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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » The Fence Will Never be Completed

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Fence Will Never be Completed
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 09 March 2005 05:21 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, I might as well just start a website logging all of Hass's articles. What a brilliant writer in dangerous times.

Haaretz:

quote:
In the public atmosphere that was created in Israel during 2001, the Palestinians' suicide bombings were perceived as a strategic danger. The fear experienced by every individual was self-evident. The fact that the fear was nurtured by ignorance, deliberate oversight and repression of the violence of the Israeli occupation made it no less real. But the Israeli policy makers manipulated the fear and still do. They presented the threat on Israeli citizens as a strategic threat on the very existence of the state. They took advantage of the justified personal dread of many people to advance their solution to the fear and threat: a separation fence.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 March 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Thankfully Israel as a democratic nation has a free press allowing for a diverse range of opinion. I have always like Haas's views and agree that he exposes much needed issues to the light of day. I read Ha'aretz whenever I am in Israel.

I only wish Jordan and Egypt would have similar papers. I travel there frequently as well but find the stifling of news overbearing.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 10 March 2005 03:17 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Amira Hass is a woman! http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/amira_hass.htm

I think that is important in light of her article on violence - saying we don't jail all men because there are men who rape, murder and oppress women. Wasn't it Golda Meir (of all people) who said, when someone suggested a curfew of women in an Israeli city where there had been a rash of sexual agressions against women, that the curfew should be of men?


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

posted 10 March 2005 06:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Thankfully Israel as a democratic nation has a free press allowing for a diverse range of opinion. I have always like Haas's views and agree that he exposes much needed issues to the light of day. I read Ha'aretz whenever I am in Israel.

I only wish Jordan and Egypt would have similar papers. I travel there frequently as well but find the stifling of news overbearing.


You mean a press that fits comfortably within the boundaries of what you consider to be acceptable political discourse, surely. In other words one that generally agress with your point of view.

Democracy, a Free Press, and Other Fantasies

quote:
"The prime minister's decision to give Abu Mazen the cold shoulder until the terror stops is perfectly justified. … To say that Sharon was too hasty in calling off the meeting or to criticize him for not giving Abu Mazen 100 days of grace is ridiculous. … Israelis are tired of this wise-guy stuff. … We don't owe this guy a thing. … There is a breaking point and a time when the government must take off its gloves and present the other side with a flat ultimatum: For every indiscriminate round of fire on a civilian target, we will retaliate in kind on the closest and most populated Palestinian city. We will give it to them good. An eye for an eye." (Ha'aretz, Jan. 18)

Remember these lines: when the next Israeli military strike needs its apologetics, all Marcus (and his colleagues) will do is re-air them. The Israeli media is not following Sharon in the path to peace: it is following Sharon wherever he goes, like a loyal hound, playing peaceful when its master is well-tempered, but happy to expose its sharp teeth when he takes to the hunt. In fact, a few days later Ha'aretz's Zeev Schiff revealed the origin of his colleague's outrageous zeal, it then turned out that it had come directly from the prime minister's office.

"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led the most extreme position in these discussions. … He demanded that the IDF deploy artillery to shell targets in the Gaza Strip, including in towns and villages, as long as Hamas continued to launch Qassam rockets or mortars at Israeli communities. He adopted a blatant eye-for-an-eye approach – to pay the Palestinians in kind, but with much more and much deadlier force." (Ha'aretz, Jan. 25)

The similarity is evident: disguising it as independent advice to the government to "take off its gloves," Marcus simply echoed Sharon's position. Literally.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Insurrection
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6622

posted 10 March 2005 08:21 PM      Profile for Insurrection     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh, another glowing example of democracy!

[ 10 March 2005: Message edited by: Insurrection ]


From: exit in the world | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 11 March 2005 08:24 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You mean a press that fits comfortably within the boundaries of what you consider to be acceptable political discourse, surely. In other words one that generally agress with your point of view.


No that is not what I think nor is it what I wrote. Perusing this site I noted that many otherwise legtimately strong critics of Israel have time and again praised Ha'aretz even recognizing Israel's committment to a free press.

I can only surmise from your post that you have such ill will towards Israel (possibly for good reason in your eyes)that it can never be viewed by you in any terms positive.

Personally I see this as a sad failing. I hope that Palestinians and Israelis working towards peace do not have your mind set.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 11 March 2005 10:00 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How do you expect to have a discussion about Haas and the wall when you start talking rubbish like this: " Israel as a democratic nation and free press"?

I think Israel will never complete the wall. It would put an end to their land stealing, and I think that will not be in the best interest of Zionists.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 11 March 2005 10:46 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ya, which ethnic group of elitists is it really who wants the other "chased into the sea ?." Meanwhile, poor Palestinian's and Jews are caught in the middle.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 March 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can only surmise from your post that you have such ill will towards Israel (possibly for good reason in your eyes)that it can never be viewed by you in any terms positive.


Not at all I was talking about the formative structures of ideology. How ideology is contructed, and its relationship to the media. Firstly the whole idea that there is a free press is absurd, in Israel or Jordan. Papers cost money, literally both to buy at the stand and to own.

The huge expenditure required to purchase a news outlet, ensures that it is the wealthy and/or the political elite who disseminates the news that helps found the basis of the ideologies that suit the purposes of the wealthy or the political elite.

For instance in the case of Israel, no major publication will ever suggest that the Zionist project itself might be in error, and the mass importation of European Jewery to the Middle East, under the auspices of a European imperial power (Great Britian) against the express wishes of the people who lived there might have been wrong.

The rightness of the Zionist project itself, and the idea that Israel should be a Jewish state, not a secular state, has been the key focus of conflict with the Arab people whom the newly imported Jews had to share Palestine with. The idea that European Jews who immigrated to Palestine might have chosen a different course in their relationship to the Arab people, and by extension chose a different future course is NEVER discussed in the Israeli media. That is because the rightness of the Zionist project is a foundational building block of the ideological view that legitimizes the government, the rights of the political elite and by extension (since the media is owned by the political an business elite) the media itself.

Instead the Israeli media discusses variances of opinion within a set strict unspoken assumptions. This discourse reveals itself as a kind of "free debate" as wall or no wall, or Palestinian state or no Palestinian state but never in the terms such as a singular unified secular state for both Jews and Arabs. Co-incidentally this has been a mainstream Arab position since before 1948.

I can tell from your previous posts that you accept this foundational element of Israeli ideology wholheartedly. I am suggesting that it is only when ideas break with this ontology that you notice the interfereance of the ruling ideology, as in the case of Jordanian press, where the objectives of the ruling elite differ from from the ideological view you accept that you actually see the process of media control. This control sticks out for you like a sore thumb exactly because the Jordanian media speaks what is unspeakable in Israel, just as you will see the Israeli media speak what is unspeakable about Jordan.

There will be no reportage of repression of homosexuals in Jordan, but such will get good coverage in Ha'aretz, and you will notice this absence as an example of media control. And you are right. Talking about homosxuality (except in the negative) in the Jordanian press is a strict no-no, so much so, no journalist will even consider broaching the subject with their editor. This is the esssence of the unspoken guidance of ideology at work.

Likewise, the Israeli press is never likely to question Israel need for a stockpile of over 400 nuclear weapons with which to threaten its neighbours with, and in fact they can't because to even speak about the existence of Israel's huge nuclear arsenal in Israel is very, very dangerous because of "national security."

So please, don't hector us about Israel's free press.

I remember Noam Chomsky saying in 1987 at Hart House in Toronto: "What the two superpowers (USSR and USA) say about each other is true, it is what they don't say about themselves that is important."

Campaign to free Vanunu and for a nuclear free middle east

[ 11 March 2005: 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 11 March 2005 06:38 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Ya, which ethnic group of elitists is it really who wants the other "chased into the sea ?." Meanwhile, poor Palestinian's and Jews are caught in the middle.
This is getting pretty close to abusive behaviour.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 11 March 2005 06:47 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am very much glad that Israel has a free press. A democracy too.
From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 12 March 2005 09:47 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think Israel will never complete the wall. It would put an end to their land stealing, and I think that will not be in the best interest of Zionists.


I really wish people would stop saying shit like this. Zionism is not racism. There are Zionists disagree with the policies of the Sharon, have campaigned tirelessly for the rights of Arabs within the Israeli state and are in favor of making peace with Israel's neighbors. To lump these good people in with the likes of Ariel Sharon is cold, callous and downright unfair. It alienates our allies within Israel.
Gush Shalom is a Zionist organization, and yes,Uri Avnery, one of Israel's most famous peace activists, is in fact a Zionist.

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


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

posted 13 March 2005 01:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right, which is exactly the point I made with my post. At the very base, what is published in the Israeli press as a dissenting opinion, even Avnery, never contradict the ruling ideology: Zionism.

