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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Oz's view nocturnal Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Oz's view nocturnal Israel
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 16 October 2004 09:08 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He once remarked that there are two Israels, daytime and nighttime. Daytime Israel impresses you as determined, tough and courageous. But "Nocturnal Israel is a refugee camp with more nightmares per square mile than any other place in the world. Almost everyone has seen the devil."


Fulford on Oz


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Unforgotten Pete
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6969

posted 16 October 2004 09:40 PM      Profile for Unforgotten Pete     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Amos Oz's nocturnal Israel
The world expects Israel to be the only Christian nation.

Israel's a christian nation? Bet the zionists are pissed. Might be able to comment more but your link is for subscriber's of the National Post.
I can see where this astounding news of Israel's switch from Jewish to Christian nation is big news though.


From: BC | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 16 October 2004 11:39 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suggest Oz visit an actual refugee camp just across the Green Line. Tell me, Oz, which is a more dangerous environment? Why do you think their children and civilians are that much more likely to perish? Or, do they just not matter?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 17 October 2004 01:28 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So naturally even Amos Oz the peace activist , progressive and left, he too is wrong. You are right.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 17 October 2004 03:27 AM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jesus Christ, Oz makes me sick. Have you ever heard of that phrase: "Shoot then cry"?

Oz comes really close to Albert Camus, another "leftist" who agonized (he agonized!) about what his country was doing to the poor Arabs. He new the dirty truth about colonialsm; but decided that France was his mother, and that he would always place his mother above justice.


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

posted 17 October 2004 03:33 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can someone find a website that has that article besides the National Shitrag that makes you register your subscription or whatever?
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 October 2004 04:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are people still reading the Beobachter, I thought is was closed in 45.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 October 2004 08:07 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How can we express an opinion about Oz and his views, Macabee, if we can't read the text?

For me especially, it would be important to be able to judge how much of a filter, and what kind of a filter, readers are getting in Fulford.


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

posted 17 October 2004 10:55 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no cost to register. Do it and read it. I am not permitted to copy the entire article.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 17 October 2004 11:01 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Registered 6-day subscribers to the National Post newspaper or electronic edition will enjoy full access to all NationalPost.com content.


There's a cost to becoming a 6-day subscriber though. There was some login info at bugmenot.com, but it's no longer any good.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 17 October 2004 11:08 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I tried a bogus registration name and email and got bounced out. So sorry, no commentary on the article from me, either.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 October 2004 11:50 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Citizens of the apartheid state are losing sleep? Good.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 17 October 2004 06:42 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would be more than prepared to cut and paste..just give me the word
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 17 October 2004 06:47 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
So naturally even Amos Oz the peace activist , progressive and left, he too is wrong. You are right.
Macabee, if Mr. Oz wants me to fell sorry for Israeli civilians then he needn't waste his time; I already do. I was amazed that the most similar desire I heard from young Israelis and Palestinians was that they wanted to leave, get the hell out. The phrasing was so similar on both sides in a few cases that it stuck with me.

But the image Oz chooses, that of the refugee camp, is a slap in the face of Palestinians living in the real thing to this day because of what Israel has done, and for which has never been called to account. Thus my reaction.

It reminds me of Chomsky: "After 9-11 I heard the phrase repeated: downtown New York looks like downtown Beirut. No one stopped to ask why downtown Beirut looked like downtown Beirut."


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

posted 17 October 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Jesus Christ, Oz makes me sick. Have you ever heard of that phrase: "Shoot then cry"?

Has he been active in any of the anti occupation movements?


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

posted 17 October 2004 07:46 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A co-founder of Peace Now. He calls for the removal of all settlements.

I'm not saying he can't be worked with, I'm saying that the imagery he has chosen is insensitive at best.


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

posted 17 October 2004 08:56 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's OK dude. I'm not trying to attack you. I was simply responding to aa's post. It is in my opinion vary shortsighted of him to dismiss a prominent leader in the anti occupation movement simply because he's a Zionist. Now let's be clear: I believe in the one state solution. The two state solution will not solve the overpopulation problems in the West Bank and Gaza and will not reduce the number of refugees in the surrounding Arab states. The problem is that before the one state solution can be implemented, the Israeli army must withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and the Palestinians must take control of the territories and have security. You will not achieve this goal simply by relying on the non Zionist left, it doesn't garner that much support. Any activist who is serious about removing the settlers and ending Palestinian terrorism must work with the Zionist left. Why do we alienate our Zionist allies?
We need their help. If Oz refuses to participate in the creation of a single state
after the withdrawl of all troops and settlers from the West Bank and Gaza, then I will condemn him, not before.

[ 17 October 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 17 October 2004 09:19 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oz is a founder of Peace Now, a Labour Party affiliated movement that makes itself scarce when Labour is in power.

If you would like to understand a major propaganda plank of Israel's war current war against the Palestinians, it that the Palestinians were offered a state in 2000 and turned it down. There's no need to rehash what was offered at teh time, its been done in other threads.

Oz has been one of the major "lamenters" of the Palestinian's refusal to go along with Camp David. He "laments" the "missed oppurtunity" of having imposed a solution that would have made the bantustans seems genourous. There is a pretty big difference between a peace movement, like Gush Shalom, and a narcisstic hypocrite like Oz.


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 17 October 2004 11:30 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oz has been one of the major "lamenters" of the Palestinian's refusal to go along with Camp David. He "laments" the "missed oppurtunity" of having imposed a solution that would have made the bantustans seems genourous. There is a pretty big difference between a peace movement, like Gush Shalom, and a narcisstic hypocrite like Oz.


Are their people within his movement who disagree with his hypocritical stance on the palestinian issue?

[ 17 October 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


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

posted 17 October 2004 11:36 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They split to found gush shalom.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 18 October 2004 12:20 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aa:
Oz is a founder of Peace Now, a Labour Party affiliated movement that makes itself scarce when Labour is in power.

If you would like to understand a major propaganda plank of Israel's war current war against the Palestinians, it that the Palestinians were offered a state in 2000 and turned it down. There's no need to rehash what was offered at teh time, its been done in other threads.

Oz has been one of the major "lamenters" of the Palestinian's refusal to go along with Camp David. He "laments" the "missed oppurtunity" of having imposed a solution that would have made the bantustans seems genourous. There is a pretty big difference between a peace movement, like Gush Shalom, and a narcisstic hypocrite like Oz.



As I understand it, he laments Arafat's refusal to negotiate after Barak's offer. He laments the decision by Arafat to come back with violence as a means to an end. He laments the fact that there are no willing partners in Arafat for negotiation. That is what he laments.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 18 October 2004 12:45 AM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Precisely. Which is why he is a complete hypocrite. He keeps afloat these myths (eg Israel played nice, and recieved only violance in return; Israel's policies are saddening, unfortunatly there is no Palestinian partner etc) that people like you can down for sedative every time you start feeling a little troubled about what Israel's been doing lately. And if you dont mind me saying so, Macabee, your reacted is as I had told you that you've been downing placebos.
From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 October 2004 12:53 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As I understand it, he laments Arafat's refusal to negotiate after Barak's offer. He laments the decision by Arafat to come back with violence as a means to an end. He laments the fact that there are no willing partners in Arafat for negotiation. That is what he laments.

Whom else is Israel to negotiate peace with but the people it is at war with? Sharon can't negotiate peace with Canada, Canada is not in conflict with Israel.

DOH! Small problem with your logic there Macabee.


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

posted 18 October 2004 08:40 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aa:
Precisely. Which is why he is a complete hypocrite. He keeps afloat these myths (eg Israel played nice, and recieved only violance in return; Israel's policies are saddening, unfortunatly there is no Palestinian partner etc) that people like you can down for sedative every time you start feeling a little troubled about what Israel's been doing lately. And if you dont mind me saying so, Macabee, your reacted is as I had told you that you've been downing placebos.
Just so I understand, are you saying that Arafat did come back to the table with a counter offer?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 18 October 2004 07:38 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Just so I understand, are you saying that Arafat did come back to the table with a counter offer?

What do you suppose happened in the months between Camp David and Taba?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 18 October 2004 07:43 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 18 October 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


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

posted 18 October 2004 08:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What do you suppose happened in the months between Camp David and Taba?


What are you doing applying your cognitive faculties? Repeat after me:

No Partner for peace!

No Partner for peace!

No Partner for peace!

Once you have learned that I will teach you another song. It's called "Four legs good, two legs bad."


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

posted 18 October 2004 08:21 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

What do you suppose happened in the months between Camp David and Taba?


I see. And what exactly was his counter proposal (excluding the intifada of course)? Is there anywhere that we can see it documented?

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

posted 18 October 2004 08:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see, so you are suggesting that all communications between neogtiating parties must be done in the public domain. On the face of it, we know that the PA continued negotiation at Taba, so the no negotiation after Camp David is simply a lie.

In fact it was Barak who tried to keep the contents of Taba, a secret, not the PA, and it was Sharon who said that no matter what was in Taba, he would not recognize any agreement signed by Barak. Sharon was elected with that as part of his election platform, therefore it is Sharon who rejected Barak's negotiations not Arafat.

Therefore their is no 'partner for peace' in Israel as Sharon was elected on the prinicpal that he would reject Barak's attempt to consumate Oslo.

At no time did Arafat ever suggest he would reject 'any' negotiated settlement from Barak as Sharon openly stated. He has also never stated that he would reject one from Sharon.


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

posted 18 October 2004 08:32 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
I see. And what exactly was his counter proposal (excluding the intifada of course)? Is there anywhere that we can see it documented?
What is the appropriate counter-proposal to nothing, Macabee? The PA never wavered from the international consensus: a full Israeli pull-out to the Green Line, with the possible exception of a couple of settlements straddling it; a negotiated settlement of the right of return which recognizes the principle; a contiguous Palestine (including a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank). Barak's bantusans just do not meet even the minimal moral requirements Israel owes the Palestinians.

What you, Barak, and the States just do not seem to understand is that the international consensus for a two-state arrangement is pretty damn clear; it is Israel, with America, which has sabotaged any hope for peace based on that model.


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

posted 18 October 2004 09:50 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In fact it was Barak who tried to keep the contents of Taba...

What was so special about the taba negotiations? Why was Barak so desperate to keep them secret? consumating Oslo doesn't seem very revolutionary when you consider how toothless legislation actually was.


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

posted 18 October 2004 09:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because he was fighting an uphill battle in the election with Sharon. Taba was very close to an agreement with the PA and it seems that Barak did not want to ruin his election chances by exposing a controversial 'new' agreement. Sharon stated that if he were elected he would reject the agreement no matter what it contained. Arafat stated that they would withold approval of Taba until there was an Israeli government with a mandate in place.

[ 18 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 18 October 2004 10:05 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
I see. And what exactly was his counter proposal (excluding the intifada of course)? Is there anywhere that we can see it documented?

Yes. A report by Israel's chief negotiator, Gilad Sher, entitled Just Beyond Reach: The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations 1999-2001. In the report Sher describes the Palestinian counter-proposals and clearly states that it was Barak who rejected PA counter-proposals (such as full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Haram al-Sharif) only to come much closer to their terms at Taba a few months later.

A translation and commentary on the Sher report by Gidon Remba (President of Chicago Peace Now) can be found in PDF format HERE. Included in the Remba article are a number of other sources who document the summit, including detail of the Palestinian's counter-proposal.

Stop lying.

[ 18 October 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 18 October 2004 10:15 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course, no appearance of the "No partner for peace!" meme should be allowed to pass by without mentioning this.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 October 2004 10:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh yes of course, Sharon's top advisors again stating they aren't interested in the peace process. What was true in 2000, when Sharon said he would reject any peace accord signed by Barak, is still true today.

Big Suprise!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 18 October 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Taba was very close to an agreement with the PA and it seems that Barak did not want to ruin his election chances by exposing a controversial 'new' agreement.

How did Taba differ from Oslo?


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

posted 18 October 2004 10:24 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With the support of the Israeli people, the Butcher set about destroying the Palestinian civilian infrastructure murdering police, destroying schools, bulldozing all social infrastructure from which a "partner for peace" might arise. The intention being to pour formaldehyde on any chance of peace.

But assume for a moment that from the ruins a new leader did emerge on a mission of peace. Who would be his Israeli "partner for peace"?

A poorly aimed tomahawk missile, perhaps?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 18 October 2004 10:42 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is one of the most interesting bits from the Sher report: in regard to the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, Sher declares that,

quote:
“In the case of the refugee question, it was the image of things, which held sway over the
substance. Here was an ethos that had been built up and nurtured over decades as one of
the cornerstones of the Palestinian national struggle. The Palestinian negotiators
considered it their duty to show that the suffering of the refugees had come to an end and
that their dream was about to be realized, even if only formally. As a result, for many of
our Palestinian counterparts that dealt with this issue, the wording of the agreements was
far more important than the practical mechanisms to be set up to help rehabilitate the
refugees, or the effort to mobilize the international community on their behalf. I believed,
and still do believe to this day, that, in exchange for some flexibility on our part over the
wording which would have satisfied such an image need on the part of the Palestinians,
they would have been happy to have left it at that, and would not have demanded the actual
right of return to Israel itself, which in my view was not part of their 'core position'.”
(English translation provided by Gilad Sher to Gidon D. Remba)

This is interesting when we recall the usual talking-points of Israel's propagandists over the Right of Return, "Jewish" Israel, and the so-called "New Antisemitism".

[ 18 October 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 18 October 2004 11:21 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, their is ample documantation. So the question isn't whether there is documententation, but why you insist on rehashing crude propaganda, and then demand to see documentation. What's your source? Probably this: Israeli spokespersons on the TV and Counterspin saying (and placing special emphasis on the p's): "Who didn't Arafat propose a counterproposal, instead of bombing pizza parlours?!"

Do a google search on Robert Malley, New York review of books and Hussein Agha. You'll get a good testimony. I'm not even going to bother posting the link; since you *really* want documentation, I'm sure that you'll take the trouble of finding it for yourself.


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

posted 18 October 2004 11:22 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't forget the demographic time bomb crap they shovel out as a half-assed valid justification for holding back the "barbarians at the gates".
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 19 October 2004 05:57 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That Sher book translation is a gold mine. Listen to this:

quote:
We immediately pointed out the internal obstacles to [accepting] the Palestinian map: First of all, the ties between the settlements were virtual, and would require the construction of a secure passage from one settlement to another. In addition, the map does not include a number of settlers even close to what is needed, but rather some 30%-35% of them, in some 2.5% of the territory. The crux, however, is that this map creates impossible borders; not actual borders but rather ribbons with isolated areas banished to the extremities in such a way that the realities around them from both a security and civil standpoint would be impossible: there is nothing like this anywhere in the world.

This is the Israeli negotiators objecting to a map proposal put forward by the Palestinians, where the settlements are linked to each other and to Jerusalem by access corridors. Does that sound similar to what the Palestinians have been saying about the original Israeli proposal to carve up the West Bank?

I mean, *surely* if cantons and bantustans are acceptable living arrangements for Palestinians, they should be acceptable living arrangements for Israelis..

Feh.

And there's more:

quote:
The map, according to Shikaki, even specified where the Palestinians wanted the land swaps to be. They specified about 50 square kilometers worth of land split between three locations in Israel proper adjacent to the West Bank, and about 150 square kilometers of land northeast of the Gaza Strip. "When I saw that Arafat was ready to go 97 percent and let Israel annex places deep inside the West Bank, like Ariel, I thought he was going for broke," Shikaki says. "In my view, this was the Palestinians' most significant concession."

Bookmarked for every future time some babbler tries to dupe people in my presence.

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: aRoused ]


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

posted 19 October 2004 09:14 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
I see. And what exactly was his counter proposal (excluding the intifada of course)? Is there anywhere that we can see it documented?

I take it that this question is answered?

Good bookmark.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 19 October 2004 01:25 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
another article to bookmark, this book should be interesting:

Haaretz; Akiva Eldar "They Didn't do Their Homework"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/483811.html


From: montreal | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5228

posted 19 October 2004 01:28 PM      Profile for aa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
also, to reference them easily, a created a blog and posted up several article on the Amos Gilad/Amos Malka debate, which is also good reading when it comes to Camp David and Arafat's "decision" to "resort to violance"

www.nasme.blogspot.com


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

posted 19 October 2004 01:58 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re the Ha'aretz article... I find this interesting:

quote:
"Like any brief," said Miller, "you don't want to give centrality to how you fucked up. Dennis could have never brought himself to do it, and neither could I."

This might well explain why Dennis Ross has chosen to claim that Barak's "generous offer" was spurned by Arafat; it's easy in the American political context to blame Arabs for everything and it allows for a noncontextual smearing of Arafat as unreasonable when there is zero context for explaining why he rejected that offer, and as Gush Shalom has pointed out many times, Barak's "generous offer" was actually 95% with a ton of fine print that reduced it to 75%, effectively.

Kinda like the used car salesman that tells you you pay zero down, zero interest and then puts a huge asterisk beside it and in the fine print you can barely read, you see all sorts of service charges tacked on that essentially amount to paying interest on the car when you pay the car off.


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

posted 21 October 2004 07:57 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NOW's view on Oz, somewhat more charitable.

Oz in NOW


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 21 October 2004 09:41 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More charitable than the Fulford article we can't see unless we subscribe to the National Post? How are we to judge?

[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: aRoused ]

Bleargh.

[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: aRoused ]


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 21 October 2004 10:00 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't waste your time, aroused. Most articles posted by Macabee say the exact same thing, in an excruciatingly hand-wringy sort of way. *yawn*

[ 21 October 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
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 21 October 2004 12:46 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
NOW's view on Oz, somewhat more charitable.

Oz in NOW


Al-Q once said:

quote:
They'll (Israel's propagandists) lie, as they did about the "missiles" being loaded into UN ambulances, until they get called on their lies.

Then they switch stories.

Sadly, it's a familiar pattern.



From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca