



What should we make the homosexuals do?

Oh yeah, their rights count; only ones that Stockholm doesn't care about don't. Right. Forgot.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 September 2004 01:33 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Commonplace? What planet do you live on? Commonplace on the scale of six million dead? On the scale of 90% of the Jews of occupied Europe murdered? If this is so common and it has to do with the modernization of means, why hasn’t it happened since?

You have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

One of the things that has been established by a great number of very well respected students of the holocaust is that the pogrom committed against the Jews by the Nazi's was faciltated by organizational and technological modernization.\

In other words, the trains that were diverted could only be diverted because there were trains (trains being a modern invention) and people with the modern organizational skills to organize the diversion of said trains and an evolved and sophisticated modern bureaucracy to schedule the trains.

There are also certain all encompassing ideological and philosophical concepts that are deemed in the modern category (Socialism, communism, facism, etc.) that are also considered to be essential to the lethal mix that created the extermination camps.

Three modern apsects working in tandem: Modern technology, modern organization and modern philosphical ideas.

To wit: the Romans were hard pressed to completely wipe out the Cartheginians because they did not have the modern means to do so, even if they had the will -- Believe me they had the will, as can be established by the fact that they did actually wipe out the 100% of the Cartheginians without trains, gas chmabers or firing squads.

Can't it be said that hatred of Cartheginians is the oldest and most virulent hatred given that they were 100% exterminated in 150 BC?

Read Hanna Arendt, or Zygmund Bauman (Modernity and the Holcaust) if your interest in the Holocaust extends beyond using it as a means justifying the Israeli attack upon the Palestinian Arabs. In fact the similar events have taken place in Cambodia and it could be argued against the people of the Soviet Union or in China during the cultural revolution, with simliar catastrophic results.

This is not to mention the wholesale extermination of the people of Nagasaki and Hirioshima by the atom bomb, another modern invention. In half an hour the USA was able to accomplish ethnic cleansing that Ghengis Khan could never have imagined, due to the modern means available, with even less prejudice.

What I am saying is that body count is not evidence in support of the Westrich thesis, which is that prejudice against Jews is historicaly greater than any other dicreet cultural/religious/social group. If so we would have to conclude that the US dropped the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima due to extreme racial prejudice because they killed more Japanese in 30 seconds than were killed in Aucshwitz every month.

Look at it this way: a man with a bow an arrow could hate Jews far more than Adolph Eichman, but Eichman 'lesser' prejudice would be more lethal in practice because of the means available to Eichman.

Stop freaking out and start reading what people are saying, please.

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 September 2004 01:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 September 2004 02:09 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:

You're flat out wrong here cueball. To give just one example, the diversion of trains from military transport in order to transport Jews to Auschwitz illustrates a level of fanaticism seldom seem in the history of the world.

It was all about slave labour/fascism as usual. Railroad magnate, H.E. Harriman, had contracts with the Nazis for blocks of 500, tourist class seats on his trains to transport Jews and other ethnics from across Europe. And they were one way tickets, i beleive.

American corporations increased their investment in Germany by about 45% once Hitler seized power.
Companies like General Motors, Ford, IBM and more were compensated for damages suffered from allied bombing by the American taxpayers.

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 September 2004 02:19 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To give just one example, the diversion of trains from military transport in order to transport Jews to Auschwitz illustrates a level of fanaticism seldom seem in the history of the world.

The Germans got the idea from the Turks' use of rail transport during the Armenian holocaust 25 years earlier.

Cueball's right in his claim that modern methods exacerbated the scale of the Final Solution.

Consider, though, the inhabitants of the thousands of cities, towns, villages and farms who were "put to the sword" before the Industrial Revolution.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 September 2004 02:47 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I may un-drift the thread for a second, may I point out the latest Gush Shalom entry?

quote:
The second manifesto declares that the Halakha (Jewish religious law) commands the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians if this helps to save Jews. It is signed by the heads of the “Arrangement Yeshivot”, the West Bank settlement rabbis and other religious leaders. They were later joined by one of the two Chief Rabbis (the Sephardic one).

The above needs no explanation. It is, yet again, another example of the dangers of the narrow-mindedness of religiously motivated dogma that buttresses racist ideas and actions.

The Afrikaners in South Africa used to claim the Bible supported their belief that black people were inferior to whites, and thus deserved to be put in a position of permanent inequality.

I could cite lots of examples besides this, but the salient point is clear: Religiously motivated bigotry has no place in a modern, secular nation.


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

posted 13 September 2004 04:23 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:


Religiously motivated bigotry has no place in a modern, secular nation.


On this we both agree

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 13 September 2004 09:14 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yugoslavia, before it broke up, was a secular, democratic, state with constitutional guarantees of human and minority rights, wasn't it?

I do not believe Yugoslavia was ever a democratic state the way most of us understand the term. And I believe one of the factors leading to the breakup of Yugoslavia, beside economic issues, was a failure too abide by the constitution and the rotating presidency. And I am not sure to what extent there were guarantees of minority rights. Everything I have read says it was strong grip if Tito that kept a lid on ethnic tensions as opposed to any legal framework.

And in any case, the exception would prove the rule.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 13 September 2004 09:34 AM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Hey Stockholm!

Now a do a post about those irritating religious pride parades, and how they corrupt our children!


("_Closet_ fanatics". That's rich.)


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 September 2004 10:06 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Ideally, I wish Canada would evolve into the kind of society where you can be freely topless or even bottomless at beaches - but where you will be fined it you wear any conspicuous religious symbols or clothing. We need to turn the tables on the religious freaks and make their clothes and habits illegal while encouraging anything that is about hedonism and free love.

You CAN'T be serious. Come on, you have to be pulling people's chains. You don't believe in freedom of religion?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 September 2004 10:28 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It gets worse, Michelle:

quote:
We should make it a condition of citizenship that all Jews and Muslims must eat a chunk of pork, all Hindus must eat a steak and all Catholics have to gring a communion wafer under their heel.

What is at issue here is not just freedom of "religion" but freedom of conscience, which is one of the first principles of democracy.

Defend it, or lose democracy. Period punckt full stop.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 September 2004 10:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I saw that. Other people already quoted and responded to it. Of course, I think it's ridiculous, but I also think he's trying to get a rise out of people.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 13 September 2004 10:51 AM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
It gets worse, Michelle:

What is at issue here is not just freedom of "religion" but freedom of conscience, which is one of the first principles of democracy.

Defend it, or lose democracy. Period punckt full stop.


Am I the only one who read Stockholm's posts as a satire on the typical reasonings of homophobes?

I thought the whole thing was inspired by the idea of a "closet fanatic" being a fanatic about the clothes in peoples' closets--hence the early references to Armani, etc.--rather than a fanatic who is closeted.

I guess the bad news for Stockholm is its not much of a joke if you have to explain it.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 September 2004 10:54 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just want to point out that one sees many women wearing various types of veils in France - and men wearing Muslim skullcaps and chechias, many people in religious Jewish garb etc. The ban on religious clothing in schools concerns minor pupils in public (state) schools. Many, many countries order uniforms for such minors or regulate how they can dress. There is no such ban for university level students or anyone else in France.

France takes a highly centralised approach to government, including the school system. There are many problems with that but it would be too much thread drift here!

As for the question of modern genocide, Enzo Traverso has also written extensively on the subject. The Nazi holocaust of Jews and other groups was a culmination of a process of modernisation of genocide going on for a long time. We should remember how trains were used in the western US in shooting bison to starve the Aboriginal peoples who depended on the beast for food, clothing, shelter and culture.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 13 September 2004 12:45 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
I just want to register my objection to Cueball's program of "denationalization."

In the process of "denationalizing" Canada, does he propose to merge us with the U.S. on the grounds that we're already halfway there?

Or does he perhaps see us uniting with Iran, on the grounds that, since the Iranian regime murdered a Canadian journalist, Iran is the country we most need to make nice with?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 13 September 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
We should remember how trains were used in the western US in shooting bison to starve the Aboriginal peoples.

I'm really sorry for contribuiting the thread drift here, but Lagattta do you seriously mean the purpose of hunting bison was to starve Indians?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 September 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
MyName, please look back at the terrible history of "our own" genocide, including the disease-infested blankets handed out by Lord Jeffrey Amherst...

Of course many white hunters sought bison for the same reason their Aboriginal predecessors did, or sought hides while wasting the meat, but bison were killed and left to rot on the plains precisely for purposes of ethnic cleansing.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 September 2004 03:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I just want to register my objection to Cueball's program of "denationalization."

OK, theoretically I believe in a borderless world. That is a utopian ideal. I think it was Bloch who made the point that utopian ideals are not really objectives, but the basis on which we critque reality, a measuring stick. De-nationalization as a utopian ideal is obviously unachievable, yet analysing the reality of the world using the measuring stick of 'denationalization' reveals some very interesting things.

But if we hold are ideals before us, and attempt to move towards them we may be doing some good.

For instance countries like Canada, which are highly denationalized and struggle to achieve harmony through egalitarian treatement of minorities, are generally more harmonious than those that identify their nationhood on the basis of single ethnic or religious group, and therefore exclude minorities in varying degrees from participation in the mainstream. This exculsion acts as a breeding ground for all kinds of dissent, dissafection and in the long run violent revolutionay activity.

Israel, or any of the 'Islamic' states, are stepping away from the denationalized ideal and as a result are more likely to suffer from internal strife do to the opression of the minority. This becomes a real problem in a region like Palestine, where a very large body of persons make up the official minorities, Christian Arabs, and Muslim Arabs, and less of a problem in places like Iran where 80% of the population are Shia Muslim.

Iran also suffers from ethnic strife due to the presense of Kurds and other minority groups, yet the natural tensions that might result from the Islamification of society are less overt given that even most ethnic minorities are also Muslim, even if they suffer from other forms of opression due to their minority status.

Almost all of the tension in Israel comes the from the fact that the Zionist chose to create a 'Jewish' state in a region which was not even close to being entirely made up of Jewish people. Consequently, because of the obvious "demogrpahic problem," Israel has been forced to embark on campaign of ethnic cleansing in order to artificially make the demographic leap.

In choosing to idealize the national, and not the 'denational' Israel has reaped a harvest of war, terrorism and constant militerization.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 13 September 2004 06:39 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
For instance countries like Canada, which are highly denationalized and struggle to achieve harmony through egalitarian treatement of minorities, are generally more harmonious than those that identify their nationhood on the basis of single ethnic or religious group . . .

That must be why 49.5% of the population of Quebec voted for sovereignty in the last referendum, and why 48.8% of Quebec voters voted for the Bloc June 28th.

Bi-national Belgium has not always been harmonious either, anthough they've done quite well lately.

Yes, I do think Canada is more tolerant than most countries. But let's not give ourselves false pretences.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 September 2004 06:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Allowing the Quebecois to vote in referendum regarding their future is a perfect example of the kind of tollerance I am advocating, and probably a chief reason that Quebec nationalism only briefly ventured down the road of overt violence. The Arabs of Palestine have never been allowed the luxury of such a referendum, either in regard to partition, or the occupation of the West Bank, the result is the present carnage,

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 13 September 2004 07:04 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:

That must be why 49.5% of the population of Quebec voted for sovereignty in the last referendum, and why 48.8% of Quebec voters voted for the Bloc June 28th.



Isn't that the sign of a healthy democracy, Wilfred? A concept that so divides the country is decided deomocratically, and both sides respect the will of the people instead of resorting to violence to force their will on the other?

I disagree with, while respecting, Quebec's sovereignists for pretty close to the same reason why I disagree with the two-state model in Israel/Palestine, at least in theory: there is more than connects us than divides us.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 September 2004 02:26 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I think what I meant by all the UN/international principles that form the consensus for a solution is the national nature of the conflict.

The UN, through partition in 1947, then through the resolutions about land for peace and then for 2 states, was recognizing the existence of 2 national realities with claims to the same territory.

There are multinational federations, of course, but in the Israeli-Palestinian case, the two nations are not exactly close to wanting to live under one roof. International/UN principles such as the right of peoples to self-determination have been read to mean each can have a separate state. It's the most doable solution. Each will have some national minorities, but by and large, I don't see how anyone is going to convince the international community to go for one state solution.

And I don't think little Shlomo Likudnik and little Abdul Hamas are interested in one state (except one state in which each sees himself as crushing the other).

France and Germany went to war for centuries, occupied each other at various times, hated each other at various times. Now the are busom buddies. We still accept that French and German states exist legitimately. They can coexist in the EU, but the 2 "nations" however defined still have separate states.

The "One state" idea doesn't have many historical or legal roots. I know states are by definition political creations, hence artificial, but they still need some connection to real roots otherwise they are unstable.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 September 2004 02:38 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Arabs of Palestine have never been allowed the luxury of such a referendum, either in regard to partition, or the occupation of the West Bank, the result is the present carnage,

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but has there ever been a free election of any kind in any Arab country anytime anywhere?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 September 2004 02:45 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
A Lebanese university chum told me years ago they had a free election some time before the civil war broke out in the 1970s. But you'd have to check that in an encyclopedia. I wouldn't be prepared to vouch for the information. It was the kind of thing said in passing in a conversation by someone reminiscing about his home country.

I have heard that the Palestinian Authority was elected in a relatively free vote in the mid-90s. Since then, they have grown more authoritarian. And then with the intifada and the Israeli incursions and reoccupations, there has been no opportunity to consult people.

Not many examples.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 14 September 2004 03:26 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Political change in the Middle East has mostly taken the form of revolutions. This is not at all suprising, considering that Arab populations everywhere have either been occupied by foreign powers or by despotic dictators for the past 400 years or so (Ottoman -> British / French -> U.S./British/French/Russian) with a few despotic theocracies and monarchies (which I would lump Iraq in with, as Hussein was essentially set as president for life) for good measure. You cannot simply snap your fingers and will a dictator or occupier to hand the keys of power to the people. This says nothing about the ability of Arabs to be self-ruling and democratic. Witness that the majority of Arab people in North America participate in our limited democracies to one degree or another. It is an indictment of the negative effect that the forces of occupation and oppression have had on the political landscape of the Middle East region.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Briguy ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 14 September 2004 04:04 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Wanted to add that even if there aren't so many strictly speaking Arab/Middle East precedents (how about North Africa? Fingers crossed for Iraq, anyone?) there are/have been majority Muslim democracies who don't seem to do any worse than majority Christian (or Hindu or Buddhist)states in the developing world.

If you want to feel optimistic about the pace at which regions can improve on these fronts, there are lots of examples around Latin America and Eastern Europe of states which have gone from authoritarain regimes to pretty decent states in a decade.


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

posted 14 September 2004 04:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but has there ever been a free election of any kind in any Arab country anytime anywhere?


The Lebanese are not Arabs? The Palestinians didnt vote for Yasser Arafat?

What is the point of answering a point that is so completely out of context. The point I made was in internal to an arguement about minorities, resistance, and the evolution of democratic systems and there impact on dissent and resitance. Your comment is meaningless.

If you actually read what I was saying for content, rather than snipping out tasty morsels to be attacked in the abstract you will see why your faux-debating point is ridiculous.

The thrust of my commentary was aimed at the difference between secular and the non-secular, ethnically based national concepts, and non-ethnically based national concepts, and forms of conflict resolution and means of dealing with dissent that are caused when minorities are excluded from the mainstream of political culture, with a short foray into how utopian ideals operate functionally in political discourse.

The other states in the region that are based on a religiously based national ideal have done so in region which are more-or-less religiously homgenous -- Saudi Arabians are almost all Sunni Muslim, Persians are largely Shia Muslims, etc.

The fact is that no other nation in the region has tried impose an ethnically singular state (Jewish in this case) ideal upon such a diveres population group, so comparisons to the Arab nations are fatuous in the extreme. Other countries in the region with diverse culural mixes have tried to limit the stresses caused by ethnic diversity, Turkey explicitly enshrined a secular ideal in its consititution, which forbids it becoming a religiously based state.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 14 September 2004 04:17 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but has there ever been a free election of any kind in any Arab country anytime anywhere?

Actually, Stock, I don't know that you can be wrong. You are not making an affirmative statement, after all.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 September 2004 04:28 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but has there ever been a free election of any kind in any Arab country anytime anywhere?


I fail to see the relevance of this point in the context of the statement you were responding to. Besides, I don't recall China every having a truly fair election. Maybe they should be occupied as a result.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 September 2004 04:45 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has there ever been a free election in which all the inhabitants of Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza, participated?

And before we are reminded that the West Bank is only occupied by Israel, keep in mind settlers in bith Gaza and the West Bank, settlers within the occupied territories, vote in Israeli elections.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 September 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The fact is that no other nation in the region has tried impose an ethnically singular state (Jewish in this case) ideal upon such a diveres population group, so comparisons to the Arab nations are fatuous in the extreme.

The unfortunate reality cueball is that many countries have imposed that ideal in that region. It was called Arab nationalism or Turkish nationalism. The Kurds in Iraq, Syria and Turkey have suffered under it. In Turkey, until a few years ago, the very speaking of the Kurdish language was treated as a crime.

And Egypt, the traditional heartland of Arab nationalism, has actively repressed minorities, whether religious or non-Arab ethnic. My mother has for decades been close friends to Egyptian Armenians who can tell you a thing or two about the harsh official and unofficial discrimination they faced as non-Arabs.

Arab nationalism historically in its Nasserite or Baathist forms has been intolerant of non-Arab minorities.

Maybe it's not solely the Israelis. Maybe it's the region as a whole. Maybe it's the various forms of nationalism as it has existed until now in countries over there. Maybe the region needs to find another form of nationalism.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 14 September 2004 05:01 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ethnically singular state (Jewish in this case)

something here doesn't seem right.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 14 September 2004 05:04 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball,

Maybe I'm not following, or not familiar enough with ethno-religious populations in the region, but I get the feeling you're playing games a little when you're talking about the demographic makeup of Israel.

Seems like you're taking the one-state result as a given (including Israel and the OTs), then saying that it's unfair to cement that entity as a "Jewish" state (duh).

But when people are talking about there being nothing inherently wrong with a "Jewish" state, they're (mostly) talking in the context of a two-state result, with Israel having something like the pre-1967 borders, and something like its current population, with the occupation being over, etc.

What's wrong with a state like that running itself how it chooses, as long as it respects democracy and civil and human rights, and how would it be any different from Japan, or Italy, or France, or what have you?


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

posted 14 September 2004 05:10 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only way toward ethnic and religious tolerance is toward free, democratic, secular states. The western powers, in fact, have historically supressed democractic movements in the mid-east and allowed religious and ethnic tensions to be exploited. Even encouraged it.

If the west learned anything during 500 years of colonial rule, it is that natives, if divided along artificial lines, will provide all the opression and repression necessary to maintain rule over a foreign land.

And it is such a good strategy. Whenever anyone asks, you just answer, "you know, it is an ancient hatred and nothing can be done."

The white man's burden, as it is.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 September 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Japan, or Italy, or France

I can be a Jewish, Catholic or Moslem Japanese, Italian or French citizen. I can never be a Catholic or Moslem Jew. See the difference?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 September 2004 05:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The unfortunate reality cueball is that many countries have imposed that ideal in that region. It was called Arab nationalism or Turkish nationalism. The Kurds in Iraq, Syria and Turkey have suffered under it. In Turkey, until a few years ago, the very speaking of the Kurdish language was treated as a crime.

Yes this is true. And I did not adress if because of the length of post required. The difference is that, say in the case of Turkey, Kurds are considered to be part of the Turkish nation,. They are citizens and can find avenues of entry into the political mainstream (enfranchisement.)

This is not the case of the Palestinians, as the very fact of there ethnic cultrual background excludes them from the mainstream, because they are not ethnically Jewish. The Turkish state accepts all persons as citizens regardless of their ethnic background.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 September 2004 05:14 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Publically Displayed Name, you may have inadvertently brought up the taboo subject - the fact some people deny there is a Jewish nation. If it's a religious group, it shouldn't have a state. If they are a nation, one can't deny them self-determination (whatever that means in terms of the actual political form).

I'm not Zionist, I'm not anti-Zionist either. Since I think Jews are a people, or at least Israeli Jews are a people, they can self-determine. As much as the Palestinian Arabs.

Many anti-Zionists deny nationhood to the Jewish people. As such, the idea of Israel is anathema to them. Hence the confusion - religion, ethnic minority or nation?

Shit, now I'm outta here before the bombs fly... The yelling and the insults are about to begin and I ain't part of that game... The "what are the Jews?" debate can go on forever and it brings out lots of emotional outbursts.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 September 2004 05:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Publically Displayed Name, you may have inadvertently brought up the taboo subject - the fact some people deny there is a Jewish nation. If it's a religious group, it shouldn't have a state. If they are a nation, one can't deny them self-determination (whatever that means in terms of the actual political form).

Nationanlity is self-idenitifed in my view, and therefore the point is moot. What is with the straw men here: "the fact some people deny there is a Jewish nation."

Who are these 'some people.'


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 September 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I have read various Arab anti-Zionist articles that define Jews as members of a religious minority but deny that there can be such a thing as a Jewish nation or people for example.

Also on Babble at various times, some anti-Zionist Jews have explained that they think Jews form a religious community or ethnic community but not a nation.

If it's not a nation, the concept of self-determination would not apply easily and the idea of a national state in Palestine for a Jewish nation would likely make less sense.

I think the argument about "nationhood" probably makes more sociological sense when applied to the Israeli Jewish majority - they have lots of characteristics of being a people.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 September 2004 05:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But when people are talking about there being nothing inherently wrong with a "Jewish" state, they're (mostly) talking in the context of a two-state result, with Israel having something like the pre-1967 borders, and something like its current population, with the occupation being over, etc.


There is nothing iherently wrong with having a Jewish state, in country were the great majority of people are Jewish.

When I am discussing this issue I am pretty clearly talking about the evolution of Israel post 1948 and the partition. While it is nice for us to make a clean definition and say all the Jews back to the 1967 border and have done with it, the reality is that there is a huge number of people who have been disenfanrchised by the process of ethnic cleansing begun by Ben Gurion in 1948.

They and their children and their childrens children, live in squalid refugee camps.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 September 2004 05:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have read various Arab anti-Zionist articles that define Jews as members of a religious minority but deny that there can be such a thing as a Jewish nation or people for example.

The 1964 PLO charter states that Judaism is a religion and that they are not a nation. Yet this arguement is a pretty standard secular political model employed in practice even in Canada. The 1964 PLO charter goes on to note that Jews born in Palestine are Palestinians, people immigrated by the Zionists are excluded of course.

Here we see the fairness of the PLO model in action. The non-immigrated Jews are included in the 'Palestinian' national model, while the Zionist model excludes Palestinians from being part of the Israeli national model. The secular PLO model is anti-racist, while the 'ethnic-nationalist' Zionist model is racist.


In my view the exclusion of Jews who were immigirated into occupied Arab land, is perfectly reasonable in 1964, as they were persons deliberately brought in by Israel to artificilly sway the demographic balance as part of the Israeli colonial ethnic cleansing project.

Applied today, this of course would be tantamount to another round of ethnic cleansing (this time against the Jews), and another formula would have to be developed in its sted, but the sailent point is that in the PLO model Jews can be Palestinians, but Palestinians can not be Jews in the Zionist model.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 14 September 2004 05:49 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

There is nothing iherently wrong with having a Jewish state, in country were the great majority of people are Jewish.


The great majority of Israeli citizens are Jews, are they not?

(CB referring below to Palestinians displaced from what became Israel, displaced either by applied violence or by taking one of a collection wretched options then available)

quote:
They and their children and their childrens children, live in squalid refugee camps.

Okay, so its a Palestinian right-of-return thing you're getting at. I understand your view a bit more clearly now.

Yeah, I don't have a quick and just and safe and satisfying answer for that one, because assisting the orignial refugees to settle in free-and-democratic Neo-Palestine doesn't quite cut it, although that seems to be how it was done in Europe post WWII.

Speaking about the right now, rather in the future time of "solutions", there is no excuse (nor is there, for those living in camps outside the OTs, any understandable _cause_ that I know, ) for Palestian refugees having to live in squalid camps, nor why their children and children's children don't have automatic citizenship in the countries in which they are born. Those citizenships would in no way lessen their parents' claims for return.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]

ETA: I'll admit right here that my notion of the official citizenship status (as separate from how they're actually treated these days) of Israeli Arabs, as implied in a earlier post, may be way off base. I'd welcome a correction if its needed.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]


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

posted 14 September 2004 05:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Speaking about the right now, rather in the future time of "solutions", there is no excuse (nor is there, for those living in camps outside the OTs, any understandable _cause_ that I know, ) for Palestian refugees having to live in squalid camps, nor why their children and children's children don't have automatic citizenship in the countries in which they are born. Those citizenships would in no way lessen their parents' claims for return.


Why must bordering Arab countries be made to pay for an Israeli act of ethnic cleansing? Among other things, that is rarely noted, is that Israel took what was some of the richest land in all of the Arab world, and 2 key trading ports. In so doing it made the Arab states poorer in wealth and richer in mouths to feed.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 September 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The great majority of Israeli citizens are Jews, are they not?

The majority of fully-enfranchised persons living in South Africa under Apratheid were white, were they not?

If you use ethnicity as a defining characteristic of citizenship, then of course most of your citizens will be from that ethnic group. Your arguement it tautological.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 14 September 2004 06:05 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Why must bordering Arab countries be made to pay ...


If you're talking about in a pure monetary sense (since I doubt you mean to imply that having people of Palestinian heritage in a country is an inherent liability) Israel and/or the fabled International Community should assist with the costs of leading people into safe, normal lives.

But I believe in the following basic principal: Born in a existing state's current territory=citizen of that state, and so I don't believe in the "made to pay" premise of that first question.


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

posted 14 September 2004 06:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On that basis, given that most Israelis were not born in Israel we can just give up the disscussion, as most Israelis should not be able to vote in Israeli elections, while many more Arabs should.

This is especially the case since Jordan forsook soveriegnty over the West Bank in 1987 and that since then it has for intents and purposes been ruled by Israel. Therefore, I am sure the Israeli election authority will be setting up a voter registration drive to incoproate all those Palestinians on the rolls, since they were born there.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 September 2004 06:09 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
The PLO Charter of 1964 called for something like the expulsion of all Jews who arrived after 1917.

This is your example of anti-racism, Cueball?

I think most of us would call it something slightly different and less savoury. You can't be serious.

The next time I hear someone talk about democratic secular states in Palestine, I'll know what it means.

I'm out of here.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 September 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The PLO Charter of 1964 called for the expulsion of all Jews who arrived after 1917.

In principal yes, because the definition of their removal was not based on their race, but upon the legality of their immigration, in the first place. They are not being removed because they are 'Jewish' but because they were part of a colonial settlement process. On the other hand indiginous Jews are incorproated as citizens.

The definition is one of immigration status, not ethnic status. Therefore not racist.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 14 September 2004 06:18 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

The majority of fully-enfranchised persons living in South Africa under Apratheid were white, were they not?

If you use ethnicity as a defining characteristic of citizenship, then of course most of your citizens will be from that ethnic group. Your arguement it tautological.


I don't mean it to be, and I think here we're getting back to either right-of-return issues or you wanting describing "Israel" to describe "Israel and the OTs", or (as noted in my ETA above) my ignorance about the demographics and citizenship status involved.

So, my understanding: of the people currently living within the pre-1967 borders of Israel, most _would identify_ as Jewish, a minority _would identify_ as Arab (either Muslim or Christian) and of that second group, some (maybe most? I don't know) would identify as Palestinian and/or Israeli. I thought that all those people listed above, are currently Israeli citizens, maybe I am misinformed.

In the shiny-happy two-state future
all those people would be full citizens of Israel, free and secure, and therefore something like modern South African Whites, if we're going for South Africa parallels.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 September 2004 06:20 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Hey, if you want to say such positive things about the idea of expelling the Jews, go ahead.

I'll stick with the international consensus of 2 states, and avoid the anti-Semitism that is suddenly raising its head, OK dokie?

Ciao baby.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 September 2004 06:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excuse me pokie, but if bothered to read anything but the first to sentences of any post you would have seen that I also wrote this in the very same post that caused you to freak out:

quote:
Applied today, this of course would be tantamount to another round of ethnic cleansing (this time against the Jews), and another formula would have to be developed in its sted, but the sailent point is that in the PLO model Jews can be Palestinians, but Palestinians can not be Jews in the Zionist model.

So far your King of the decontextualized excerpt and the panic attack.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 September 2004 06:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, my understanding: of the people currently living within the pre-1967 borders of Israel, most _would identify_ as Jewish, a minority _would identify_ as Arab (either Muslim or Christian) and of that second group, some (maybe most? I don't know) would identify as Palestinian and/or Israeli. I thought that all those people listed above, are currently Israeli citizens, maybe I am misinformed.


But you see there isn't enough of the Arab lands left to make a viable state. Have you ever heard of a state with a 100 mile long land bridge over another country? Look at the maps. If you take out the zones now occupied by Israeli settlers, there is nothing but ant hills for palestinians to live of.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 14 September 2004 06:34 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Notice the part where Cueball rejected the notion of expelling Jewish people from the area, Critical Mass? Contrast that with the recurring call in Israel for "transfer".

Again and again: If you want to fight anti-Semitism, go find some anti-Semites. Don't put words in people's mouths.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 14 September 2004 06:44 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
On that basis, given that most Israelis were not born in Israel we can just give up the disscussion, as most Israelis should not be able to vote in Israeli elections.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


That does not follow from my born-in pricipal. A existing state gets to chose who immigrates, and how immigrants can become citizens, but it cannot deny citizenship to those born within its borders, whoever their parents are.

The Israeli government and populace is obviously in about 8 minds as to the ultimate status of the OTs, and were Israel to formally annex them, then all people living there would have to be given full citizenship. In fact, I think that's one of the factors that holds Israel back from full annexation.

In my shiny-happy two state future, the settlements would belong to Neo-Palestine, and any children who had been born in the settlements would have Palestinian citizenship, (although not necessarily the right to their settlement residencese) but any settlers born in Israel or religious type Israelis and Jews who feel a spiritual need to live outside Israel would have to get in line and apply for Palestinian citizenship, which Neo-Palestion could refuse if it chose to.

(For the record, I don't know what the ratio of born-in-Israel to moved-to-Israel is.)

In a subsequent post I think you started talking about the _viability_ of Neo-Palestine which is certainly a concern (and I still don't see why it seems less viable than one-state Palisrael). And I usually don't take out the lands inhabited by settlers, when I imagine Neo-Palestine.

In terms of geographically interrupted states, there's Kalinigrad, Russia, Alaska, and also proposed Canada-without Quebec, off the top of my head.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 September 2004 06:58 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
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