In the Soviet Union, there might have been dissenting opinions on a tactical politcal level, but never any dissent against the central thesis of the Soviet state: Marxist based communism.

People are completely at ease claiming that the there was no free press in the Soviet Union, because there was no room to dissent against the founding ideology. I agree, yet can anyone claim that Israel has a free press, when neither Ha'aretz or the Jerusalem Post, or any other major publication or news outlet in Israel would ever publish or air a view that directly dissents from the Zionist ideology?

When is it ever suggested in the Israeli media that the principal that European Jews have unlimited license to immigrate to Palestine (without even the vaguest consultation with the Arab people who lived there -- which is precisely what happened under the auspices of the British Empire,) might have been morally wrong?

[ 13 March 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 13 March 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Right, which is exactly the point I made with my post. At the very base, what is published in the Israeli press as a dissenting opinion, even Avnery, never contradict the ruling ideology: Zionism.

The problem with insisting that Zionism is entirely racist in it's philisophical outlook, is that it dismisses staunch left-wingers and humanitarians like Stephen Lewis and Ed Broadbent as bigots. Your assessment of Zionist philosophy is probably correct, however I cannot in good conscience condemn these leftist stalwarts as racist or reactiononary. As I have said, statements like this also cause conflict between the anti occupation forces and gives fodder to the religious right within Israel.


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

posted 13 March 2005 06:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say it was essentially racist. Like any nationalist ideology based on ethnic or religious lines, it can have racist tendencies. Let us say it has as much potential racism as Scottish nationalism. But that was not my point.

My point is that there is no evidence that Israel has a free press, given that any and all pundits whom are given the time to express their views are decidely Zionist. Zionism is the hallowed canon which may not criticized even by the fierecest critics of the policies of the Israeli government.


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

posted 13 March 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're opposed to Zionism?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 13 March 2005 09:10 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I didn't say it was essentially racist.

Sorry, I should have read more carefully


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

posted 14 March 2005 02:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I am opposed to Zinoism. Theoretically I am opposed to all kinds of ethnic nationalisms.

However, Zionism has been more destructive than most, largely due to the decision by Zionists to impose an ethnic nationalism upon a region inhabitted by another people, and wherein ethnically defined national group originally represented the slimest of minorities.

The Swedes would just as deseriving of cricism were they to decide to move themselves Korea, and call it there national homeland, without the permission of the Koreans.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 14 March 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since IMHO this thread has become a discussion of 1 versus 2 state solution since we are now discussing whose land it was originally and whose land it should be. I thought that I would check with one Jewish organization that I respect a lot. The organization is the American friends of Peace Now.

I went to their site to see their opinion on the 2 state solution and possible implementation issues. As it is probably known they are against the wall but in favour of a safe and secure peace

This is from the American Friends of Peace Now website peacenow.org


quote:
Competing Israeli and Palestinian claims to the Land of Israel/Palestine have been at the heart of the Arab-Israel conflict. Long before the creation of the State of Israel, mainstream Zionism recognized that this was a conflict of right against right. Under the leadership of Israel's founders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion, mainstream Zionism accepted partition of the Land of Israel into Jewish and Arab states. For decades, the Arabs rejected partition and the Palestinians paid the price.

To end the conflict, we support the creation of a Palestinian state comprising the great majority of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, consequently ending Israeli occupation of these areas. The Palestinian State must have territorial contiguity and so we reject the concept of cantonization.

In emphasizing the importance of Israel's security requirements, we recognize a basic asymmetry. By withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel will give up valuable strategic assets and take real risks. The final peace settlement thus will have to accommodate Israel's security requirements, preventing the Palestinian State from having arms and military formations that might pose a threat to Israel's security, and excluding foreign military forces from Palestinian territory.



And I must say that I agree totally with the quote above.

Their is no need for the wall. 2 states can live side by side in peace and prosperity.

Then again once "real" borders are agreed upon and implemented their is nothing to stop either the State of Palestine or the State of Israel from constructing whatever the hell they want as long as it is totally within their borders.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 March 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its a farce. What kind of state isn't allowed to have an army to defend itself. Ridiculous. Such prohobitions are an insult and a blockade to peace. You can't expect a free and independent people, not to be allowed to have a security force.

Farcical.

Here again the double standard applies, Israel is allwoed to have as many A bombs as it want yet, the Palestinians would be prohibited from even having small artillery support weapons.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 14 March 2005 03:36 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball I have never heard anyone refer to statements from Peace Now or American Friends of Peace Now as an obsticle to peace.

Edited to correct a spelling error

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


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

posted 14 March 2005 04:00 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, I am opposed to Zinoism. Theoretically I am opposed to all kinds of ethnic nationalisms.

If Canadian nationalism can produce people like Trudeau, and Scottish nationalism can produce people like Donald Dure, why condemn Jewish nationalism entirely? Surely if nationalist movements can produce men like them (who as far know, never opposed non-white immigration to their respective countries, isn't there a possibility that a Zionist with the same values as they had can come to prominance?
Wingnut told me that Zionism does not have to be based on ethnicity, that it can be economic in nature.

*edited for clarity

I apologize for breaching netiquette.

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


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

posted 14 March 2005 04:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Cueball I have never heard anyone refer to statements from Peace Now or American Friends of Peace Now as an obsticle to peace.

Edited to correct a spelling error

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


Well you just did. Peace now, as a peace movement is about as indpendent of Israeli governing forces as the old Soviet "peace" movement. It has no credibility and hasn't raised serious opposition to the policies of the Sharon government in years.

Please explain, other than by authorizing the statment by appealing to the apparent legacy of the organization that made it, how the proposal made above can be construed as anything but an infringement upon the sovereingty of the proposed 'indpendent' Palestinian state, and how that can in any way be construed as anything like a compromise between peoples of equal rights?

Would Israel agree to have its security powers dictated to it by Palestinians? Absurd.

If not a proposal for two peoples with equal rights, how can it be the basis of a peace agreement? Anything that might flow from such and agreement would immediatly be rejected by any Palestinian person with even slightly more self-respect than a rabbit in spring.

Peace Now is simply reiterating Sharons position, guaranteed security for Israelis, none for Palestinians, as Israel would have not only the right but the means to repeatedly interfere in the internal affairs of the Palestinian state. Therefore, it is a blockage to an agreement because it is overtly unfair and as such would only engender more conflict, as political power imbalance is the key issue which fuels Palestinian violence against Israel.

In a manner of speaking, it is exactly this idea as proposed by Peace Now under the guise of conciliation, that Sharon has been unilterally been trying to impliment since 2000 -- the carnage that has ensued is 10 times worse than anything that happened in the 5 years previous.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 14 March 2005 11:13 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If Canadian nationalism can produce people like Trudeau...

Are there many Zionists advocating that Israeli society be a mosaic and that "Zionism" should become synonymous with "multiculturalism"?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 14 March 2005 11:49 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a second article, but I can't get access to Gush's archives right now, I'll post it tommorow.

[ 15 March 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


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

posted 14 March 2005 11:56 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are there many Zionists advocating that Israeli society be a mosaic and that "Zionism" should become synonymous with "multiculturalism"?


Uri Avnery does in this article


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

posted 15 March 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was wrong. There is no second article. But I believe the article I did post proves my assertion that you can be a Zionist and in favor of pluralism, tolerance and secularism. This is by no means a mainstream view among Zionists, who in lage part seem to have swollowed the Ziofascist ideology put forward by Daniel pipes, but it does have some proponents.*

*like Bernard Aveshai


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

posted 15 March 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure, but to me it sounds like someone trying to play both sides of the fence. Either a person supports secular multicultralism (or some variant of that) or a nationalist ideology.

I appreciate Avnery, but think that part of his political failure, and the failure of those Israeli's who oppose the opression of Arab Palestinians to clearly come out and critique Zionism at its root. It is after all a national ideology of the kind that springs from the 19th century, which to one extent or another provided impetus for much of the horror of the 20th. Writing in Germany in the 1930' Viktor Klemperer summarized his issue with the Zionist cause, in his published diary I will bear witness, by asking "Why would one exchange narrow nationalism here, with narrow nationalism there," (Palestine.)

Israelis need a visionary who can truly articulate a secular vision, not ones who undermine themselves by trying to have their cake and eat it too.


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

posted 15 March 2005 06:20 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sure, but to me it sounds like someone trying to play both sides of the fence. Either a person supports secular multicultralism (or some variant of that) or a nationalist ideology.

You are assuming that secular multiculturalism and nationalism are mutually exclusive. They aren't.
Pierre Trudeau was a nationalist, so was Tommy Douglas, Donald Dure and Bob Marly. Michael Moore and Bruce Springsteen are also very big on nationalism.
None of these men are religious zealots or reactionary xenophobes, and would be in favor of turning their nations into multicultural mosaics. They still remain very nationalistic however, and try or have tried to help their countrymen whenever possible.
I wish Wingnut or Coyote where here, they seem to know a lot about this kind of thing. I don't think I'm qualified to argue with you.


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

posted 15 March 2005 06:25 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball:

quote:
Sure, but to me it sounds like someone trying to play both sides of the fence.
Don't we all though, in one way or another?
quote:
Either a person supports secular multicultralism (or some variant of that) or a nationalist ideology.
I don't think it's that simple. Doesn't multiculturalism presuppose several national identities, and communities which ahdere to them? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
quote:
Writing in Germany in the 1930' Viktor Klemperer summarized his issue with the Zionist cause, in his published diary I will bear witness, by asking "Why would one exchange narrow nationalism here, with narrow nationalism there," (Palestine.)
For all my appreciation for Klemperer, I think the operative word there is "narrow" nationalism - a danger everywhere. I don't think a sense of and appreciation for national identity has to be narrow.
quote:
Israelis need a visionary who can truly articulate a secular vision, not ones who undermine themselves by trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Agreed. Our quibble is what kind of cake it is.

I don't mind national mythologies (which I do not use in a pejorative sense), you know. I wouldn't care less about Zionism any more than any other were it not for the occupation and other abuses done in its name. Without a sense of national identity, would there be any real resistance to Israeli agression in the OTs? Would Quebec ever have thrown off clericism and at least mitigated the power of the Westmount Anglos?


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

posted 15 March 2005 07:14 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yasser Arafat and Mustafa Barghouti are Palestinian nationalists. Don't you support an independent Kurdistan? Isn't that a nationalist cause?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 15 March 2005 09:03 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If we are ever to have a one state solution Jewish and Arab politicians will have to straddle "both sides of the fence"

How can Israel and ever be a multicultural society if there is no compromise between the two peoples who live there?

quote:
Sure, but to me it sounds like someone trying to play both sides of the fence. Either a person supports secular multicultralism (or some variant of that) or a nationalist ideology.

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

posted 16 March 2005 02:17 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

You are assuming that secular multiculturalism and nationalism are mutually exclusive. They aren't.


No because Canadian nationalims is not officially defined around a single national group such as anglaphones. Zinoism is specific to Jews and Jewish people. Not very many people (let alone the government!) goes saying that Canada has a right to be a "free and democratic English state," the way Macabee does about Israel.

Israel can not define itself as a Jewish state and then in the next breath declare its multinational character. The ideas are in mutual contradiction.

quote:
Yasser Arafat and Mustafa Barghouti are Palestinian nationalists. Don't you support an independent Kurdistan? Isn't that a nationalist cause?

In the case of the Kurds, kurds make up the greatest portion of people in the region defined as Kurdistan, likewise, Palestinian Arabs claiming the West Bank and Gaza (Arafat Barghouti) as Arab regions are merely refelcting what is the demogrphic on the ground. Israel on the other hand rules all of Palestine including the West Bank and Gaza, yet defines its mandate primarily in terms of the Jews who live there. If Israel wishes to govern all of this region, fairly it must also represent arabs as well as Jews, in order to do so it must give up its vision of itself as a "Jewish State."

Furthermore, I was very clear to define my critique in terms of the historical legacy of Israel and Zinoism. It is obvious that the Zinoist did not define a national claim on the lands Palestine as representative of an existing Jewish demographic, but in terms of imposing one through immigration. This is the primary area in which the Zinoist mission must be critiqued as immoral. Obviously, in the present day, the existing demographics must be taken into account, but present day Israelis must take into acount the moral errors of the founding ideololgy, if it they wish their legacy to be anything other than continued conflict with the Arabs, whom were wronged by founders of Israel.

[ 16 March 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 16 March 2005 12:26 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I disagree with you.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 March 2005 02:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

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

posted 16 March 2005 03:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Furthermore, I think it is wrong to say that Arafat and Barghouti represent Arab nationalism as an a priori principal. Arab nationalism of the kind championed by the PLO was reactive to Zionist nationalism, and Zionist intransigence on the issue of working out a compromise government within the Palestine mandate.

Note: It was the PLO that advocated a multicultural state, in ts founding charter not any Zionists and that it was only at the advent Oslo that the Arab parties of Palestine consented to partition, which was the essential basis of Oslo.

Arab opposition to the division ("partition") of Palestine was always hinged on the idea of a single multicultural state. Certainly there was opposition to the increased importation of European Jewery, and much of the Arab leadership did not have an enlightened late 20th century view of tollerance, but in comparison to the Zionist vision, it is the Arabs not the Zionists who have come closest to tabling a secular multicultural platform. (See next post)

The Zionists demanded exclusion and partition right from the begining -- they wanted a "Jewish" state and they meant that.

[ 16 March 2005: 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 16 March 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country's religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.


THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER:

Wherein the Israeli declaration of independence is the corollary of article 6, such as:

"The Arabs who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the founding of Israel will be considered Israelis."

[ 16 March 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 16 March 2005 05:02 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bernard Aveshai is a perfect example of the kind of Zionism I referred to.
He believes that Israel should remain Jewish in character (keeping the Israeli flag, having a holiday on the Sabbath etc.) without handing over control the state to rabbinical nutcases and expansionist lunatics. He believes the Jewish right of return should be limited to Jews who have actually suffered because of anti-Semitism(according to Aveshai, Greece has a similar law, such a thing is not without precedent)
The man also insists that the Hebrew language retain its position of prominence in Israeli society, saying that Hebrew, more then the Jewishness of the state, binds the Isreali populace together.
These in my humble opinion, are the three most important aspects of Zionist philosophy. They are essential. Aveshai may disagree with the rest of the Zionist project, but his adherence to these three key principles make him a Zionist.
This means that one can be a Zionist and in favor of the one state solution(funky logic, eh? )
Coyote posted Aveshai’s article on the subject last year, but I don't know exactly where it is.
Do you believe that Jewish Israelis should be allowed to retain their cultural identity after the one state solution that is implemented?

[ 16 March 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


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

posted 16 March 2005 08:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that all cultural identities should be protected under the same laws.

After the US civil war ended, General Dan Sickles, while acting as military governor of South Carolina, simply established that all laws applied to everyone regardless of race. Simple.


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

posted 20 March 2005 07:20 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I appreciate Avnery, but think that part of his political failure, and the failure of those Israeli's who oppose the opression of Arab Palestinians to clearly come out and critique Zionism at its root.

I've been thinking about what you said about Avnery, and I've come to the conclusion that you are correct. It is hypocritical for him to endorse a multicultural Israel while at the same time saying that Israel should be a Jewish state. However, it is difficult for me to acknowledge this fact, simply because doing so means that there is no Israeli resistance, and that most Israeli peace activists,(Amira Hass, Ran Hacohen etc.) for all that they talk about peace, love and understanding are only interested in exclusivity and xenophobia.
Not even Gush has completely escaped this wave of hypocrisy.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 21 March 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps it is not hypocracy. Perhaps Jews as a majority in their land have a right to a Jewish democratic state.

I have acknowledged that it is time for Israel to make serious concessions regarding the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed I believe these concessions will not only be made but we will soon see a state of Palestine where Paletinians decide their own destiny. The real question for me is when that happens will those , like many here on Babble, leave the Jewish state alone to continue to flourish as a democracyZ? I hope so but Im not sanguine about the chances.


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

posted 21 March 2005 01:18 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wouldn't it have been nice if the majority of the people of Palestine, and the rest of the Arab possessions of the Ottoman Empire, had been given the same rights to national self-determination that were given to almost every other subject people of the Central Powers following the Versailles Treaties in 1919?

Instead, the were given Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration. Imagine what peace there might be in the Middle East today had Arabs been treated fairly at the end of the 14-18 war.


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

posted 21 March 2005 07:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Wouldn't it have been nice if the majority of the people of Palestine, and the rest of the Arab possessions of the Ottoman Empire, had been given the same rights to national self-determination that were given to almost every other subject people of the Central Powers following the Versailles Treaties in 1919?

Instead, the were given Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration. Imagine what peace there might be in the Middle East today had Arabs been treated fairly at the end of the 14-18 war.


There is a classic biography by Andrew Mango on Mustafa Keraml Attaturk, called "Attaturk." Certainly worth reading.

This war was partly fought to assert French and English dominance in the Middle East. Those oil fields in Kirkuk were a going concern then, just as they are now. Reading the Mango book one gets the impression that war itself was triggerd largley by the swift implosion of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century and the cessionist fighting in the Balkans, encouraged by the allies (Russia/Britian.) Dividing up the the Arab lands was part of the prize.

The war began for the Turks in 1911, more or less and continued until 1921, when Britain was forced by Turkish intransigence to cease supporting the more fanciful claims of Greece in Anatolia.

quote:
I have acknowledged that it is time for Israel to make serious concessions regarding the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed I believe these concessions will not only be made but we will soon see a state of Palestine where Paletinians decide their own destiny.

Let us acknowledge that there is nothing new in the idea of a Palestinian state, and Israel agreeing to one is not an Israeli concession, no matter how much Macabee dresses it up as one, it is in fact an Arab concession to the partition. A partition Israel has seen fit change in its favour in a series of wars. A concession, of course, if Mac wants to admit that the original Zionist plan included all of the Palestine Mandate. Is that what you are conceeding Mac?

[ 21 March 2005: 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 21 March 2005 10:42 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Times change Cue history impacts on events and we are no longer in 1948. Israel has made many concessions especially under Ehud Barak. Nonetheless negotiations must work towards a compromise that will create a democratic Palestinian state. Neither you or I live in the region I am prepared to leave it up to those who live there to reach a workable solution.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 March 2005 10:51 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
leave it up to those who live there to reach a workable solution.

Boy. There's a consummation devoutly to be wished. How likely do we think that is to happen?


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

posted 21 March 2005 11:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee likes it that way, as any outside influence would doubtless balance the equation of inquality between Israel and the Palestinians. Better to resolve the situation locally, so that the weight of Israel's huge superiority in power can overwhelm Palestinian resolve.

quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Times change Cue history impacts on events and we are no longer in 1948. Israel has made many concessions especially under Ehud Barak. Nonetheless negotiations must work towards a compromise that will create a democratic Palestinian state. Neither you or I live in the region I am prepared to leave it up to those who live there to reach a workable solution.

Continually ignoring the history of the Arab grievance, only benefits those who would have them cave in, time and time again. As if each new border that Israel set for itself magically appeared sometime in the infinetly forgetable past, and is immutable, and that any withdrawal (however temporary and chemeric those turn out to be) from the maximum extent of Israel's mini-empire is some kind of earth shattering retreat.

You ask me to forget the 48 partion line, only so that you can play the confidence trick of making me forget the 56 UN cease fire-line, and now the 1967 Green-Line. What a sham.

Crying about being pushed into the sea, only so that Israel can justify making the Arabs homeless in the desert.

[ 21 March 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 21 March 2005 11:30 AM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Macabee likes it that way, as any outside influence would doubtless balance the equation of inquality between Israel and the Palestinians. Better to resolve the situation locally, so that the weight of Israel's huge superiority in power can overwhelm Palestinian resolve.

Cueball you raise a good and valid point here. But it leads to a problem. Since it can not be demonstrated that a true and fair solution can be found by just the Palestinians and Israelis working together who is a non biased third party?

Seriously which country or organization can step in and prove that they are not biased towards either the Israelis or the Palestinians? The UN? The EU? The big 4? The middle class powers? The OAS? The Arab League?

Each side has supporters and detractors. Each side can argue their points eliquently -- whether one believes the argument or not.

So who does this leave to assist in breaking the stalemate? If it can not be a "third" party and it can not be those directly involved who is left?

For a fair and just agreement that sees two equal states living side by side in peace and harmony to become a reality both sides need to trust the other. And for it to be implemented on the ground -- not in the media studios or around the world -- but for it to be accepted and implemented on the ground by Palestinians and Israelis then I suspect that it will have to be achieved by those in the region.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 March 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:

Seriously which country or organization can step in and prove that they are not biased towards either the Israelis or the Palestinians? The UN? The EU? The big 4? The middle class powers? The OAS? The Arab League?


The UN is the only party that has been internationaly recognized as the agency authorized to deal with these kinds of issues. However, time and time again Israel's big brother on the security council has vetoed affirmative action against Israel in this regard. Meanwhile of course Syria's must remove it self from Lebanon as soon as the UN says "booh," as resolutions are backed by the SC.

Their is no reason to discuss whether or not the UN as an agency is empowered to take action against Israel, nor that it has the right to, nor that it should.

Why do you question its authority, here?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 21 March 2005 03:49 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball I do not question the authority of the UN. In fact I prefer an unbiased 3rd party that is recognized and respected by both sides to be involved in the creation of a true, fair and lasting peace between the nations of Palestine and Israel.

I did question the point you raised regarding the fact that Israel and Palestine can not do it themselves because of as you put it

quote:
weight of Israel's huge superiority in power can overwhelm Palestinian resolve.

In reading your point I did raise the question that their is no organization or country that can not be shown to have provided favour one side over the other at any time. Or used their influence to try to favour one side in negotiations over the other.

As I said earlier:

quote:
For a fair and just agreement that sees two equal states living side by side in peace and harmony to become a reality both sides need to trust the other. And for it to be implemented on the ground -- not in the media studios or around the world -- but for it to be accepted and implemented on the ground by Palestinians and Israelis then I suspect that it will have to be achieved by those in the region.

I am a romantic dreamer I guess because I really believe that the leadership (no matter who is sitting in the chair of power) wants peace. Both sides want to live peacefully side by side. And I also beleive that it does not matter who writes what agreement because if the people do not buy in then their will be no peace.

IMHO the question of whether or not there should be a 2 state solution is long answered. The questions now are simply around the implementation of the dream of 2 equal peaceful neighbours.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 21 March 2005 04:45 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, I think having a solution worked out by those in the region only is a great idea. But that means, no more US arms for Israel. No more massive aid. To get real, in fact it would mean taking away all the missiles, helicopters etc. Israel has from the US now.

And it is important to point out that productive agreements are hammered out constantly between parties who don't trust each other. The notion that the two parties can only come to an agreement if they trust each other is pernicious. They don't trust each other and they're not going to trust each other; in different ways, neither is trustworthy. The Palestinian leadership can't force the Palestinian people and organizations to honour their agreements. And the Israeli leadership have a long track record of consistently breaking theirs. They're going to have to come up with an agreement that doesn't require trust. Believing this can't be done means believing there can be no peace. Certainly it can be done--although it may require calling in an outside group to monitor, verify and/or enforce any agreement the two parties arrive at. Which is quite different from having outside parties try to shape what agreement is reached.

As to the leaders wanting peace--Ariel Sharon has never wanted peace before. He may not be against it if he can get everything else he wants and still have it. But as usual you have to watch what he does, not what he says. There's still plenty of settlement-building in the West Bank. And still plenty of settlement-subsidizing in the budget.

[ 21 March 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 March 2005 05:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In reading your point I did raise the question that their is no organization or country that can not be shown to have provided favour one side over the other at any time. Or used their influence to try to favour one side in negotiations over the other.


You are right. The UN has consitently backed Israel since it founded the state. In every single resolution since then it has absolutely supported the existence of Israel, and only asked that it be a good neighbor by giving back territory that it has annexed beyond the 1948 partition. Since then it has caved in to Israel even on that score, only asking that Israel retreat to its 1967 border.

As far as the Arab opposition to partition, and the creation of a unified secular state (the original and longs standing position of every Arab party to the conflict up until the 1993 Oslo accords, where Palestinian negotiators finally were forced to assent to partition) the UN has always favoured the Israeli state against the Arabs.

Why it is the Arabs repeatedly refer their complaint to this body is beyond me, given its long history of backing Israel against them, but they insist. Given this blatant ongoing support of Israel by the UN, I think it is odd that it is Israel which refuses its participation in the peace process and the Arabs who demand it.

Rufus's point about negotiation and trust is right on the money. The reality is that people who trust each other don't need to negotiate at all, as they believe that the others will honour their commitments as a matter of course. Negotiations, in the main, are the tool through which people who explicitly don't trust each other guarantee each others obediance to their commitments.

[ 21 March 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 21 March 2005 05:23 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:

IMHO the question of whether or not there should be a 2 state solution is long answered. The questions now are simply around the implementation of the dream of 2 equal peaceful neighbours.


Be careful of the word I bolded for you, there. That is the one thing, Likud or Labour, that no Israeli government will stand for without immense pressure.

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

posted 22 March 2005 10:07 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cue, Dude, your logic is as funky as mine.
You say the conflict demands 3rd party arbitration and that the U.N. should take on the job of arbitrator. You then proceed to call the credibility of the United Nations into question by listing all the instances in which the U.N. has caved in to American/Isreali interests. This circular logic leads us back to your original complaint. Do you believe then that armed resistance is the only option?

[ 23 March 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


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

posted 22 March 2005 10:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My point was part tongue in cheek, turning over the commonly expressed misconception that the UN is unfair to Israel, because there are so many resolutions against Israels acts, however the real record is one of support for Israel, with criticism, and it has caved in again and again.

It is the Arabs who have meel;y put their faith in the institution, only to have their noses rubbed in it again and again.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca