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   » Battling Israeli apartheid

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Battling Israeli apartheid
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 30 December 2004 07:57 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Battling against Israeli 'apartheid'
By Lucy Ash
BBC news, northern Israel

Adel Kaadan is standing by the side of a potholed road surrounded by puddles of sewage. "Can you smell it now?" he asks. "My children have to pass this way every day on their way to their classes.


"When I took my eldest daughter for her first day at school I saw that the roof was stuffed with asbestos."

We are walking around Baqa al-Gharbiyah, an Arab town in northern Israel about an hour's drive from Tel Aviv.

As head nurse at a nearby hospital Mr Kaadan is well aware of the health risks in his hometown. But it is not just the rubbish, the asbestos and the sewage - the whole place reeks of neglect.

In one neighbourhood the streets end abruptly with a wall of concrete and barbed wire - Baqa is sliced in half by Israel's new security fence.

"There's nothing to do here - no cinemas, no swimming pool, hardly any sports facilities. So most young people either turn to Islamic fundamentalism or start taking drugs," says Mr Kaadan.

It is not the kind of place he wants to raise his four daughters, aged four to 15, so for almost a decade he has been fighting for the right to move to a Jewish community a few miles away on heavily subsidised, state-owned land.

His long battle is a protest against what he calls "Israel's apartheid".



quote:

Adel Kaadan first heard about Katzir in 1995 after a Hebrew language newspaper advertised for new residents.

"I went up there to find out more and at first people were friendly because they knew me from the hospital in Hadera - they were ex-patients of mine," he says.

"But when they found out that I wanted to buy a plot of land, their behaviour changed. Some of them became very hostile. It felt like a slap in the face".

At first the Katzir council simply dismissed Mr Kaadan as "socially unsuitable".

When pressed on his reasons for opposing the application, Mayor Yacoov Armor says he doesn't believe that Mr Kaadan or his family really want to integrate with Jews.

"Why would a Muslim want to observe Jewish holidays or send his children to our schools? He just wants to destroy our community by destroying our rules," he says.

Mr Kaadan, a secular Muslim, insists he doesn't mind if his children observe Jewish customs and holidays so long as they get a decent education.


Full article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4111915.stm

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 December 2004 02:17 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
"Why would a Muslim want to observe Jewish holidays or send his children to our schools? He just wants to destroy our community by destroying our rules," he says.

They used to say crap like that about the blacks and Jews in the US and Canada in the 1920s and 1930s. Remember all the rich guys' "No Blacks or Jews Allowed" gentlemens' clubs? Yeah.

I'm glad we over here have evolved beyond such idiotic discriminatory behavior. So much for the "World's Best Democracy"! (To which I will surely be told that 'sadly, there are problems')


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 30 December 2004 07:37 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
Unfortunately, there are people living in western democracies who think that aqll muslims are out to destroy their communities. This has become especially prevalent in the United States since September 11th.

It's also a reality that many Americans and Canadians who would not tolerate such apartheid in their own countries actively support "Israeli Apartheid".

One more thing. Kudos to the BBC for calling "Israeli Apartheid" what it actually is.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 30 December 2004 07:59 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Kudos to the Beeb for pointing out that 1.1 million Arabs live in Israel and enjoy more freedom in Israel than they would in any Arabic country today.

Oh. Sorry. Guess the article DIDN'T point that out.

Well, at least the article stressed that Arabs have seats in the Israeli Knesset. But of course, you all knew that.

Didn't you?

(Ahem)

And kudos to Auntie for pointing out that the loyalty of the Israeli Arabs is such that increased numbers of them are now volunteering for service in the Israeli army:

quote:
New figures made available by the Israel Defense Forces show the number of Muslim and Christian Arab Israeli volunteers in the army is growing.


The deaths of five soldiers from the IDF's Desert Reconnaissance Unit (the so-called Bedouin unit) in an attack on an army outpost near Rafah earlier this month drew public attention to the service of Bedouin in the IDF.

However, the reports on the incident paid little attention to the fact that most of the dead were not Bedouin: Three of the five soldiers killed were Muslim Arabs from villages in the Galilee and Triangle, who had volunteered for military service.

Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon paid condolence visits to the three families - the first such visits by a chief of staff.

During one of the visits, Ya'alon shook the hand of a relative of one of the soldiers, a Palestinian woman from Jenin, who had married into the family of the deceased soldier, and had taken up residence in Israel.

If among the Bedouin community its soldiers encounter hostile reactions and charges of aiding Israel's war against their Palestinian brothers, the situation is far worse for Muslim and Christian Arabs.

While Bedouin have been volunteering for the IDF, primarily as trackers, for dozens of years, Muslim and Christian Arabs have been doing so, on a very small scale, only since the 1990s.


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/520911.html

The Druse have been serving in the Israeli army for far longer. They are marvelous soliders, btw.

Auntie also glosses over the fact that Islamists in the territories have been oppressing the Christian Arabs to such an extent that they, too, now seek refuge in any other country, often in
Israel proper.


quote:
In the last three years, several thousand of Bethlehem's Christians, perhaps five percent of the population, have left. They have gone for many reasons. One is simply that life is very, very harsh under the intifada and Israeli military action. Another is the rising power of radical Islam. A Pew survey in June found that Palestinians judged Bin Laden the "world leader" most likely to "do the right thing," with 71-percent support. Next was Arafat with 69 percent. (Jacques Chirac came third at 32 percent). Surveys in October by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research put support for Arafat's Fatah at 28 percent, with Hamas at 21 percent, and the total Islamist vote at 29 percent.

Like its parent, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas fights to reestablish an Islamic caliphate, and its founding covenant proclaims "the Koran is its constitution" and "the law governing the land of Palestine is the Islamic sharia."

Islamization pressures now reach beyond Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and their kindred. The draft Palestinian constitution says, "Islam is the official religion in Palestine," and makes the "principles of the Islamic sharia" a "main source for legislation." Textbooks, PA television, and government-sponsored preachers now stress Islamist rather than nationalist themes.


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/marshall200312220001.asp

In point of fact, Christian Arabs in Israel now have a higher per capita income than do Israeli Jews.

But yes... "apartheid."

Yeah.

[ 30 December 2004: Message edited by: Nicholas P. Trist ]


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7142

posted 30 December 2004 08:35 PM      Profile for Left Turn        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And kudos to Auntie for pointing out that the loyalty of the Israeli Arabs is such that increased numbers of them are now volunteering for service in the Israeli army:

This is actually very bad news.

The way Israeli society is structured, a person's army ID number fills the functions that in Canada are filled by the Social Insurance Number(SIN) system. This means that the ID number required to get a job and an apartment can only be obtained through sefvice in the Israeli millitary. Although this is compulsory, I was under the impression that most Israeli arabs were denied service in the Israeli Army.

That said, I do not advocate Israeli Arabs being allowed to join the Israeli army as a means of solving this problem. In light of the atrocities that the Israeli millitary commits in the occupied territories, it would seem to me that most Israeli arabs would not want to be a part of this. Thus, the way to solve this problem is to institue a Social Insurance Number System like the one we have here in Canada. If the Israeli arabs get drawn into the Israeli millitary, then this destroys any chance of Israelis getting a SIN system.

On a related note. If the Israeli millitary is indeed allowing Israeli arabs to join, I suspect it's because they hope Israeli arabs serving in the occupied territories will help legitimize the occupation. Not that I think it will work, but the Israelis may be trying it as a strategy anyways.


From: BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 December 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
@Nicholas P. Trist:

What the hell do the Druze have to do with the Israeli Arabs?

Re: Arabs in Knesset.

OH MY GOD A WHOLE... TEN SEATS! Whoo, that's some fearsome political representation there.

Oh, oopsieshit. Almost forgot. No Arab party in the Knesset has ever been drawn into a coalition, ever, and has never been relied upon to provide the crucial balance of power needed to get legislation passed.

Please spare me your overused laundry-list recital of how great Israel is compared to a bunch of countries that come in dead last in almost every freedom index and quality of life statistic out there.

It's like I say: Any idiot can compare himself to the guy that skipped every class in calculus and zeroed on the final exam. It takes a lot more work and a lot more guts to try to measure up to the guy that aced the final and pulled an A+.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 30 December 2004 09:32 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's like I say: Any idiot can compare himself to the guy that skipped every class in calculus and zeroed on the final exam. It takes a lot more work and a lot more guts to try to measure up to the guy that aced the final and pulled an A+.

And who would that be, Dr. Conway?


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 30 December 2004 09:45 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tim, if Israel were in fact committing "atrocities" in the territories, then why are Arabs volunteering to join the Israeli army? (By the way, Ha'aretz is the left-wing Israeli paper. That story is current.)

As for the Druse, they are, in fact, Arabs.

Are the Israeli Arabs numerically under-represented in the Knesset? Yes, they are. So? Did you see the vote counts in the last Canadian election? Duceppe and the Bloc got 54 seats, with 12% of the vote, compared to Layton and the Dippers, with a mere 19 seats and 15.7% of the vote. Do you really think that numerical underrepresentation of this or that group is somehow unique to Israel? "Gee, Israel's not Switzerland, and as such they're bad."

If things are bad for them, what are a million of them still doing in Israel? Whey have they not emigrated? Where's the mass emigration to Syria and Lebanon?

If Israel shouldn't be compared with its Levantine neighbours, with whom should she be compared? Denmark? Sweden? THE COUNTRY IS 56 YEARS OLD, for god's sakes. How long was France around before they turned (nominally) democratic?

Puh-leeze.

[ 30 December 2004: Message edited by: Nicholas P. Trist ]


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 30 December 2004 10:05 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone recall how when we told South Africa "heck, at least you're more democratic than your neighbours" they immediatly stopped their aparthed policies?

Good work Israel ... you've gone as far as you need to go because after all, you don't kill your minority charges ... well, OK, maybe you do, but only in the most extreme case, like when their little girls walk towards your brave soldiers with a school bag!!

[ 30 December 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 30 December 2004 10:13 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is a particularly weak form of apologia that seeks to "balance the books" of specific injustice by pointing to general benefits enjoyed by people who belong to the same or similar class of person as the injured party.

The argument is that an Israeli Arab is freer than his (for example) Iranian cousin, so he should just shut up about being denied the right to buy a house wherever he wants to? Perhaps Israeli Arabs do enjoy some freedoms that Arabs in Iran do not -- So what? It's apples and oranges. Justice is not an arithmetic calculation, where one injustice is balanced off by a freedom.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 30 December 2004 10:16 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see... so South Africa still has apartheid, and is LESS democratic than Comrade Bob's Zimbabwe... is that the gist of it? Hmm.

And who are these little schoolgirls that the evil Israelis are shooting? Can we have a link on that? Or are you OPPOSED to targeted assassinations of apostles of murder like Rantisi and Yassin?


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 30 December 2004 10:18 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If Israel shouldn't be compared with its Levantine neighbours, with whom should she be compared?

Hmm, lessee, how 'bout a universal standard of human rights and democratic freedoms by which all countries are measured?

Nawww... Knee-jerk state worship is rather difficult if you do that. So nix that idea.

quote:
THE COUNTRY IS 56 YEARS OLD, for god's sakes. How long was France around before they turned (nominally) democratic?

I dunno. 700 years? 800? Depends on how you define the origin of the entity called "France".

But I mean really, is that your idea of a "defense" of Israel? That Arabs can expect democratic rights sometime in the 27th Century?

I'm sure they can hardly contain their excitement.

And oh, BTW, considering that Iraq is only about 80 years old, does Saddam get a similar pass for his failure to live up to democratic ideals?

quote:
And who are these little schoolgirls that the evil Israelis are shooting? Can we have a link on that?

Oh my word. Not up on current events, I see. Here, let me get you started.

[ 30 December 2004: Message edited by: beluga2 ]


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 30 December 2004 10:26 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Verbatim, the majority population in Iran are not even Arabs; they're Persians, and if you call a Persian and Arab, he will probably hit you. But to whom would YOU suggest we compare these Israeli Arabs ? Perhaps to Canada's First Nations peoples? I think that one's kind of unfair-- Canada's not surrounded by enemies like Israel is, and has had much more time to develop as a country WITHOUT HAVING TO SPEND A BIG CHUNK OF ITS BUDGET ON DEFENSE AGAINST NEIGHBOURS WHO FORCE IT INTO A DEFENSIVE WAR EVERY SO OFTEN. But, anyway... wot's the incarceration rate of Canada's aboriginal population out in Alberta and the other western provinces? Remember when Ralphie (or was it Gordo next door?) had to scotch some initiative about having prisoners work alongside the roads BECAUSE SO MANY OF THEM WERE DARK-SKINNED?

But of course, it's Israel, Israel, Israel, that's the root of all evil.


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 30 December 2004 10:36 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's Canada's appalling treatment of First Nations people got to do with the discrimination in the original story? I mean, besides the fact that it would be against the Human Rights Act/Codes here?

You'll perhaps also note that I didn't claim that Iranians are Arabs, but referred specifically to Iranian Arabs. In any event, the analogy could be drawn to any of a number of repressive and authoritarian regiemes throughout the world.

The point is that nobody should be denied the right to live somewhere based on their religion or ethnicity. In Israel, in Canada, in Sweden, anywhere.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 30 December 2004 10:39 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm... the incident in question occurred almost three months ago, btw:

From today's Ha'aretz:

quote:
The first prosecution witness, a female lieutenant responsible for two lookout posts near Girit, also testified yesterday. Some of her testimony, however, helped the defense more than the prosecution. For instance, she insisted that an innocent civilian had "no reason to be near the outpost," since the ban against entering the area was well-known to all Rafah residents, and the school to which Hamas was allegedly heading lies in the opposite direction.

Regarding the rules of engagement, the lieutenant said that soldiers are permitted to fire "deterrent shots" at unauthorized persons entering the area, but may not shoot to kill.

The prosecution, based on tapes of conversations over the army's communications network, claims that R. ordered his soldiers - after the incident - to kill anyone entering the area, "even a three-year-old."


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/521396.html

Regrettable and awful nonetheless. But I notice a decided silence on the part of the anti-Israel faction here on the issue of Palestinian suicide bombings. Gee, why might IDF patrols be on edge?
Has the Hamas used women -- young women-- as suicide bombers before? What would "international standards of human rights" have to say about that?

Naah. I must be making up that suicide bombing bit. All just an illusion.


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 30 December 2004 10:44 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Loyalty Oath 12(b): I hereby denounce, renounce, connounce, oppose, repose and depose all suicide bombings perpetrated anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Signed, verbatim.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 30 December 2004 10:50 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And signed, beluga2.

Here's how it works, NPT: if there's more criticism of Israeli atrocities here than of Palestinian suicide bombings, it's because people like you come here and defend the former, while virtually nobody ever defends the latter. Therefore, arguments arise in the first case but not the second. Dig?

I think, however, the real problem here is your utter inability to understand that the other guy's atrocities, however bad, never excuse one's own.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 30 December 2004 10:50 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well and truly spoken, Verbatim.

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: Nicholas P. Trist ]


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 December 2004 02:24 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mycroft, you've been here long enough to know better than to quote entire articles. Please edit your post.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 December 2004 08:33 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If things are bad for them, what are a million of them still doing in Israel? Whey have they not emigrated? Where's the mass emigration to Syria and Lebanon?

Just a wild guess, you understand, but maybe they stay because Israel is their home?

Why on earth should there be a mass emigration to Syria and Lebanon?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 December 2004 08:40 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh well, you know... the Arabs, they are a nomadic people... Damascus little more than a tent village, and Jerusalem a camel watering hole....
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 December 2004 08:47 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it true they all look the same?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 December 2004 09:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes but there are good ones and there are bad ones.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 31 December 2004 09:20 AM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
if there's more criticism of Israeli atrocities here than of Palestinian suicide bombings, it's because people like you come here and defend the former, while virtually nobody ever defends the latter. Therefore, arguments arise in the first case but not the second. Dig?

I think, however, the real problem here is your utter inability to understand that the other guy's atrocities, however bad, never excuse one's own.


But where are all these Israeli "atrocities"? And who exactly are "people like me"?

I search my posts above for any defense of thugs like Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir and find no such thing. Those are Israelis who committed "atrocities", and while these were by no means government-sanctioned, they were nonetheless atrocious. No arguments there. The shooting of the 13-year-old girl, whatever the atmospheric circumstances, looks like shit. But these are isolated instances... the one that people came up with was three months old.

Where are those saving senses of perspective and context in all this? The list of Palestinian suicide bombings which have taken the lives of Israeli civilians goes on and on. It has slackened but by no means fallen off to zero with the construction of the security fence/wall. Israel meanwhile has carried out targeted assassinations of Hamas murderers who very clearly do NOT wish there to be a two-state solution, but chant "from the river to the sea." Sometimes, untargeted Palestinian civilians have become casualties, not because the Israelis were shooting AT them, but because they were near one of the targeted terrorists.

And as for Israel being the Israeli Arabs' home, that is true enough but obscures a larger reality. When conditions get bad enough, people vote with their feet. Eastern Europe was the home of my ancestors, but when violent anti-Semitism began to escalate there, they emigrated west. Despite the incantations of those here about "apartheid", 1.1 million Israeli Arabs have NOT voted with their feet, because they know the quality of their lives would fall way off if they crossed any nearby border.

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: Nicholas P. Trist ]


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 December 2004 09:25 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"when conditions get bad enough" -- wow!

And people are supposed to be grateful that things are not yet quite so bad that they would "emigrate" -- that is, that they would leave, I repeat, their homeland ?

That sense of entitlement you're sitting on there -- tell me where that comes from. It is simply beyond my comprehension.


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

posted 31 December 2004 09:30 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nicholas wait for it, you will soon be accused of either being my stooge, a sock puppet or something equally as vile. Many here simply do not like those who come here (progressive or not) that try to defend Iseal and its people. Its simply frowned upon.

Happy New Year fellow Babblers. And may this secular new year bring peace, health and and a fair two state solution to this troubled part of the world.

To those here who continue to advocate for the dissolution of the Jeiwesh state of Israel, take comfort in knowing that whether from the extreme left or extreme right your vision will never come to light.


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

posted 31 December 2004 09:40 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, no, Mac -- we know that he isn't you. He posts stuff like this:

quote:
And who are these little schoolgirls that the evil Israelis are shooting? Can we have a link on that? Or are you OPPOSED to targeted assassinations of apostles of murder like Rantisi and Yassin?

Now, you've been around here too long to post anything that comes that close to crossing the line of babble policy. Haven't you.

No, I can see that Nicholas, like Phonicidal, is a little too raw to be you. Quite.

Happy New Year, Macabee.


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

posted 31 December 2004 10:02 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's my New Year's resolution to talk around the trolls, especially the right-wing ones.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 31 December 2004 10:10 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Nicholas P. Trist:

Well, at least the article stressed that Arabs have seats in the Israeli Knesset. But of course, you all knew that.


When is the last time Israel had an Arab cabinet minister and for how long? I think there was a minister without portfolio in a Labour cabinet for a few months but that's it. It's an unofficial policy that no government in Israel will be formed with any of the "Arab parties" as coalition partners.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 31 December 2004 10:12 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Nicholas P. Trist:
I see... so South Africa still has apartheid,

South Africa ended apartheid after a round of economic sanctions. Are you suggesting Israel would end its maltreatment of the Palestinians given the same treatment?


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 31 December 2004 10:15 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
THE COUNTRY IS 56 YEARS OLD, for god's sakes. How long was France around before they turned (nominally) democratic?

India is roughly the same age as Israel yet it has almost always had non-Hindus in its Cabinet and, at present, both the President and Prime Minsiter of India are non-Hindus. How long before Israel meets Indian standards for democracy by including non-Jews in its highest offices?

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 December 2004 10:16 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Nicholas P. Trist:

But where are all these Israeli "atrocities"? And who exactly are "people like me"?


[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: Nicholas P. Trist ]


Well you seem to be defending the country wich is led by one of the men responsible for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila. And the massacre at Quiba in 1956. So, nuff said about that.

People like you are the people who repeat the same old talking points over and over again until they seem like the mouthings of soviet era communist party apartchiks. People like you, are actully people like them. Tawdry, unimaginative, stupid, vain, arrgoant, and all to willing to make wild sweeping suggestions about what to do about Arabs, as if what the Arabs themselves want is irrelavant since you think they should want what you want them to want, which is basicly go away, as you have expressed numerous times in various forms.

It is this simplistic single minded rejection of the Arab narrative that has done more to damage to the propects for peace than any of the suicide bombings that you attempt to use to justify your support of the racist policies of Israel. You even have the gall to mention Baruch Goldstein, withou bothering to note that the very first Palestinian suicide bombing was committed in revenge for his crime, as if Palestinian ire exists wholey seperate and unexplainable outside of the context of the violent discourse of which Israelis, are a full fledge participant, as well as the primary cause.

I don't see why people like you seem to think you can get away with a politcal argument, which likened to a family dispute would amount to a man beating his wife and then blaming her for the ongoing beating because she bothered to strike back after the first blow.

Just the simple statistic showing that Israel has killed four times a many Palestinians as Palestinians have killed Israelis in the last 4 years says enough to satisfy most intellectually honest people, commisar.

Racism must be abolished. Laws wich privilage people on the basis of race and religion are counter to that aim. They are completely unjutifiable under any circumstances.

[ 31 December 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 31 December 2004 10:17 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 31 December 2004 10:23 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

THE COUNTRY IS 56 YEARS OLD, for god's sakes. How long was France around before they turned (nominally) democratic?

It's amusing how rapidly Nicholas' has gone from claiming that Israel is one of the most democratic countries on earth to implictly conceding that it's not democratic but will be in a few hundred years


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 31 December 2004 11:07 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's my New Year's resolution to talk around the trolls, especially the right-wing ones.

You don't have to adhere to this resolution until tomorrow, Michelle.

Happy New Year! Almost.

PS - will you be breaking this resolution on January 2? I find that most of my resolutions have the same weight as a McGuinty promise after a couple of days. It's true, I'm weak.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 31 December 2004 11:08 AM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"when conditions get bad enough" -- wow!
And people are supposed to be grateful that things are not yet quite so bad that they would "emigrate" -- that is, that they would leave, I repeat, their homeland ?

You are posing. The thread relates to "apartheid", with all the horrid implications of that term, and I am telling you that things are sufficiently comfortable for the Israeli Arabs in Israel proper that they not only do not relocate but indeed volunteer for army service.

If you think that people will stay in a place regardless of even moderately unfavorable conditions, I suggest you check out the number of doctors who are streaming south of your own borders. At last count I believe you had 241 neurosurgeons up there for 30-odd million people.



aka Mycroft :

quote:

India is roughly the same age as Israel yet it has almost always had non-Hindus in its Cabinet and, at present, both the President and Prime Minsiter of India are non-Hindus. How long before Israel meets Indian standards for democracy by including non-Jews in its highest offices?


The Indian National Congress goes back to 1885 and India became a nation in 1937. I believe Mr. Singh, who is indeed a Sikh, is the first non-Hindu to be an Indian head of state.


Cueball

quote:

Well you seem to be defending the country wich is led by one of the men responsible for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila.

Elie Hobeika is dead. Sharon was not "responsible" for it; his guilt, such as it was, was in failing to anticipate it and failing to stop the Christian Phalangists from perpetrating it.

quote:

And the massacre at Quiba in 1956.

Qibya, actually. That one you CAN hang on Sharon. AND IT WAS 49 YEARS AGO.

quote:
People like you, are actully people like them. Tawdry, unimaginative, stupid, vain, arrgoant, and all to willing to make wild sweeping suggestions about what to do about Arabs, as if what the Arabs themselves want is irrelavant since you think they should want what you want them to want, which is basicly go away, as you have expressed numerous times in various forms.

I have said nothing of the sort, and you are way out of line. As for "stupid", I know enough to know that "basically" is not spelled the way you spelled it, nor do I rant wildly on spec about the motivations of newbies on an internet forum. For your information, pal, I happen to be a lawyer who handles a volume of civil rights work; been practicing for 21 years, and I voted for Gore and for Clinton. Examine your own assumptions after you reexamine your spelling.

quote:
wholey seperate

Ibid.

quote:
full fledge participant

Ibid.


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 31 December 2004 11:10 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whoops! I forgot to mention something in my last post:

Spelling flames are lame.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 December 2004 11:11 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oopsies.

We don't do spelling flames on babble, Nicholas. They are considered lame. You're welcome.


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

posted 31 December 2004 11:12 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi, Briguy! Great minds, eh?

Je vous souhaite une bonne et heureuse Annee.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 31 December 2004 11:27 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bonne année a vous, aussi, skdadl!

J'ai voulu dire cela (spelling flames) dans un autre fil; alors, le moment n'etait jamais correct.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 31 December 2004 12:04 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see that this thread like many others has returned to Israel evil / Palestinians good. Israel agressor / Palestinians victims.


It is sad that we all and I really do mean us all have to return to fight old battles and steriotypes in every thread about the middle east.

What really amazes me is that if we as people nominally affected by the current situation in the middle east -- and I say nominally affected because most if not all live in North America, view the struggles from a far and while we may have family over there we do not have a day to day battle outside of our doors.

But all of us prove that peace is not possible. Peace is only possible when both sides admit to guilt of the past and the guilt of today. Only when equal admission of guilt is made and accepted by the other side will we be able to walk together towards tomorrow.

Both sides must strive together to end the cycle of violence. For when one side attacks the other retaliates. Does it really matter which act is the attack and which one is the retaliation?

Both sides must work together to find a just peace.

And mainly both sides must do the unthinkable which is accept a solution that is not 100% perfect for them. And the leadership of both parties must prove to their citizenry the merrits of a less than perfect peace but rather that it is the value of peace which is even greater.

We can all recite a liteny of atrocities committed by both sides. To debate what caused the attrocity is pointless.

Rather the real issue should be and always will be this:

Is the current population of Israel and the current Palestinian population open to peace. Not the leadership, not the foreign diaspora of both peoples but the citizenry of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Only when the citizenry of both sides accept the idea of a less than perfect peace will there be peace.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
periyar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7061

posted 31 December 2004 12:10 PM      Profile for periyar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Indian National Congress goes back to 1885 and India became a nation in 1937.


India is a country with an accessible and recorded history so please try to get your facts straight. India's independence was gained in 1947.
As to your reference about the Indian National Congress operating in 1885, what does the existence of this 19th century organization, which was established by the efforts of the British colonist Allan Octavian Hume, to act as ' a safety valve for revolutionary discontent' -not as some training ground for democracy, have to do with anything?
source- History of the Freedom Movement in India (1857-1947)- S.N. Sen

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: periyar ]


From: toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 31 December 2004 01:18 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Indian National Congress goes back to 1885 and India became a nation in 1937.

And the World Zionist Organization goes back to 1898 and Israel became a state in 1948, one year after India (1947, not 1937). So what is your point?


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 31 December 2004 01:27 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me add that India currently has a Muslim President, Abdul Kalam, despite a long history of military conflict with Muslim Pakistan including what's been termed Muslim terrorism in Kashmir and that India currently has a Sikh Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, despite a long history of Sikh insurgency in the Punjab and terrorism by Sikh extermists (Air India and the assassination of two Indian Prime Ministers, both leaders of the Congress Party of which Prime Minister Singh is a member).

I guess since India got its independence a year ahead of Israel we can expect Israel to give its Arab population full political, social and economic equality to the extent of inclusion in Israel's highest political offices some time in 2005?

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 31 December 2004 01:36 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
AKA if we are really going to use the India and Pakistan example then we must also admit that the 2 state partition of the Indian territories that was originally suggested and imposed works.

It worked in India Pakistan in 1947 and therefore should have also worked in Israel / Palestine in 1948.

Lines were drawn on a map to create 2 nations out of 1 piece of land. Nations divided by ethnic and religious lines.

I wonder if in 1948 that the partition plan that would have created a Palestinian and Israeli state should have been adopted? Since it worked in India and Pakistan.

If one uses India and Pakistan as a shining example then unless one is willing to admit and accept that the original partition plan for Israel and Palestine was also the best solution then India Pakistan can not be used as an example.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 31 December 2004 01:46 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, partition in 1947 was a disaster costing millions of lives and the displacement of tens of millions more. If anything it intensified Muslim-Hindu antagonisms rather than ameliorate them. The point is that regardless of the history of communal conflict within India and between India and Pakistan, India is still mature enough politically after fifty years to have members of religious minorities as head of government and head of state without it causing some sort of backlash from the majority. Israel is far from being that mature politically (there's never even been a PM from the Shephardic minority) and it's not a matter of having been independent for "only" 56 years instead of India's 57 years but because of a deficiency in its political culture.

But, as for your argument that Israel should withdraw to the borders allotted it in the UN's partition plan, that would be progress. Have you put forward that suggestion to Israel's supporters?

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 31 December 2004 01:58 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i actually never advocated a return to a partition that was completely rejected in 1948. We can not return to a plan whose result was armed conflict rather than peaceful coexistance.

But out of curiousity, have you put forward the '48 partition plan agreement to Palestinian suppoters? I doubt that it would be met favourably especially since neither side would get complete control of Jerusalem.

But then again this is an attempt to fight past battles in current threads rather than try to find common ground to move forward.

I dare say that neither side today would accept the original lines in the sand. It is too bad because if it had been peacefully accepted in 1948 then the Palestinian people would have a 50plus year old state as well.

And with a Israeli state and Palestinian state both of which could have been 50plus years old an entire generation would have been spared suffering etcc.

Like I posted above. Only when both sides admit to errors in the past and then look forward to agree to a peaceful solution that is not 100% or maybe even 75% of what they want will their be peace.

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 31 December 2004 02:03 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
It's my New Year's resolution to talk around the trolls, especially the right-wing ones.
And who makes that political judgement? Happy New Year Michelle and may this coming year grant you the wisdom to see what you need to make the decsions you must .

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 31 December 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And yes, let us all hail the marvelous human rights record of India, that haven of equality, where all receive equal treatment...

well...

(ahem)

(forget those 180 million Dalits. They really don't COUNT, see... (hakkaf!)... it's ISRAEL that's bad... India good, yes that's the ticket)

quote:
Red Cross urged to act on "subhuman" conditions of West Bengal evictees

(Hong Kong, December 7, 2004) The Indian Red Cross should be alleviating the "subhuman" living conditions of a group of evictees in the suburbs of Kolkata, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said today.

In a letter to the chairman of the West Bengal branch, R N Sengupta, the Hong Kong-based regional human rights group suggested he visit the affected community in order to "see, hear, smell and feel" for himself the conditions, which it described as "brutal".

"The largest group is situated next to a septic lake in which even human body parts and aborted foetuses have been seen floating, before being fished out by dogs," said Nick Cheesman, projects officer of the AHRC.

"A number of persons are known to have died from illnesses brought about by these living conditions" and from starvation, he said.

The eviction of some 7000 persons from Bellilious Park, in Howrah Municipality, greater Kolkata, occurred in February 2003.

All of the evictees, who are street and sewerage cleaners, had their houses destroyed and properties ransacked by the authorities. They were denied a court hearing prior to the eviction.

The community consists of Dalits, or 'untouchables', and the AHRC has asserted that it is due primarily to caste-based discrimination that the people have been maltreated.

To date there have been no efforts to assist, rehabilitate or compensate the evictees.


http://www.ahrchk.net/pr/mainfile.php/2004mr/97/


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 December 2004 02:19 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nicholas, Nicholas, Nicholas ... This is such a sad path that you have chosen for yourself.

See, most people here are kind of left -- well, left-ish, anyway -- and mostly they like to feel free to criticize everybody all the time, according to verrrry high standards. Yay, high standards.

Like, we criticize everyone who falls short. We even criticize Our Own Government! I know -- amazing but true! We do!

So, like, there are certain kinds of arguments that just don't fly around here. And those, sadly, are the ones you're making.

You're arguing that two wrongs make a right. Not gonna work, Nicholas. And really, Nicholas, isn't that a miserable way to spend your life?

Wouldn't you rather focus on humane ideals of justice and equality and peace? The rest of us would.

That's what makes our work so heartening, even when we have to plough through your stuff to do it; and it's what makes yours, ultimately, so corrosive -- to you.

You are defending Bad Things, Nicholas. How very very sad. For you.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 31 December 2004 02:34 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, skedad, unfortunately I live in the real world, and work in it, too, and I don't have much time to Think Utopian Thoughts, and I have come to learn, in 47 years on the planet, that the better is not the enemy of the best.

It's an ugly world out there, and to live in it one must be able to make distinctions, and to me the making of those distinctions is very, very, very important. In choosing, for example, a place for my family to live, I do not have the luxury of being able to say, "well, I won't live in the US because the US stole California from the Mexicans", because I know that however egregious that little bit of larceny may have been, it pales beside other far more egregious historical atrocities.

We have emerged from what is becoming known as the Century of Genocide, and yes, I do tend to measure up this or that lesser evil against the enormity of an Auschwitz, say. I do not like it that Londoners strolling through Brixton complain about "wogs", but against the broad span of history I know that this does not amount to a hill of fargin' beans.

So when someone tells me Israel is not living up to the standards of a place like India, I point out that India, even with some jobs earmarked for "scheduled castes", is still treating 180 million unotuchables like human turds. I think that is not only pertinent, I think it is, as we say in the legal biz, DISPOSITIVE of the issue. For however much Israel may still treats its Israeli Arab minority as the proverbial Children Of A Lesser God, it does not treat them like unotuchables.


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 31 December 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This whole thread is one big troll.

My one contribution: MYTH: "Israel's treatment of Palestinians is similar to the treatment of blacks in apartheid South Africa."


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 December 2004 02:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phonicidal, if you think this thread is one big troll, maybe you'd be more comfortable on another board. Something to consider.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 31 December 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The issue at hand is not whether or not Israel's treatment of Palestinians is similar to South African apartheid. The issue is whether or not Israeli actions fall within the definition of apartheid as established by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which entered into force in 1976.

Saying that "South African apartheid was worse" doesn't make the situation in the Occupied Territories not-apartheid under international law (and the meaning of apartheid under binding international law clearly supersedes common and colloquial usage).


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 31 December 2004 02:58 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
My one contribution: MYTH: "Israel's treatment of Palestinians is similar to the treatment of blacks in apartheid South Africa."

quote:
Perhaps it is strange for you to observe the situation in Palestine or more specifically, the structure of political and cultural relationships between Palestinians and Israelis, as an apartheid system. This is because you incorrectly think that the problem of Palestine began in 1967. This was demonstrated in your recent column "Bush's First Memo" in the New York Times on March 27, 2001.

You seem to be surprised to hear that there are still problems of 1948 to be solved, the most important component of which is the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
...
Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.


From a letter to Thomas Friedman by Nelson Mandela, who I suspect knows more about apartheid than you do.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 31 December 2004 03:05 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The issue at hand is not whether or not Israel's treatment of Palestinians is similar to South African apartheid. The issue is whether or not Israeli actions fall within the definition of apartheid as established by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which entered into force in 1976.

It is?

The thread certainly didn't start off as such; it began with a piece from the Beeb in which the word "apartheid" was in quotes, as it was used in a non-legal sense by one of the Palestinians quoted in the article.


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 31 December 2004 03:15 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Elie Hobeika is dead. Sharon was not "responsible" for it; his guilt, such as it was, was in failing to anticipate it and failing to stop the Christian Phalangists from perpetrating it.

Sharon was, in fact found to be "personally responsible" for the massacre by the Kahan inquiry. It's also worth noting that Hobeika was kille dtwo days after announcing he would give evidence in the Belgian war crimes case against Sharon. Starngely enough, two other Phalangists involved in the massacre have also been assasisnated.

quote:
Qibya, actually. That one you CAN hang on Sharon. AND IT WAS 49 YEARS AGO.

If there is a statuate of limitations on outrage, why are you still harping on the Holocaust? After all, that was damn near 60 years ago.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 31 December 2004 03:21 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
From a letter to Thomas Friedman by Nelson Mandela, who I suspect knows more about apartheid than you do.
Maybe. But, his letter shows that he knows fuck all about Israel. Same goes for Tutu.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 31 December 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sharon was found "indirectly responsible." Let's not omit that first word there. The commission placed "direct responsibility" only on the Phalangists.
From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 31 December 2004 04:04 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Nicholas P. Trist:

The thread certainly didn't start off as such; it began with a piece from the Beeb in which the word "apartheid" was in quotes, as it was used in a non-legal sense by one of the Palestinians quoted in the article.


If you read the BBC's website regularly, you'll find that they use scare-quotes for just about anything that could be considered remotely contentious, and even for some terms that couldn't.

Phonicidal claims that Israel's treatment of Palestinians differs from apartheid South Africa's treatment of blacks. The implied conclusion,(when that claim is coupled with his premise that this whole thread is "one big 'troll'" (even I can use scare quotes...)) is that the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories does not constitute apartheid.

Now, as much as South Africa is one of the few -- possibly the only -- internationally agreed-upon apartheid scenarios in recent history, it is still not the benchmark for determining what is apartheid.

Apartheid is clearly defined in Article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, and this definition may be superseded by more inclusive definitions in use by the national legal systems of a country in question. Saying that "it doesn't even compare to South Africa" doesn't mean anything.

quote:
Originally posted by Nicholas P. Trist:
Sharon was found "indirectly responsible." Let's not omit that first word there. The commission placed "direct responsibility" only on the Phalangists.


And if I were to punch someone in the face, I suppose I would only be "indirectly responsible" for the physical damage suffered by said face, since direct responsibility would fall upon the nature of the interactions between the electromagnetic forces inherent in the outer layer of my fist, and the electromagetic forces inherent in the outer layer of the victim's face; clearly, I have no control over the fundamental forces of nature, and any responsibility that I might have would be merely tangential, and sufficient to absolve me of all "direct responsibility."

Puh-leeze.

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: SamL ]


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 31 December 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Qibya, actually. That one you CAN hang on Sharon. AND IT WAS 49 YEARS AGO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there is a statuate of limitations on outrage, why are you still harping on the Holocaust? After all, that was damn near 60 years ago.


quote:
There was no slaughter at Qibya. Qibya was a base for terrorist attacks into Israel. Sharon’s unit emptied the village first, then began to blow up the houses as a bloodless reprisal for the terrorism. Some combatants remained in the houses and shot at the Israelis, who shot back, killed them, then blew up the empty houses. A few residents hid in their cellars, unseen by the Israelis. Unfortunately, they were killed in the blast.


http://www.redwoodreview.com/community/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=27&mode=thread&order=0


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 31 December 2004 04:35 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What the Kahan Commission said regarding;

quote:
The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ariel Sharon

The notice sent to the Minister of Defense under Section 15(A) stated that the Minister of Defense might be harmed if the commission determined that he ignored or disregarded the danger of acts of revenge or bloodshed perpetrated by Lebanese forces against the population of the refugee camps in Beirut and did not order the adoption of the withdrawal of the Lebanese forces from the refugee camps as quickly as possible and the adoption of measures to protect the population in the camps when information reached him about the acts of killing or excesses that were perpetrated by the Lebanese forces.

In his testimony before us, and in statements he issued beforehand, the Minister of Defense also adopted the position that no one had imagined the Phalangists would carry out a massacre in the camps and that it was a tragedy that could not be foreseen. It was stressed by the Minister of Defense in his testimony, and argued in his behalf, that the director of Military Intelligence, who spent time with him and maintained contact with him on the days prior to the Phalangists' entry into the camps and at the time of their entry into the camps, did not indicate the danger of a massacre, and that no warning was received from the Mossad, which was responsible for the liaison with the Phalangists and also had special knowledge of the character of this force.

It is true that no clear warning was provided by military intelligence or the Mossad about what might happen if the Phalangist forces entered the camps, and we will relate to this matter when we discuss the responsibility of the director of Military Intelligence and the head of the Mossad. But in our view, even without such warning, it is impossible to justify the Minister of Defense's disregard of the danger of a massacre. We will not repeat here what we have already said above about the widespread knowledge regarding the Phalangists' combat ethics, their feelings of hatred toward the Palestinians, and their leaders' plans for the future of the Palestinians when said leaders would assume power. Besides this general knowledge, the Defense Minister also had special reports from his not inconsiderable [number of] meetings with the Phalangist heads before Bashir's assassination.

Giving the Phalangists the possibility of entering the refugee camps without taking measures for continuous and concrete supervision of their actions there could have created a grave danger for the civilian population in the camps even if they had been given such a possibility before Bashir's assassination; thus this danger was certainly to have been anticipated - and it was imperative to have foreseen it - after Bashir's assassination. The fact that it was not clear which organization had caused Bashir's death was of no importance at all, given the known frame of mind among the combatant camps in Lebanon. In the circumstances that prevailed after Bashir's assassination, no prophetic powers were required to know that concrete danger of acts of slaughter existed when the Phalangists were moved into the camps without the I.D.F.'s being with them in that operation and without the I.D.F. being able to maintain effective and ongoing supervision of their actions there. The sense of such a danger should have been in the consciousness of every knowledgeable person who was close to this subject, and certainly in the consciousness of the Defense Minister, who took an active part in everything relating to the war. His involvement in the war was deep, and the connection with the Phalangists was under his constant care. If in fact the Defense Minister, when he decided that the Phalangists would enter the camps without the I.D.F. taking part in the operation, did not think that that decision could bring about the very disaster that in fact occurred, the only possible explanation for this is that he disregarded any apprehensions about what was to be expected because the advantages - which we have already noted - to be gained from the Phalangists' entry into the camps distracted him from the proper consideration in this instance.

As a politician responsible for Israel's security affairs, and as a Minister who took an active part in directing the political and military moves in the war in Lebanon, it was the duty of the Defense Minister to take into account all the reasonable considerations for and against having the Phalangists enter the camps, and not to disregard entirely the serious consideration mitigating against such an action, namely that the Phalangists were liable to commit atrocities and that it was necessary to forestall this possibility as a humanitarian obligation and also to prevent the political damage it would entail. From the Defense Minister himself we know that this consideration did not concern him in the least, and that this matter, with all its ramifications, was neither discussed nor examined in the meetings and discussion held by the Defense Minister. In our view, the Minister of Defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps.

We have already said above that we do not assert that the decision to have the Phalangists enter the camps should under no circumstances ever have been made. It appears to us that no complaints could be addressed to the Defense Minister in this matter if such a decision had been taken after all the relevant considerations had been examined; however, if the decision were taken with the awareness that the risk of harm to the inhabitants existed, the obligation existed to adopt measures which would ensure effective and ongoing supervision by the I.D.F. over the actions of the Phalangists at the site, in such a manner as to prevent the danger or at least reduce it considerably. The Defense Minister issued no order regarding the adoption of such measures. We shall not dwell here on what steps might have been taken; this we shall consider below. Regarding the responsibility of the Minister of Defense, it is sufficient to assert that he issued no order to the I.D.F. to adopt suitable measures. Similarly, in his meetings with the Phalangist commanders, the Defense Minister made no attempt to point out to them the gravity of the danger that their men would commit acts of slaughter. Although it is not certain that remarks to this effect by the Defense Minister would have prevented the acts of massacre, they might have had an effect on the Phalangist commanders who, out of concern for their political interests, would have imposed appropriate supervision over their people and seen to it that they did not exceed regular combat operations. It was related above that a few hours after the Phalangists entered the camps, soldiers at the site asked what to do with the people who had fallen into their hands, and the replies they were given not only did not bar them from harming those people, but even urged them to do so. It is a highly reasonable assumption that had the commanders who gave that reply heard from the Defense Minister or from higher Phalangist commanders a clear and explicit order barring harm to civilians and spelling out the damage this was liable to cause the Phalangists, their reply to these questions would have been different.

Had it become clear to the Defense Minister that no real supervision could be exercised over the Phalangist force that entered the camps with the I.D.F.'s assent, his duty would have been to prevent their entry. The usefulness of the Phalangists' entry into the camps was wholly disproportionate to the damage their entry could cause if it were uncontrolled. A good many people who heard about the Phalangists' entry into the camps were aware of this even before the first reports arrived about the massacre. The Chief of Staff in effect also held the same opinion, as emerges from his reply to a question whether he would have issued orders for additional measures to be taken or would have sufficed with the steps that were in fact taken, had it been expected that the Phalangists would commit excesses. He replied as follows (p. 1677):

"No, if I had expected that this was liable to happen, or if someone had warned me that this was liable to happen, they would not have entered the camps."

In reply to another question, whether he would have taken additional measures, the Chief of Staff said:

"They would not have entered the camps; I would not have allowed them to enter the camps."

Asked if he would not have allowed the Phalangists to enter the camps despite the aim of having them operate together with the I.D.F. and spare the I.D.F. losses, the Chief of Staff replied:

"Then maybe we should have acted differently, by closing the camps, by surrounding them, or bringing them to surrender in another week or in another few days, or shelling them with all our might from the air and with artillery. As for me, if I had anticipated that this is what would happen, or if such a warning had been given, they would not have entered the camps."

And the Chief of Staff added that if he had suspected or feared that what happened would happen, "they would not have entered the camps at all, they would not have come anywhere near the camps." We quote these remarks here in order to show that despite the usefulness of having the Phalangists enter the camps, that step should have been abandoned if a massacre could not have been prevented using the means in the I.D.F.'s hands.

We do not accept the contention that the Defense Minister did not need to fear that the Phalangists would commit acts of killing because in all outward aspects they looked like a disciplined and organized army. It could not be inferred from the Phalangists' orderly military organization that their attitude toward human life and to the non-combatant population had basically changed. It might perhaps be inferred from their military organization that the soldiers would heed the orders of their commanders and not break discipline; but at the very least, care should have been taken that the commanders were imbued with the awareness that no excesses were to be committed and that they give their men unequivocal orders to this effect. The routine warnings that I.D.F. commanders issued to the Phalangists, which were of the same kind as were routinely issued to I.D.F. troops, could not have had any concrete effect.

We shall remark here that it is ostensibly puzzling that the Defense Minister did not in any way make the Prime Minister privy to the decision on having the Phalangists enter the camps.

It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged.

We do not believe that responsibility is to be imputed to the Defense Minister for not ordering the removal of the Phalangists from the camps when the first reports reached him about the acts of killing being committed there. As was detailed above, such reports initially reached the Defense Minister on Friday evening; but at the same time, he had heard from the Chief of Staff that the Phalangists' operation had been halted, that they had been ordered to leave the camps and that their departure would be effected by 5:00 a.m. Saturday. These preventive steps might well have seemed sufficient to the Defense Minister at that time, and it was not his duty to order additional steps to be taken, or to have the departure time moved up, a step which was of doubtful feasibility.


Essentialy it said he's a murdering lier or a dangerious fool.

I suppose one could be generous and give Sharon his due as a dangerous fool, one that to this day remains as a dangerous fool bearing no responsibility for all the dead innocent people he leaves in his wake.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 31 December 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Qibya attack was a reprisal for an incident that had occurred two days earlier inside the Green Line in which a woman and two children had been killed by a grenade. However, no connection between that attack an Qibya has been shown.

Israeli historian Avi Shlaim wrote: "Sharon's order was to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. His success in carrying out the order surpassed all expectations."

Bennie Morris reported that the original orders issued by the Israeli General Staff were relatively confined in scale, implying "blowing up a number of houses ... and hitting the inhabitants". However, going down the command ladder, before they reached the units' commanders, the orders changed to demand "maximum killing".

Following the attack, the UN observer on the scene contradicted Sharon’s claims that all the inhabitants had run away and that they had no idea that anyone was hiding inside the houses.

"One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshhold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them."

According to the diplomat's account, Israeli forces had entered the village and systematically murdered all occupants of houses, using automatic weapons, grenades and incendiaries. On 14 October, the bodies of 42 Arab civilians had been recovered; several more bodies were still under the wreckage. Forty houses, the village school and a reservoir had been destroyed. Quantities of unused explosives, bearing Israel army markings in Hebrew, had been found in the village

The village had been reduced to rubble: forty-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civilians, two thirds of them women and children, had been killed.

As for Shabra, Shatila and "indirect responsibility", if I open the door to your home to allow a murder in to butcher your family, am I not an accomplice?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 31 December 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SamL:

If you read the BBC's website regularly, you'll find that they use scare-quotes for just about anything that could be considered remotely contentious, and even for some terms that couldn't.

I believe the BBC is considered to part of the great anti-Israel media conspiracy along with the New York Times, CNN, CBC and any other media outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch, Conrad Black or the Asper family. The leader of the conspiracy, by the way, is the CBC's Neil MacDonald.

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicholas P. Trist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7778

posted 31 December 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for Nicholas P. Trist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for Shabra, Shatila and "indirect responsibility", if I open the door to your home to allow a murder in to butcher your family, am I not an accomplice?


"Allow a murder(er) in?" Hobeika was a bad guy. Sharon should have foreseen that it wasn't going to be all sweetness and light. But I have a problem with your analogy. Do you contend Hobeika TOLD SHARON HE WAS GOING IN TO MURDER PALESTINIANS, is that the gist of it?


From: South of the 49th | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 31 December 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Nicholas P. Trist:

"Allow a murder(er) in?" Hobeika was a bad guy. Sharon should have foreseen that it wasn't going to be all sweetness and light. But I have a problem with your analogy. Do you contend Hobeika TOLD SHARON HE WAS GOING IN TO MURDER PALESTINIANS, is that the gist of it?


I thnk this all relates back to This thread.

Read the Kahan Commission report, even Sharon's "friends" don't believe he hoseshit you are tryng to spew!

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 31 December 2004 04:57 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record, there is no such thing as Israeli apartheid. Those who engage in this language demonize innocent Israelis and promote hatred against a democratic freedom loving country. Such people are blind and intolerant to any understanding of the true meaning of apartheid. Their only aim ofcourse is to create an atmosphere of hate and mistrust.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 December 2004 05:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mac, what do you mean, "for the record"?

All you did there was make a series of claims. Mere claims are meaningless. As is that post.

It did communicate some pain to me, Mac. I'm sorry that you're in pain. But beyond that ... ???


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 31 December 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is the "true meaning of apartheid," Macabee?

From Article II of the 1976 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (emphasis added):

quote:

For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person:

(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;

(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;

(b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

(c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

d) Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;


(e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

(f) Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.


(if I've multiple-posted this, it's because of gross browser failure, and I do apologize)


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 31 December 2004 05:18 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
For the record, there is no such thing as Israeli apartheid. Those who engage in this language demonize innocent Israelis and promote hatred against a democratic freedom loving country. Such people are blind and intolerant to any understanding of the true meaning of apartheid. Their only aim ofcourse is to create an atmosphere of hate and mistrust.

I think anyone who calls Israel "democratic" doesn't understand the "true meaning of the word".

If not apartheid, how would you characterise Israel's system of informal ethnic stratification where Arab towns are funded at an inferior rate to Jewish towns and settlements, where Arab schools are funded less than Jewish schools and where the average Arab is entitled to less social assistance and government funding than the average Jewish Israeli? Please give us a better word than "apartheid" Macabee. I'm afraid "democratic" doesn't quite fit the facts of the situation.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 December 2004 05:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have said nothing of the sort, and you are way out of line. As for "stupid", I know enough to know that "basically" is not spelled the way you spelled it, nor do I rant wildly on spec about the motivations of newbies on an internet forum. For your information, pal, I happen to be a lawyer who handles a volume of civil rights work; been practicing for 21 years, and I voted for Gore and for Clinton. Examine your own assumptions after you reexamine your spelling.


So you backed Kruschev over Brezhnev. So your a loser too.

Funny how you are now attempting to authorize your arrogance by relating your opinions to your personal accolades and position of privilage, going as far as avoid the point made by attacking my typos.

Your techincal legal preverications and officiousness (did I spell it right?) suits your defence of Areil Sharon's obvious culpability for Sabra and Shatilla. Even the original Israeli judgement is more stern in its portrayal of Sharon's buthchery, than your own.

Elie Holbieka was blowed up by Mossad and everyone know it. And they know why too. Only the most intellectually dishonest or deliberately naive would argue the opposite.

Whatever comrade.

quote:
And if I were to punch someone in the face, I suppose I would only be "indirectly responsible" for the physical damage suffered by said face, since direct responsibility would fall upon the nature of the interactions between the electromagnetic forces inherent in the outer layer of my fist, and the electromagetic forces inherent in the outer layer of the victim's face; clearly, I have no control over the fundamental forces of nature, and any responsibility that I might have would be merely tangential, and sufficient to absolve me of all "direct responsibility."

[ 31 December 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 31 December 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Nicholas P. Trist:

"Allow a murder(er) in?" Hobeika was a bad guy. Sharon should have foreseen that it wasn't going to be all sweetness and light. But I have a problem with your analogy. Do you contend Hobeika TOLD SHARON HE WAS GOING IN TO MURDER PALESTINIANS, is that the gist of it?


Theoretically speaking, are German commanders -co-jointly responsible for the actions taken by Hungarian facists against Jews, when they particiapted in joint military operations as allies in 1941, including the round up of and confining of the prisoners?

[ 31 December 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 31 December 2004 08:41 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

I think anyone who calls Israel "democratic" doesn't understand the "true meaning of the word".

If not apartheid, how would you characterise Israel's system of informal ethnic stratification where Arab towns are funded at an inferior rate to Jewish towns and settlements, where Arab schools are funded less than Jewish schools and where the average Arab is entitled to less social assistance and government funding than the average Jewish Israeli? Please give us a better word than "apartheid" Macabee. I'm afraid "democratic" doesn't quite fit the facts of the situation.



Yes I know how difficult it must be for people like you to not understand concepts of democracy vs apartheid.

here is an explanation that might help you underdstand why Israel is a true democracy and not an apartheid state as apolgists for intolerance would like people to belive. Skdadl you too might want to read this.


Israel is NOT an apartheiud state: FOR THE RECORD

You may also benefit from Phyllis Chesler a fellow progressive and her thoughts.

Chesler

And lastly this. Url sited blow.

Allegation 1: Israel is an apartheid state.

Reality: Calling Israel an apartheid state is a lie. Furthermore, it is offensive those who truly suffered from apartheid in South Africa.

The description of Israel as an apartheid state is false. Apartheid is by definition a system under which a government applies different rules to different groups of its citizens. In South Africa, the government practiced apartheid in order to exclude a majority of the population from any form of power.

Nothing about that definition applies in any way to the State of Israel, a country in which all citizens -- Jewish, Muslim and Christian -- enjoy the same fundamental civil and political rights.

A full sixth of the total population of Israel -- one million people -- are Arabs. As such, they, and all other citizens of Israel, enjoy democratic rights and the protection of the rule of law. Israel also has six official religions, and is the home of the Baha'i church, which has been persecuted in Muslim countries of the Middle East. While there are issues of contention between the majority and minority cultures in Israel and cases of discrimination, as there are, regrettably, in every other democratic nation on this earth, this is light years from a system of apartheid.

The Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not citizens of Israel and therefore the difference between their rights and those enjoyed by Israelis cannot, by definition, be considered a situation of apartheid. Indeed, it would be absurd to suggest that Israel should grant the same rights and privileges to a demonstrably hostile neighboring people as it does to its own people.

In addition, comparing Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to blacks in South African bantustans fails to recognize another fundamental distinction: that the final status of the territories has been acknowledged internationally, including by Israel, as a matter for negotiations. As part of the Oslo Process, the Palestinians gained autonomy in most of the territories and, at the time of Camp David II in July 2000, approximately 95 percent of Palestinians were living under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. But rather than embracing negotiations and statehood, the Palestinian leadership turned toward terror -- losing an historic opportunity. In spite of this, the current status of the territories is temporary and the long-term goal -- as President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon have reiterated -- is to achieve the creation of a peaceful Palestinian state through negotiations.

(Note: Ironically, Israel is the only country that has ever made an effort to create a Palestinian state -- in 1947, when the Jews agreed to the UN Partition Plan, which would have given Palestinians a state alongside a newly formed Israel; and in 2000 at Camp David II and Taba. What did Jordan do for the Palestinians living in the West Bank when it had control of that territory between 1948 and 1967? It neither created a state for Palestinians nor gave them citizenship in Jordan. The same is true of Egypt when it controlled the Gaza Strip during those same years. It imposed military rule on Palestinians living under its jurisdiction.

On the same note, for over 50 years Lebanon and Syria have refused to give citizenship to Palestinians currently residing within their territories. One could rightly state that Palestinians are living under apartheid systems there. Indeed, only Jordan among the 22 Arab states has offered citizenship and a new start to Palestinians. Further, after Palestinians sided with Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Kuwait expelled practically overnight 300,000 Palestinians living within its borders. Those who sign divestment petitions willfully ignore such examples of egregious treatment of Palestinians, not to mention the treatment of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries forced to leave their ancestral homes by intolerant regimes.)

Israel is a vibrant democracy, all of whose diverse citizens enjoy fundamental rights. Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip do not live in their own state today because the Palestinian leadership is not committed to peace, not because they are subjugated by Israel. When a Palestinian leadership seriously commits to the pursuit of peace, negotiations will resume toward the express goal of establishing an independent Palestinian state. Comparing this situation to apartheid in South Africa insults the millions who suffered for decades under that institutionalized system of discrimination

UJC


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 31 December 2004 08:42 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SamL:
From Article II of the 1976 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (emphasis added):
How many other nations would you say, SamL, fit the description of "apartheid" found in the convention? A better question might be, since neither Israel or "Palestine" are signatory to the convention, which countries who have signed the convention have broken it and are breaking it now? Considering some of the names on the list, it doesn't appear to be a particularly meaningful document. And, it has no legal force. So, it can't be used to effectively define "apartheid."

By the way, how many times has the convention been applied in criminal proceedings? When was the last? Has it ever been applied at all to Israel or anybody else?


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 December 2004 08:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not citizens of Israel and therefore the difference between their rights and those enjoyed by Israelis cannot, by definition, be considered a situation of apartheid. Indeed, it would be absurd to suggest that Israel should grant the same rights and privileges to a demonstrably hostile neighboring people as it does to its own people.



Pure twaddle


Denial of citizenship is an mechanizm of the imposition of the racist system.

Poland denied citizenship of thousadns of Polish Jews in living germany in 1938, and thereby condemend them. The use of bureacratic trivialities to justifity racism is sickening.

By not being Polish or German citizens, their treatment could not be compared to that of German citizens.

Try this:

quote:
"The Jewish residents of the Germany are not citizens of Germany and therefore the difference between their rights and those enjoyed by German Aryans cannot, by definition..."

Fuck off.

I recoomend that this piece of racist propoganda be removed by the moderators, as dismenitaion of ideas contrary to babble policy.

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 31 December 2004 09:05 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Denial of citizenship is an mechanizm of the imposition of the racist system.
If Israel is an "occupier", and if the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel, why should they offer citizenship to people who have never lived in Israel? You're not suggesting that Israel should annex the PA, are you? That would be the only way that Israel would have the legal right to grant citizenship to Arabs in the territories. But, in that case, how would Palestinians get their state?
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Poland denied citizenship of thousadns of Polish Jews in living germany in 1938, and thereby condemend them. The use of bureacratic trivialities to justifity racism is sickening. Fuck off.
This isn't about bureaucracy. It's about law. If the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel, it's not just a matter of not wanting to grant citizenship to Palestinian Arabs. As long as you argue that Israel has no right to occupy that land, Israel is not legally entitled to grant citizenship to the inhabitants (assuming they would accept it).

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 December 2004 09:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fuck off.

The rights of people are inalliable regardless of citizenship.

South Africa also played with black citizenship, through the system of Bhantustans. Your arguemnt is a point for point justification for Apartheid as if pulled straight from P. W. Botha's notebook.

This is racist garbage.

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 31 December 2004 09:09 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shalom.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 31 December 2004 09:09 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
"The Jewish residents of the Germany are not citizens of Germany and therefore the difference between their rights and those enjoyed by German Aryans cannot, by definition..."
The situations cannot be compared. Jews were citizens of Germany and had citizenship stripped. Palestinians in the territories were never citizens of Israel and would never want to be.

You also cannot compare the political climates.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 December 2004 09:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just compared them. Deal with it.

How does it feel to be a preening intellectual peackock who single ability seems to be preverication? How do you live with so much personal moral dishonesty? It truly amazes me. Arendt was right when she made the point that evil was Banal. And you sir, are very very banal.

Again, in principal the rights of persons are equal and inalliable regardless of citizenship. Any attempt to argue otherwise is to attempt to justify racism.

[ 31 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 31 December 2004 09:50 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Well, I see babble is on track for another year of perspicacity and wit and breathtaking, sparkling repartee! Happy new year, y'all!
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 31 December 2004 10:19 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I just compared them. Deal with it.
I'd very much like to deal with it. But, if you want to have a conversation with somebody (that's what discussion boards are for, aren't they?) you can't just whip out a "Fuck Off" every time you get frustrated at somebody who disagrees.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
How does it feel to be a preening intellectual peackock who single ability seems to be preverication? How do you live with so much personal moral dishonesty? It truly amazes me. Arendt was right when she made the point that evil was Banal. And you sir, are very very banal.
Wow! Nobody's ever called me an intellectual before. I certainly don't consider myself one. But, I'll take it as a compliment.

I live quite well with myself and my beliefs. I appreciate your concern for my well being.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Again, in principal the rights of persons are equal and inalliable regardless of citizenship. Any attempt to argue otherwise is to attempt to justify racism.

The human rights of people are universal. But, the citizenship rights of people are not. So, you can't disregard citizenship as a factor in determining overall entitlement to rights.

For example, an Albanian in Argentina is entitled to the same human rights as a Japanese person in Jalalabad. But, if neither of them fit our requirements, it is not a violation of their human rights to deny them Canadian citizenship. Similarly, if "International Law" does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, and if Palestinians do not consider themselves Israeli, why on earth would they ever be granted the rights associated with citizenship?


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 01 January 2005 12:48 AM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Furthermore, it is offensive those who truly suffered from apartheid in South Africa.

[...]

Apartheid is by definition a system under which a government applies different rules to different groups of its citizens


Red herring! Ni!

Offensive or not to those whose suffering was more "true," South African apartheid is not the definition of apartheid in the contemporary legal sense, just as the Holocaust is not the definition of genocide in the contemporary legal sense. Apartheid is defined in the second article of the ICSPCA as I posted above.

"the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them"

Where is citizenship mentioned? Where is territory mentioned? Where is the mention of the status of the territory where these acts are being committed? There isn't, and the outcome of that is that a state cannot escape a charge of apartheid on the quibbly legal technicalities that some babblers have tried to invoke (status of land and citizenship, to name a few). What matters is that Israel is in a position where it can commit these acts, and that it does commit these acts for the purposes of maintaining racial domination and systematic oppression.

Look at paragraphs c) and d) and tell me with a straight face that these acts are not being committed systematically! Expropriation of land... separate reserves and ghettoes, the right of departure and return to one's country... it doesn't matter that Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, or that they don't live in Israel proper. What matters is that Israel is creating these conditions/committing these acts. Period.

quote:
How many other nations would you say, SamL, fit the description of "apartheid" found in the convention? A better question might be, since neither Israel or "Palestine" are signatory to the convention, which countries who have signed the convention have broken it and are breaking it now?

I would say that the Jim Crow south fit that definition, though some progress was made before the entry into force of the Convention. I can't think of any others off-hand (fatigue, lack of research on my part, and not much in the international legal literature), but suffice it to say that I would condemn those countries just as harshly. But two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how you try to phrase it.

As to which countries have signed and ratified the Convention but are currently in violation... that's an interesting question which you raise, for reasons that I doubt you suspect, which will come later in my response. Soon, actually.

quote:
Considering some of the names on the list, it doesn't appear to be a particularly meaningful document.

The UN was founded on the principle of sovereign equality of member states. The Security Council notwithstanding, Canada has the same vote as the United States has the same vote as Burkina Faso has the same vote as France has the same vote as Luxembourg has the same vote as Chad has the same vote as Tuvalu (which won't exist as a country in 11-12 years' time anyways). If one group of countries "gang-votes" another group of countries (say... the Western world) in the General Assembly, that's too bad, because that's the system. Shouldn't have signed up to play the game if you didn't like the rules. If a particular treaty enters into force if X number of countries ratify, and X + 5 countries ratify, but have the combined GDP of Saskatoon... too bad. That's the system.

quote:
And, it has no legal force.

I'm reminded of a particularly amusing incident in my MUN career where one delegate suggested to the chair that the UDHR was "non-binding." He was promptly eviscerated. Diplomatically speaking, of course.

Two responses to that. Firstly, the treaty's been in force for 38.5 years. One could very easily make the argument -- and I'm sure that many international legal jurists would agree -- that the Convention falls within the realm of customary international law. This is further aided by the fact that the convention does not need to be binding upon the countries that haven't ratified it in order for it to work. The sheer beauty of the convention lies in the fact that the operative articles lay out that actions that should be taken by states party with respect to a nation committing the crime of apartheid. The Convention stipulates that States Party must criminalize apartheid, and makes alterations to customary rules of international criminal jurisdiction for the purposes of facilitating prosecution. If a competent legal authority were to make a determination that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, Israel need not do anything; instead , States Party to the Convention would be responsible for effecting certain criminal, administrative, and economic sanctions upon Israel.

It should also be noted that on December 31st 2001, Israel became a signatory to the Rome Statute concerning the establishment of an International Criminal Court to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Many of the elements of apartheid as laid out in the Convention fall within the auspices of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Furthermore, apartheid itself is defined as a crime against humanity under Article 7, Paragraph (j) of the Rome Statute, and again I remind you that Israel is signatory (albeit not party to) this instrument.

quote:
doesn't appear to be a particularly meaningful document

[...]

So, it can't be used to effectively define "apartheid."


It is a meaningful document because it was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, because it entered into force soon thereafter, because it became an instrument of the customary international law soon thereafter, and because it the sole and seminal major international legal instrument concerning apartheid. So yes, it can and is used to define apartheid for purposes of informed, customary use and international law.

quote:
By the way, how many times has the convention been applied in criminal proceedings? When was the last? Has it ever been applied at all to Israel or anybody else?

I won't fault you for a misconception that many people hold with regards to treaties such as this. To make a long story short, I doubt that it ever has, simply because its stipulations preclude it from ever needing to. Should a competent legal authority (national, international, the International Court of Justice or International Criminal Court for instance) make a determination that apartheid is occurring in a certain part of the world, then States Party will have incumbent upon them certain Conventional obligations detailing the actions that they should take against the offending parties. Should these nations fail to fulfill their obligations, it is conceivable that a fellow State Party could refer the issue to the ICJ for adjudication, though more likely the issue would be resolved by an Assembly of States Party.

Besides, it doesn't matter how evenly/thoroughly/unevenly the Convention has been applied, what matters is that it is a binding instrument of international law for States Party, and arguably all member states of the United Nations, but also that it contains within it THE definition of apartheid.


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 01 January 2005 01:59 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SamL:
Where is territory mentioned? Where is the mention of the status of the territory where these acts are being committed? There isn't...
Actually, it is there. Look at paragraph Article II c):
quote:
Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country
Palestine is not a country. For God's sake, it's not even independent. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are in legal limbo when it comes to their status as a country. I believe that Palestine will be a country one day. And, I hope it will live peacefully side by side with Israel.


quote:
Originally posted by SamL:
The UN was founded on the principle of sovereign equality of member states....If one group of countries "gang-votes" another group of countries (say... the Western world) in the General Assembly, that's too bad, because that's the system. Shouldn't have signed up to play the game if you didn't like the rules....That's the system.
True. That's the system. But, the system is deeply flawed. The system distributes power based upon the principle of absolute equality when it should be built upon merit. The current system assumes that everybody is making rational decisions to better humanity when many votes come down to which countries hate who and how much they can bribe the others to follow along.

I like the idea of the UN in principle. But, I think that democracies (or countries with other types of consentual government) ought to wield more power than, for example, theocracies.

quote:
Originally posted by SamL:
the convention does not need to be binding upon the countries that haven't ratified it in order for it to work....If a competent legal authority were to make a determination that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, Israel need not do anything; instead , States Party to the Convention would be responsible for effecting certain criminal, administrative, and economic sanctions upon Israel.
In order for it to work it does need to be defined well enough to be applied. Surely there have been examples of apartheid practiced in the last 38.5 years. So, why haven't those countries been declared "criminal" by the signatories? There is also the question of whether there is such thing as a competant legal authority to rule on this case. I don't think there is.

quote:
Originally posted by SamL:
it contains within it THE definition of apartheid.
No, it contains A definition of apartheid. And, it is one that is so open ended that I doubt it will ever be used. "Use it or lose it", I say.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 01 January 2005 03:12 AM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually, it is there. Look at paragraph Article II c):

I could bust out the Vienna Convention on the Intepretation of Treaties to provide documentary evidence to support my claim that the hierarchically superior paragraph in which no such stipulation is made supersedes the hierarchically inferior paragraph in which the stipulation could be said to be made, as well as to support my claim that the most inclusive plain English common-sense definition would see "country" interpreted as the territory of residence since a) that's the most inclusive plain English common-sense definition, and b) if they meant country in the sense of a sovereign state, they would have said "state". I could do that, but it's late, and I really don't think it's necessary. International lawyers make these distinctions in writing and reading the instruments. Shouldn't need a treaty to tell us that.

quote:
I like the idea of the UN in principle. But, I think that democracies (or countries with other types of consentual government) ought to wield more power than, for example, theocracies.

I'll try not to sidetrack this into a thread about the effectiveness of the UN in general, but I will say that the idea of collective security (c. 1945) while respecting sovereign equality (c. 1648) is the system that we have, and it works a lot better than if we had no system at all. I'm trying to remember if it was the Director-General of the UNOG or the Arab League Ambassador to the UN who said something along the lines of "The UN's main purpose is not to make the world a better place... to send us along the road to utopia. The UN's main purpose is to keep this world from going to hell in a handbasket, and it's doing a mighty fine job of that."

Besides, who's to determine which countries are "more worthy." If a theocracy thinks that it's going to get shafted under such a system, what incentive does it have to join? Then we get back to the problem of the League of Nations, and around and around we go.

quote:
In order for it to work it does need to be defined well enough to be applied. Surely there have been examples of apartheid practiced in the last 38.5 years. So, why haven't those countries been declared "criminal" by the signatories? There is also the question of whether there is such thing as a competant legal authority to rule on this case. I don't think there is.

It has been applied. General Assembly resolutions have invoked it, among other bodies. It has been incorporated into the Rome Statute. It has been incorporated into Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. It has been reaffirmed by the UN International Law Commission. Besides, it is still a seminal instrument of international law, with nothing to replace or supersede it. Ergo, despite its spotty application, it still stands.

A few reasons that may explain its relative lack of application:

1) Most of the cases where you could cite the Apartheid Convention are also cases where the Geneva Conventions, Genocide Convention, Rome Statute, etc. are being violated as well. Would you scream "genocide" or "apartheid" if you're looking for help, fast?

2) The South Africa effect. The "original" apartheid ended only recently (hell... it was within my lifetime). For a while after, the South African red herring might serve as a deterrent to the Convention being invoked.

There is indeed a competent legal authority to rule. It's called the International Court of Justice, and it could derive its competence from three sources:

1) A request for an advisory opinion from a qualified UN body

2) A request for an opinion and/or contentious judgement involving one or more member states and/or States Party

3) Article XII of the Convention, which states that:

"Disputes between States Parties arising out of the interpretation, application or implementation of the present Convention which have not been settled by negotiation shall, at the request of the States parties to the dispute, be brought before the International Court of Justice, save where the parties to the dispute have agreed on some other form of settlement. "

quote:
And, it is one that is so open ended that I doubt it will ever be used.

If you think that's open-ended, just wait until you see the Rome Statute. Or the Genocide Convention.

That's all for me for now. Happy New Year everyone!


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 01 January 2005 03:22 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The system distributes power based upon the principle of absolute equality when it should be built upon merit. ...I like the idea of the UN in principle. But, I think that democracies (or countries with other types of consentual government) ought to wield more power than, for example, theocracies.

You're kind of missing the entire point of the UN, I think. It's a place that allows all "governments" a forum for discussion and debate. The basic idea is that it's better to have everyone in the game, rather than only meet with your friends. To start giving membership plus points for certain kinds of governments guarantees that the others will leave. The Security Council is a wash for this very reason -- certain powers are considered more important, and as a result democracy does not reign there. Sure, the number of totalitarian and authoritarian governments that still exist is troubling, but how does it advance the democratic interests of the citizens of such countries to remove them entirely from consideration within the international forum?

From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 01 January 2005 03:52 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by verbatim:
You're kind of missing the entire point of the UN, I think. It's a place that allows all "governments" a forum for discussion and debate.
Nope. I'm not missing the point. But, I think that you are also mistaken in thinking that debate is "the entire point of the UN." I'm happy that the UN provides a forum for debate. But, the problem with the UN is that it is only as good as it's membership. And, unfortunately, a great deal of it's membership is made up of countries with horrible leadership. So, when it comes to action and makin a positive difference, the corrupt voters outnumber the rational ones.

quote:
Originally posted by verbatim:
The basic idea is that it's better to have everyone in the game, rather than only meet with your friends. To start giving membership plus points for certain kinds of governments guarantees that the others will leave.
Why does it guarantee that? Maybe it would guarantee that countries will rise to democratic and human rights standards enjoyed in countries like Canada. Speaking of Canada, Paul Martin seems to be thinking a bit like me. About a month ago he was talking about an L20, or something like that. There are all sorts of sub groups in the world, official or unofficial.

quote:
Originally posted by verbatim:
The Security Council is a wash for this very reason -- certain powers are considered more important, and as a result democracy does not reign there.
For the most part, the powerful members are respectable democracies. So, I trust their judgement. Let me ask you who you would rather wield power over who does and does not go to war in the world, the UK, or Syria? France, or Iran? The USA or Pakistan?

quote:
Originally posted by verbatim:
Sure, the number of totalitarian and authoritarian governments that still exist is troubling, but how does it advance the democratic interests of the citizens of such countries to remove them entirely from consideration within the international forum?
I am not suggesting that anybody be removed. But, there's nothing wrong with us saying that a free democracy which respects human rights is better than a brutal theocracy. If a country isn't doing any good in the international forum to begin with, who cares if they leave the debating table? That's their choice. Tell them, "reform or be marginalized." If the UN isn't prepared to have influence and use it, it's gonna lose it. And, it already has started to do so.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 January 2005 10:08 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SamL, that was a real education for me. Well done, and thank you.

Some countries have "horrible leadership" -- boy, no argument from me on that one.


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

posted 01 January 2005 10:54 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I just compared them. Deal with it.
[ ]

Just as a reminder (thought it is clear Cueball does this thinkingly) comparisions between the beastiality of nazis to Israel is anti-Semitic.


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

posted 01 January 2005 10:59 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee, Cueball was not comparing the bestiality of two things; he was comparing two sophistical arguments.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 January 2005 11:00 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps too sophisticated for some to grasp.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 01 January 2005 11:02 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 01 January 2005: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 11:04 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To many Jews, especially Holocaust survivors, it would appear quite the opposite. Hence I have held that one should not engage such awful comparsions. For the most part the vast majority of babblers have not used nazi analogies in their arguments regarding Israelis and Palestinians. For this I remain eternally grateful to them.

Sadly there remains an unethical few who either could care less or know full well what they do or both.


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

posted 01 January 2005 11:10 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And you are, of course, perfectly entitled to your opinions, Macabee.

Most of us do try to avoid lazy Nazi analogies; but, as we have sometimes agreed, there is a reason that people who are seeking a clear example of the Wrong or the Bad will sometimes refer to the Nazis.


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

posted 01 January 2005 11:13 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My Babble New Year's Resolution: ignore cries of "wolf" from Macabee regarding anti-semitism. Just skip right over those posts. Less thread drift that way.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 01 January 2005 11:14 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Reality: Calling Israel an apartheid state is a lie. Furthermore, it is offensive those who truly suffered from apartheid in South Africa.

I think you should leave it to the victims of appartheid to determine what is offensive to them. As it is quite a number of South Africans who were anti-apartheid leaders have used the word to descibe the situation in Israel.

Additionally, before you get sanctimonious, perhaps you can tell us what Israel did in regards to the anti-apartheid struggle, besides, of course, supplying arms to the South African government and helping the apartheid regime develop nuclear weapons.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 11:16 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Big difference between
quote:
...referring to nazis
and comparing anything nazi to Israel and Israelis.

I prefer to take into account the feelings of people traumitized by nazis, who know and understand full well what nazis are and what they stand for.

That many are elderly Jews who hold Israel close to their hearts should be considered before leaping into such malign comparisions. Surely there are better ways to make a point. I can only surmise that those who choose the "nazi comparision" route do so to emotionally hurt while making their point.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 01 January 2005 11:19 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

Yes I know how difficult it must be for people like you to not understand concepts of democracy vs apartheid.

People like me? I was an anti-apartheid activist in the 1980s and used to go around to school and lecture on the topic. I also have a degree in political studies. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what it is you're trying to insinuate?


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I insinuate nothing. Your degrees, as I am often told, are meaningless here.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 01 January 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apartheid in the Holy Land by Desmond Tutu

Perhaps Macabee should write Archbishop Desmond Tutu and tell him his comments are "offensive (to) those who truly suffered from apartheid in South Africa"? I'm sure he'd be interested to hear that.

From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 01 January 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isreal: Time to Divest by Desmond Tutu
quote:
Yesterday's South African township dwellers can tell you about today's life in the Occupied Territories. To travel only blocks in his own homeland, a grandfather waits on the whim of a teenage soldier. More than an emergency is needed to get to a hospital; less than a crime earns a trip to jail. The lucky ones have a permit to leave their squalor to work in Israel's cities, but their luck runs out when security closes all checkpoints, paralyzing an entire people. The indignities,dependence and anger are all too familiar.

Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. Ronnie Kasrils and Max Ozinsky, two Jewish heroes of the anti-apartheid struggle, recently published a letter titled 'Not in My Name'. Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience.


Hm, maybe macabee should inform Nelson Mandela that he is being insenstitive to the victims of apartheid? I'd like to see that letter.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 January 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I greatly admire and respect Tutu. However it does not make him always right on everything he says. If you understand the concept of apartheid then you know that Israel (while there may be genuine issues of racism within the state that must be dealt with) is NOT an apartheid state.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 January 2005 11:38 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess Tutu and Mandela really don't understand the concept of apartheid then!

In other news, this thread is over a hundred posts.


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