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   » Palestine has a new friend: China

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Palestine has a new friend: China
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 20 May 2005 07:26 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More aid to help Mideast peace process

quote:
Visiting Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas received the pledge from Chinese leaders to provide economic aid health care and housing by the signing of five bilateral agreements yesterday in Beijing.

Abbas, on his first three-day state visit to China since taking over from the late Yasser Araft in January, held talks yesterday with President Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao and State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan.

President Hu said the Chinese Government and its people supports the "just cause" of Palestinians, saying the way to establish an independent Palestinian state is to conduct political negotiations on UN resolutions, and resume the Road Map peace plan.

He said China would continue to join hands with the international community to realize full and long-lasting peace.



Via Elaine Supkis at Culture of Life Breaking News who comments:
quote:
China is basically going to be the primary sponsors in the Security Council for the Palestinians. This is going to be a formal relationship whereby the Chinese will directly funnel Palestinian political demands into debates in the Security Council. This puts China at total odds with the USA who is the primary sponsor of Israel. This sponsorship also means that Palestine, who lost the sponsorship of Russia when the communists there fell, is no longer friendless and easily pushed around. What is more, the sponsor of Israel owes tremendous sums of money to the sponsor of Palestine. This is a fun thing indeed.

A fun thing? It certainly makes things interesting.

[ 20 May 2005: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 May 2005 08:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if historians will look at this turn of events as the start of Cold War II.

We may remember that during the Cold War, the superpowers used proxies as vehicles to promote their interests.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 24 May 2005 09:26 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Much as I'd like to believe this analysis, I'm skeptical.

Israel supplies China with a lot of (America's) highly advanced defense technology. I don't think they're going to go to the mat for Palestine, and there is nothing in this routine endorsement of the two-state solution to make me think that China is committed to do so.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 25 May 2005 12:11 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's very cute to see China standing for the "just cause" of the Palestinians, seeing as they seem to have been trading notes with Israel on how to displace native populations and repopulate with their own.

Free Tibet.


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

posted 25 May 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure, but let us remember that Tibet has on and off (mainly on) either been directly ruled by China, or a vassal state, since Kubila Khan of the Mongols unified China as a single department within the Mongol empire in the 13th century -- more or less in the form China appears today. There are similarities, but Israel occupation and rule is a completely new phenomena, without historical precedent set in a direct politcal liniage.

So,maybe not "free Tibet" but "No ethnic cleansing in Tibet."

Even the Dalai Lama has suggested that Tibet might continue as a autonmous zone within China, a very traditional relationship Chinese-Tibetan relationship. There seems to be a lot of confusing politics around the Panchen Lama as a competing religious figure, which the Chinese actually recognize.

The Panchen Lama

quote:
The title Panchen Lama originates back to the Fifth Dalai Lama who in 1642 gave the title Panchen Lama, meaning Great Scholar, to his teacher the Abbott of Tashilhunpo Monastery in order to consolidate Gelugpa power. Since then it has traditionally been the role of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama to act as the teacher of the new incarnation.

However, the relationship between the Dalai Lama in Lhasa and the Panchen Lama in Tashilhunpo has not always been a smooth one. Tensions sometimes occurred between the two courts (the usual centre-periphery tensions) though there have been tensions between the Lama's themselves which the Chinese often tried to accentuate.

The relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama has been a principle mechanism of the invading Chinese to divide the Tibetan people and destroy their religion and culture.


[ 25 May 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 25 May 2005 12:55 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we're on the same page, Cueball; it boils down to self-determination, which is being denied to both the Palestinians and the Tibetans.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 25 May 2005 01:11 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]Sure, but let us remember that Tibet has on and off (mainly on) either been directly ruled by China, or a vassal state...but Israel occupation and rule is a completely new phenomena, without historical precedent set in a direct politcal liniage.

Umm... Go study some history.

Try looking under the following headings for some inspiration:
The British Mandate
The Syrian Purges
The Ottoman Empire
The Catholic Church
Sala'din and the Caliphate
The Roman Empire
The Babylonian Empire
Alexander's Greece
Ancient Assyria
The Ancient Kingdoms of Israel and Judaea

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: cabana me banana ]


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 01:21 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you understand what I mean by a "direct politcal liniage."

Spose not. Ok China, as it appears today on maps was brought together by the Mongols under Kubila Khan. After Mongol rule was thrown over, the Chinese state bureaucracy in more or less the same borders evolved under various dynasties, most famously the the Ming and Manchu, as China. They built the great wall to keep the people of the steppe at bay, and that country included Tibet, either as vassal or directly.

Israel was established in 1948. While I am sure you would like me concede there is a direct relationship to Israel 2000 years ago. There is not because there is not a direct politcal liniage of a singal continuous identifiable country and state dating to that time, or to anytime exceptover the last 50 years.

Israel is newly imposed.

Israel's assertion to a historical relatioship to the past Israel is largely romantic, Chinese rule over Tibet is an assertion of direct politcal link that is hundreds of year old.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 25 May 2005 01:33 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
While I am sure you would like me concede there is a direct relationship to Israel 2000 years ago...

Holy lasagna, Batman! Did I say that?

Don't put words in my mouth, and I won't put words in yours.

I THOUGHT you meant was that there was never an occupying presence in Israel until modern-day. I must have misinterpreted. I apologize.

What I can't understand is what relevant difference you think there is between Occupied Tibetans and Occupied Palestinians. Does China have any more business in Tibet than Israel does in the territories?

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: cabana me banana ]


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 01:41 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 25 May 2005 01:43 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, there I disagree Cueball, at least in the present context: which is one of displacement, political repression, and population transfer - all designed to eliminate any semblance of Tibetan culture not sanctioned by Beijing.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 01:49 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I agree on the principals of population transfer etc. but even the Dalai Lama has said the Tibet might be better off as an autonmous zone within China, which is more or less the state of affairs prior to 1904. At that time the Tibetans were ruled locally by the religious oligarchy, while China controlled all of Tibet's foreign relations and trade.

It is more or less the same claim made by moderate Kurdish leaders in Turkey. On the other hand Abbas and no Palestinian authority has recognized Israeli soveriegnty over the land captured in the 1967 war.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 25 May 2005 01:51 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I disagree as well.

Tibet has seen the demoliton of over 6,000 of its Buddhist monasteries since occupation under the People's Republic began, thousands of monks and nuns were killed or forced to abandon their religion.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Tibetans have been killed or starved in warfare or as political prisoners.

The Dalai Lama has only warmed to the idea of Tibet as an "autonomous zone within China" because he wanted an end to the carnage at any cost, and he knew that world leaders were doing absolutely zero to help his case. Paul Martin REFUSED to mention Tibet during Hu Jintao's visit for fear of embarrassing him.

During the 60s and 70s, China began the systematic destruction of Tibetan religion and cultural practices in the name of its Cultural Revolution. It's a holocaust, cueball. What more do you want?

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: cabana me banana ]


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 01:52 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Plese read the post above.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 01:59 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"This is the message I wish to deliver to China. I am not in favour of separation. Tibet is a part of the People's Republic of China. It is an autonomous region of the People's Republic of China. Tibetan culture and Buddhism are part of Chinese culture. Many young Chinese like Tibetan culture as a tradition of China. ...

For emphaisis I will exceprt this line "Tibetan Culture and Buddhism are part of the Chinese culture."

He is directly alluding to the historical processes set in motion when China and Tibet were conquered by the Mongols in 1220ish.

So... there is what the Dalai Lama says, as recently as this year in March.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 25 May 2005 02:16 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The feelings of unity from Han Chinese are about as relevant here as the feelings that say, Israelis might have towards the West Bank.

Tibetans feel otherwise.

It is true that China won its sovereignty over Tibet in 1907, and again in 1914, but these periods of ownership were solely the result of collusion between British and Russian colonialists to carve up Central Asia in a fraternal manner. When the deals were signed, no Tibetan was even invited to the table.

In fact, the instant China's stranglehold remitted, the 13th Dalai Lama rushed back from exile to re-establish Tibet as an independent nation.

In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed a treaty to balk Chinese rule and recognize each others independence mutually.

When Chinese invaders returned, Tibetans fought a long and bloody war clear through to WWII.
You are wrong. Free Tibet.


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 02:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tibet was more or less an Autonmous Zone when it was part of the Celestial empire prior to 1904, and China reasserted that in 1907 and 1914, and asserted that throuout WW2 and again in 1950. And yes, I agree that the Russians and British were politicking in an around Tibet but China would not have been reasserting its claim in 1907 and 1914 had not the British invaded under the instruction of Lord Curzon of India in 1904.

But it is a mistake to think that the British, Russians (and just about any other imperial nation) were not dicking around after that time as well. The British consistently backed Tibetan indepedence and encouraged the revolt you are talking about -- it was not entirely the product of local antipathy toward the Chinese.

Not only that but there has been signifcant support for the Chinese even within the Budhist oligarchy -- the Chinese exploited the traditional disputes between the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama with varying degrees of success. There were also some strong support for communism itself within the Bhudist sects. So the situation is really not clear at all, as far as Tibetan sovereignty goes and that lack of clarity goes back 500 years.

Look I am believer in the principals of self-determination. So, I am emphatically opposed to population transfer, and I think it would be great to resolve the sovereignty situation by plebicite or something, but it can not be denied that there are long term historical, politcal and cultural linkages that exist between the Chinese and the Tibetan's that are relevant in a way that is different from the situation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and Israel.

So I am not wrong. I am simply opposed to black and white readings of history.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 25 May 2005 02:58 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is from your own link:
"Detainees report being subjected to beatings and other forms of torture or ill-treatment, such as being kicked in the kidneys and liver, and being severely beaten around the face and ears. The use of electric shock batons is a common form of 'punishment'."
Amnesty International also reports that Tibetans in Chinese custody are often sentenced to death "for such 'crimes' as: refusing to recognise Chinese sovereignty over Tibet; pledging allegiance to the Dalai Lama; and singing pro-democracy songs."

We can't afford to wax poetic while people die. A "Unified China" should be seen for the red herring that it is. Unification didn't work in the former Yugoslavia without paying the price in atrocities. It won't work here.


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 03:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right that is from my own link. Now I will repeat what I just said, before we get into another round of rabid denounciations and outraged proclamations:

I am not interested in black and white readings of history.

So you see, I see the problems, however in both Tibet and the Kurdish areas of Turkey there is a considerable body of opinion expressed by legitimate representatives of the oppressed people themselves who recognizethe general authority ofthe superior state. No such persons or movement exists among Palestinians.

The reasons I think this is so, is because in situations like that of China-Tibet and Turkey-Kurdistan, is that the superior state has imposed is sovereignty over those persons for a longer period of time, and the cultures and political relationships are somewhat more cemented.

This means that the fair and realistically achievable goal, may not be seperation, but some kind of autonomy. These conditions simply do not apply to Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, partly because of these historical factors but also because (and this is very important) the Israelis themselves refuse to recognize the Palestinians as citizens, while both China and Turkey both insist that the Tibetans and the Kurds, respectively, are citizens, of the superior state.

Israel rejects Palestinians as citizens, but also refuses them sovereignty.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 25 May 2005 03:26 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It has long been the policy of the Yesha Council (the settler movement) that Palestinian Arabs be "integrated into Greater Israel".

Those elements within Israel which reject withdrawal are in fact looking to acheive a relationship with their Palestinian neigbours which is much like that between Han Chinese and native Tibetans. What did you expect Israel's Rightists would have those 3 million Palestinians do after occupation and annexation is complete? A subjugative relationship providing cheap, expendable labour, much like the 1 million + Arabs which currently reside within Israel's pre-1967 borders.


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 03:41 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Irrelevant to my point. I am talking about effective government policy, and I doubt the basis of your claim.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 25 May 2005 02:12 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A strong case could be made that there was no China before the 20th C, just as theire was no Israel. Both make claims to be successors to earlier states, but that doesn't necessarily make those claims true. Bear in mind that the first Chinese Republicans (Sun Yat-sen's movement) invented Chinese nationalism as an attempt to break away from the Qing (Manchu) empire. A fair interpretation of international law would grant the same self-determaintion rights to Palestine and Tibet -- you might even make a stronger legal case for Tibet than for Palestine, since it was an independent state from about 1911 (fall of the Qing empire) until 1940 (taken over by the new People's Republic of China).

Having said that, the Dalai Lama's path is probably the best strategy for Tibetan nationalists.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 25 May 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Both sides are saying that human rights violations in Tibet today are gross and unacceptable. I think cabana is evading the point by implying that Cueball does not recognise those outrages because he does not support the independence movement.

On the other hand, there is a case for independence which I don't think is addressed by denouncing "black and white views of history." Neither the pro-independence nor the "autonomy" position are black-and-white; both are appealing to practicality and to history as to the solution to the problem that both acknowledge is there.

I think that making reference to Chinese control in centuries past tends to gloss over the violent and unprovoked invasion and conquest of Tibet. There may be an argument to be made for Tibet's remaining within China, but it has nothing to do with independence supporters having a "black and white view of history"; that is a red herring and an abusive ad hominem to boot.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 25 May 2005 07:12 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
President Hu said the Chinese Government and its people supports the "just cause" of Palestinians, saying the way to establish an independent Palestinian state is to conduct political negotiations on UN resolutions, and resume the Road Map peace plan.

Well the chineese certainly don't support self-determination for the Palestinians if they want to see the Road Map peace plan implemented. Don't foget, that's the plan that only gives the Palestinians 22% of the West Bank, in three bantiuized enclaves. It also does nothing about the Israeli settlements, nothing about the Apartheid wall, and it forces the Palestinian Authority to reign in Hamas (a near impossible task) before Israel is obliged to live up to it's side of the agreement. And don't forget that the authors of the peace plan were none other than George Bush and Ariel Sharon. That China is now endorsing this plan is essentailly meaningless.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 07:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
A strong case could be made that there was no China before the 20th C, just as theire was no Israel. Both make claims to be successors to earlier states, but that doesn't necessarily make those claims true. Bear in mind that the first Chinese Republicans (Sun Yat-sen's movement) invented Chinese nationalism as an attempt to break away from the Qing (Manchu) empire. A fair interpretation of international law would grant the same self-determaintion rights to Palestine and Tibet -- you might even make a stronger legal case for Tibet than for Palestine, since it was an independent state from about 1911 (fall of the Qing empire) until 1940 (taken over by the new People's Republic of China).

I don't buy it. To argue this is to argue that England ceased to be England after Oliver Cromwell.

And it is 1950, not 1940. A typo surely.

I would even go further on the right of self-determination stating that it is absolute in all cases, regardless of history. So, I agree that the same interpretation of international law applies. What kind of law would it be if we were to say apply one kind of law to Slobodan Milosovic and then another to Madeline Albright?

My point, however, is that there seems to be a substantial body of opinion from within Tibet itself which recognizes the sovereingty of the PRC, and there are clear historical precedents for that. Anytime there is a distinct national group within a larger state structure there are voices for complete independence, this is as true of Canada as it is of China. The question is how do we measure the strength of those voices?

Simply pointing to the existence of an indiginous independence movement is not enough, nor is it enough to note that it is oppressed ruthlessly. Nor can we ignore other key factors, such as the manipulation of indiginous independence movements by outside forces? I mean: Are we to presume that the Nepalese Maoist guerillas exist as a force in Nepal completely independent of Chinese support?

Lets not be dumb, ok?

We know for a fact that Tibetan independence is a direct result both of the natural destabalization of the imperial system in China due to social evolution, and direct attack upon China by European empires, and that Tibet won its independence as a direct result of British invasion for imperial purposes. We also know that even after the British left, they actively pursued a policy of direct interference that included arming the Tibetan nationalist movement.

This does not undermine, in my view, the potential legitimacy of the Tibetan Indpendence movement, but does bring into question its inherent strength. At the same time there have always been legitimate Tibetan voices that supported the position that Tibet is part of China as an autonmous zone. In fact, parts of religious oligarchy which claims entitlement, often appealed to the authority of China to legitimate itself, against other factions in the Bhuddist oligargchy. These voices often remain unheard, or discredited, in a media environment overtly tilted against any of the communist regiemes, and favoured a view that dovetailed very nicely with British and now US foreign policy objectives in regard to China.

As Cabana me banana points out: Notice now, how cynically Mr. Martin has turned on the Dalai Lama, now that it has been decided that we in the west can do business with China? This snub underscores the point that we must be very wary of how we look at moral dilemas that are heavily influenced by super-power politics.

These political dynamics go back nearly a millenium, those revolving around Israel but 50 years. I think that is relevant.

quote:
On the other hand, there is a case for independence which I don't think is addressed by denouncing "black and white views of history." Neither the pro-independence nor the "autonomy" position are black-and-white; both are appealing to practicality and to history as to the solution to the problem that both acknowledge is there.

A better rendering of my point, I think.

And again, a key point of difference is that Israel insists that the Palestinians are not and shall never be Israelis. Palestinians are not even being offered the choice of inclusion.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 25 May 2005 07:33 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I agree as to that key point of difference; many countries, America and most of the EU included, have minorities within them that were conquered at one time or another, but in those cases, the conquered are full and equal citizens of the nation as it exists today. The Palestinians, an indigenous majority in the territory Zionists call the Land of Israel, are denied equal citizenship.
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 25 May 2005 07:47 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, 1940 is a typo for 1950. Babble is safe zone for typos, right?

quote:
In fact, parts of religious oligarchy which claims entitlement, often appealed to the authority of China to legitimate itself, against other factions in the Bhuddist oligargchy.

See, this is the historical distinction i'm attempting to make. the appeal was not to "China," which like modern Israel is a social construct of the 20th C. It was to a dynastic ruler. Modern Chinese nationalism is exactly analogous to Zionism and can't be read backwards into historical periods where it would not have been understood in the same way.

But i actually agree that self-determination exists regardless of historical claims one way or another. So history shouldn't be used to bolster the People's Republic's claims to Tibet -- when it is, there will be those of us who point out that the history can be used the other way, and that the Tibetan self-determination case from a historical perspective is a strong one, stronger in fact than China's claims about wayward provinces. For instance, we certainly don't know that Tibetan independence is the result of imperial meddling, unless we also acknowledge that an independent Mongolia is the result of Soviet imperialism, an independent Korea is the result of Japanese imperialism, an independent Iraq is the result of British imperialism, and an independent China is also the result of the imperial moment and an imperialist power itself. There is exactly as much pre-modern precedent for an independent Tibet as there is for an independent China.

And the power imbalance being what it is, the fact that some Tibetan nationalists are willing to make a pragmatic accomodation with Chinese rule should not be taken to mean that they would not in fact prefer independence.

Well: free Tibet, free Palestine: the same struggle, ultimately.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 25 May 2005 10:02 PM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, do you hold the same twisted position when considering China's claim to Taiwan?
From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 10:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Free the Cree! Free Quebec!

Look, why don't you read my posts for content. It appears that anything that I say that might actually explain the nuances of the historical situation wherein China is not portrayed as anything less than evil incarnate, will just be one more soapbox for you to denounce me and China. So what is the point?

If you bothered you would see that I more-or-less argued the same position in regard to Israel's good friend Turkey in regard to the Kurds, and also noted that China might be unduly influencing the the Nepalese insurgency. It doesn't seem that anyone else here thinks that my position is hypocritical, only you. Others may think I am wrong, which is fine but at least they have attempeted to understand what I am saying without launching into histrionic tirades and pro forma denounciations.

Its obvious that you have no interest in detailed discussion and would like to reduce the discussion on the board to detractors vs. suppporters, and simplistic ideological sloganeering.

Thanks.

But no thanks.

[ 25 May 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 25 May 2005 10:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
Yes, 1940 is a typo for 1950. Babble is safe zone for typos, right?

See, this is the historical distinction i'm attempting to make. the appeal was not to "China," which like modern Israel is a social construct of the 20th C. It was to a dynastic ruler. Modern Chinese nationalism is exactly analogous to Zionism and can't be read backwards into historical periods where it would not have been understood in the same way.


Yes, I see that is what you are saying but I am arguing that there is a political lineage of statehood that goes back 800 years, to the time the Mongols under Kubilea Khan 'rationalized' China into one entity. So I agree it would not be read in the same way, but I argue that they are different. Certainly, there was a transformation process that occurred with the evolution of the Chinese nationalist movement, led by Sun Yat Sen and inheritted by Chiang Kai Chek and Mao, but that does not mean that they were not reformulating an existent political legacy. The creation of Chinese nationalism was tranformational, whereas Israel was simply created from scratch.

As I pointed out earlier, Oliver Cromwell, and even the French revolutionaries fall into the same category, but few people will argue that neither England or France existed before their tranformation into modern nationalist governments of a more republican and nationalist type. I know that there is a big arguement about when it can be said France came into being but no one will argue that it was an invention of the French revolution.

The Mongols played a very interesting role as rationalizers, it is Ghengis Khan, who rationalized the people of the steppe into a single unit, which we call Mongolia today, and they who actually set the first boundaries of what is today Korea and China. They also played a considerable roll in rationalizing Russia, and bringing together the three principalities of Novogorod, Moscovy and Kiev.

[ 25 May 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 25 May 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So does self-determination also exist for the Jewish people?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 10:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes. But that does not mean that they can "self-determine" that land occupied by others is their's under the imperic pricipal that: "what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine."
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 25 May 2005 11:21 PM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I tried to discuss this with you, although I must say it's difficult in light of all your "nuanced historical analysis". In fact you nuanced yourself in circles around the only important point I have laboured to make:

For four centuries Tibet existed as a unique empire which ran parallel to China's. When Tibetans try to declare independence, China rolls in and quashes it. It has happened twice in the last century. They do not want to be part of China. Every other detail is secondary. Not irrelevant, not meaningless, but secondary.

As for Maccabee, it is interesting that you should bring up Jewish self-determination. Cueball is relentlessly nuanced and intricate in coddling China, but speaks in comparitively blunt quips about Israel.

In fact, if you wanted to make the argument, Israel's claim to the West Bank and Gaza is somewhat stronger than China's to Tibet. China faces neither terrorist attacks on its civilians from Tibetans, nor does it face hostile neighbours which smuggle weapons to Tibetan militants.
I would never make this argument, of course, because, while relevant, it is a side dish to the main course--Israel's status as invader and occupier.

I fully support balanced analysis on the Tibet issue, as long as we're clear the that Chinese are foreign invaders, and their long historical relationship with Tibetans has consistently seen them cast in the role of foreign invaders.


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2005 11:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cabana me banana:
[QB]
For four centuries Tibet existed as a unique empire which ran parallel to China's. When Tibetans try to declare independence, China rolls in and quashes it. It has happened twice in the last century. They do not want to be part of China. Every other detail is secondary. Not irrelevant, not meaningless, but secondary.

This is just wrong.

So your saying this "unique empire," had to declare independence? Why if it it is "unique empire," must it declare indepedence? Well, the truth is because it was a vassal of China and or the Mongols and loosely integrated into China (as an adminstrative unit). In fact it didn't declare independence, it had it thrust upon them by the British.

You constantly make it sound as if the Chinese suddenly invaded Tibet in the 20th century, as if it was a new thing. I am simply pointing out that it is not a new thing at all, and that this whole thing has roots that go back centuries not merely 50 years:

quote:
The Chinese first established relations with Tibet during the T'ang dynasty (618–906), and there were frequent wars of conquest. The Tibetan kingdom was associated with early Mahayana Buddhism, which the scholar Padmasambhava fashioned (8th cent.) into Tibetan Buddhism. Toward the end of the 12th cent. many Indian Buddhists, fleeing before the Muslim invasion, went to Tibet. In the 13th cent. Tibet fell under Mongol influence, which was to last until the 18th cent. In 1270, Kublai Khan, emperor of China, was converted to Buddhism by the abbot of the Sakya lamasery; the abbot returned to Tibet to found the Sakya dynasty (1270–1340) and to become the first priest-king of Tibet. In 1720, the Ch'ing dynasty replaced Mongol rule in Tibet. China thereafter claimed suzerainty, often merely nominal.

History

Interesting that the first emperor (a Mongol) of China converted to Buddhism. Makes you think there are long term historic, social, cultural and religious ties.

None of these long term interelationships can be applied to Israel, as Israel just appeared on the scene 60 years ago.

quote:
China faces neither terrorist attacks on its civilians from Tibetans, nor does it face hostile neighbours which smuggle weapons to Tibetan militants. I would never make this argument, of course, because, while relevant, it is a side dish to the main course--Israel's status as invader and occupier.

This is also false, as the British were constantly backing one or another faction of the Tibetan independece movement. This is not recently so, but in the early period of the revolt western support for the resistance was overt. The Russians were also in on the picture both before and after the advent of the USSR.

What do you think the British invasion of 1904 was?

Also, the idea thay the Palestinian insurgency is supported materially by "hostile neighbours" today is bollocks as well.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 25 May 2005 11:58 PM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why stop there? Tibet was an independent and free kingdom between the 7th and 11th century.

And while your source chooses to take a very forgiving view of Chinese influence during the Mongolian period, "Tibet: Its History, Religion and People" does not. (The book is by Thubten Norbu, and Colin Turnbull, if you're interested).

All this is, of course, perfunctory. Even if I chose to adopt your angle vis a vis Dynastic Chinese rule, that does nothing to allay the carnage which took place during OUR century.

The fact that Britain had very cordial relations with Tsarist Russia in centuries past did little to dissuade them from going at it tooth and nail during the interwar period. Russia changed. So has China.

Why don't you copy and paste a synopsis of Tibetan history through the years 1904-present?


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 May 2005 12:01 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes. But that does not mean that they can "self-determine" that land occupied by others is their's under the imperic pricipal that: "what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine."

So in other words as far as you are concerned there really is no self-determination for Jews since you hold that all of the present state of Israel is occupied land. Thankfully most of the rest of the world understands that Jews have as much right to self determination as do the Tibetans.

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

posted 26 May 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why don't you copy and paste a synopsis of Tibetan history through the years 1904-present?


Why don't you.

And of course the carnage was all inspired by the bloodthirsty reds and had nothing to do with other imperial interests. The guns the Tibetans used to fight the Chinese were manufatctured in high mountain monasteries and fashioned out of clay.

Give me a break.

[ 26 May 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 26 May 2005 12:08 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

So in other words as far as you are concerned there really is no self-determination for Jews since you hold that all of the present state of Israel is occupied land.

Right. But not all Jews live in Israel so lets remind ourselves you are talking about Zionists. Jews (Zionist and otherwise) have the right to self-determination regarding their rights within the countries that they were born or in countries they legally immigrate to, not in countries and lands they take by force of arms. Just like everyone else.

You really are getting old. This line of arguement is from the 50's.

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 26 May 2005 12:13 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know that there is a big arguement about when it can be said France came into being but no one will argue that it was an invention of the French revolution.

Actually, many people would argue exactly that. The French nation and the French state were born in 1789, replacing a dynastic state that was no more "French" than Greece was German. This is a fairly mainstream view among scholars of nationalism.

There's a lot of what i would call historical misunderstanding in what you say about China and Tiobet, Cueball. Do you want to go into it, or has this line of discussion been tapped out?


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 26 May 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And of course the carnage was all inspired by the bloodthirsty reds and had nothing to do with other imperial interests. The guns the Tibetans used to fight the Chinese were manufatctured in high mountain monasteries and fashioned out of clay.

What's the point?


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 26 May 2005 12:18 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Right. But not all Jews live in Israel so lets remind ourselves you are talking about Zionists. Jews (Zionist and otherwise) have the right to self-determination regarding their rights within the countries that they were born or in countries they legally immigrate to, not in countries and lands they take by force of arms. Just like everyone else.

You really are getting old. This line of arguement is from the 50's.

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Hmmm so let me understand your line of thought, Native people here in canada or for that matter any Aboriginal people have the unfettered right of self-determination in the lands stolen from them by force of arms? Am I understanding you now?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 26 May 2005 12:18 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whatever. This is the Mideast forum, lets take it back to the middle east. I agree with you Cueball regarding Jewish self-determination.

Jews do not HAVE to self-determine on that particular piece of land. Let's not forget that the frst Zionist Congresses considered many other unpopulated sites for a Jewish State, (even pieces of modern-day Uganda and Western Ontario, as amazing as it sounds.)

quote:
Native people here in canada or for that matter any Aboriginal people have the unfettered right of self-determination in the lands stolen from them by force of arms? Am I understanding you now?

If there was any justice...

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: cabana me banana ]


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 May 2005 12:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:

Actually, many people would argue exactly that. The French nation and the French state were born in 1789, replacing a dynastic state that was no more "French" than Greece was German. This is a fairly mainstream view among scholars of nationalism.

There's a lot of what i would call historical misunderstanding in what you say about China and Tiobet, Cueball. Do you want to go into it, or has this line of discussion been tapped out?


So you are saying that Israel's creation was a transformation of political tendencies, sprung from existing regional social and cultural traditions, which can show a direct lineage to say, the Abasayd Caliphs, or perhaps Ottoman adminstrative structure of the Beys?

Or you are saying that France sprang out of nowhere, and wasn't formed out of existing social organizations linked by culture and language, as well as politcal organization arrayed around the monarchy?

[ 26 May 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 26 May 2005 12:50 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cabana me banana:

What's the point?


The point is that the Tibetan indpendence movement is as much a creation of European imperial designs as its anti-thesis is a creation of Chinese imperial designs. In such a situation I have a hard time cultivating the gall to fall squarely in one court or the other.

While I sympathize with those who are repressed by the Chinese state, I have a hard time believing that all Tibetans unanimously agree that seperation from China is the absolute best course. I reason this, on the basis that a number of highly placed Tibetan's have argued against independence, (including the Dalai Lama,) and have suggested that this is because there are long standing traditional relationships that have integrated the two peoples, as I have exampled through reference to the historical record of the last 800 years.

Certainly there is an element of coercion here, but it is also true that the Tibetan economy is naturally dependent on the Chinese economy for manufactured goods, et al, so there are also natural economic relationships which I am sure many Tibetans value.

You will find that a large number of Kurds also support the notion of autonomy within Turkey, in the same manner for the same reasons.

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 26 May 2005 12:58 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
France didn't spring out of nowhere, no. But the nation and the state were radically transformed into something else after 1789. At that time, less than 10% of the people spoke French, for instance. It would be a mistake to assume there was a timeless France existing throughy all time. Ditto for China, which was radically re-invented from a dynastic empire (analogous to the Ottomans) into a modern state. Patron-client relations between the Dalai Lama and the Mongol or Manchu emperor do not mean the same thing as Chinese sovereignty (or suzerainty, to use the word used at the time) today. And certainly no claim was established -- not one any stronger than the Ottoman claim to Palestine, or the British Crown's claim to rule the Iroquois Confederacy, to grab another case of unequal alliance out of the air.

What i'm arguing against is the idea that Tibetan independence is somehow less legitimate than Chinese independence. You seem to be assuming that the unity of China was disrupted by British imperialism, and that's the sole cause of an independent Tibet. That's a very narrow reading.

It may be that the best solution is one much like the traditional patron-client relationships between the Dalai Lama and an emperor in Beijing. Those usually granted Tibet control of its own affairs, though, in exchage for protection, plus a division of powers throughout the empire -- the Dalai Lama had spiritual authority over the emperor, while the emperor held temporal authority. Personally, i think this pragmatic accomodation to power is behind the Dalai Lama's willingness to compromise.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 26 May 2005 02:52 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know how relevant my comments are to this thread, but I just thought I'd chime in and make some comments on one of the supreme ironies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It's really funny how some Israeli rabbis search the planet for members of the lost tribes of Israel to gather to the Israelite homeland when they have real live decendants of first century Jews right there in their midst by the millions.

Who are these people? They are called "Palestinians"...the exact same folks as anyone within Arab Jewry, only difference is they are decendants of Jewish Christians and then converted to Islam centuries later. Many Syrian and Lebanonese Christians are decendants of Jews as well, and the same can be said of many of their Muslim neighbors.

And that ain't even the end of it! We haven't even begun to talk about the impact exiled Israelites had on the gene pools of modern day Iranians via the Assyrian Empire or the Iraqis via the Babylonian Empire.

Open up a phone book in any major city in Saudi Arabia and you'll find variations of the name "Lihi" listed. These decendants of ancient Lihiyanites (also referred to as Lehites) make up roughly a third of the Saudi population. Who were these people? Descendants of Israelites who fled into the wilderness rather than being taken into exile, as well as descendants of Israelite Temple Priests who objected to Josiah's reforms of Israel's temple cult. Their decendants continued in this traditoin and became the backbone of early Islam.

The blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was always meant to unite humanity, not divide it.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 May 2005 05:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is one of the sad conundrums, without a doubt

quote:
What i'm arguing against is the idea that Tibetan independence is somehow less legitimate than Chinese independence. You seem to be assuming that the unity of China was disrupted by British imperialism, and that's the sole cause of an independent Tibet. That's a very narrow reading.

I think you and I actually agree more or less. And I think I pointed out more than once that Tibet was a vassal state. What was disrupted was this relationship. But I was arguing that this realtionship was not entirely unsuported by authorities in Tibet. For instance the Tibetans actively resisted the British invasion of 1904, as part of their age old seclusion policy, which the British and Russians both actively sought to overturn -- it was something of a "cause celebre" of the (British) Royal Geographical Society -- "discovering" the "unknown" heathen lands, christiandom and all that rot and then the "The Maxim gun they have not."

At this point it became clear that China was not able to fulfill its role as imperial protector. Lets not forget that it was generally accepted, and often explicitly expressed that the superior state had the responsibility to protect its vassals and that states on the periphery of empires often accepted vassalage on the principal of "better the devil you know." The Chinese proved their inability, and the traditional relationship caved in from there.

We are perhaps guilty of slicing the cake to thin.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 27 May 2005 10:34 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Macabee:
So in other words as far as you are concerned there really is no self-determination for Jews since you hold that all of the present state of Israel is occupied land. Thankfully most of the rest of the world understands that Jews have as much right to self determination as do the Tibetans.

Self D should not come on the backs of others. Nation states tend to do this. Only when states are smashed into oblivion will there be true sefl d for all.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 29 May 2005 11:43 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Macabee:
So in other words as far as you are concerned there really is no self-determination for Jews since you hold that all of the present state of Israel is occupied land. Thankfully most of the rest of the world understands that Jews have as much right to self determination as do the Tibetans.

No, most of the world recognises the right of the Palestinians to their homeland. I believe you are thinking of a somewhat smaller group consisting of neocons, Christian fundementalists, Turkish and Chinese arms dealers, and a few guilt-ridden Europeans.

Yours is a fairly simple "ends justify the means" sort of argument; you say that self-determination for the Jewish people is a good (although, looking at the results, that is a highly debatable proposition) and therefore in the absence of land actually belonging to the Jewish people, whatever they can take, it is good for them to take.

Your argument avoids the question of what was done to the Palestinians or what their rights to their homeland are; the right of Jewish self-determination is presented as the supreme value.

This is, of course, Jabotinsky's basic argument in "The Iron Wall":

"We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.

There is no other morality."

All of which is very fine-sounding to certain people's ears, but it constitutes a basic moral mistake: you cannot seperate the good of the end from the means necessary to attain it.

I might (suppose) make a good case to you that I need and deserve a car. I am a hard-working, clean-living individual, I need it for my job, my mother is sick and needs rides to the doctor, etc.

But if I jack a family's car off the interstate, shoot the driver, and leave the baby in its carseat to die of exposure on the side of the road -- well, the moral meaning of my action cannot begin and end with my need for a car.

Jewish self-determination did not come into existence and cannot sustain itself without violence, dishonesty, and theft on a vast scale. It cannot exist anywhere without violating the rights of the Palestinians, and furthermore, Zionists have known this about their enterprise almost from the very beginning.

I cannot say, though my end be ever so good "There is no other morality." If I do, I have no morality at all.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 29 May 2005 11:52 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The trouble with your analysis Farrell is that this would be equally true for every nation today that has by your definition expropriated land from others. Canada, United States, Austrailia to name but three democratic nations that fall into your thesis.

Yet only Israel is targeted, only one nationalist cause, Zionism, is pointed to as evil. That is what raises concern and justifiably so.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 30 May 2005 01:01 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
A key point is that the injustice continues. America stole land from the Native Americans, but today, besides a tardy and long-overdue effort to return some of those lands, every native American is an equal citizen of the United States.

The same is true of every Catholic in Northern Ireland and every Basque in Spain.

The Chinese displaced ancient peoples in their forgotten spread across Asia, but there are not today millions of people on their borders asking to return home, complete with deeds to land and keys to their houses.

Zionism cannot survive without extending and compounding the original injustice. And it is a deeply hypocritical ideology. On the one hand, their only basis for seizing Palestine above any other land was the claim of a distant relationship to people who inhabited it 2,000 years ago. On the moral strength of that claim, they forced their way in.

Faced with a dispora not 2,000 years old but 50, and carried forward not by distantly related co-religionists but by people who stood themselves in the doors of their homes before their expulsion, Zionists say -- "So sorry -- impersonal forces of history -- can't re-write the past."


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 May 2005 01:19 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
A key point is that the injustice continues. America stole land from the Native Americans, but today, besides a tardy and long-overdue effort to return some of those lands, every native American is an equal citizen of the United States.

And native North American's(along with black American's) have the highest rates of infant mortality in the western hemisphere. The same two ethnic groups have the lowest adult longevity, highest rates of poverty, and are over-represented in the American gulag population.

The US and Canada are world renowned for neglect of our native people. They are considered equal with respect to lip service paid to human rights by right-wing politicians. When it comes to employment advancement, the colour of the street disappears with every floor ascended of the marble floor banks and environmentally controlled corporate towers. Economic inequality along ethnic divisions is what defines western society. Not nearly equal, no.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 May 2005 02:21 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Yet only Israel is targeted, only one nationalist cause, Zionism, is pointed to as evil. That is what raises concern and justifiably so.

Have you actually bothered to read any of the other postings on this thread, wherein China is repeatedly attacked for its position on Tibet? In fact it has been the major topic of this thread?

But you are trying to maintain only Israel is identified negatively?

The problem with your floating relativist morality, is that you find yourself arguing one thing in favour of Israel one day, and then arguing its complete opposite the next.

The resulting logical hodge-podge makes you look morally corrupt. It appears that this happens to you because the single consistent grounding point for your world view is not a moral construct, or philosophical idea, but Israeli Nationalism. Morality and philosphical ideas are merely put to the service of that on the basis of what appears to work in the immediate framework based soley on the basis of pro-Israeli bias.

If this were not the case, then there is no way you could even think of trying to push on us the idea that "Yet only Israel is targeted, only one nationalist cause, Zionism, is pointed to as evil."

When in the very same thread Swallow made this statements, which was generally echoed by a number of people:

quote:
Well: free Tibet, free Palestine: the same struggle, ultimately.

The reason of course that you need to apply this constantly shifting arsenal of moral justification, that manifests itself in these glaring fallsehoods, is of course that Israel's actions in regards to the Palestinians is so obviously self-serving and a-moral that there is no consitent moral of philosophical world view which can explain its actions and at the same time remain logically viable.

Today you would have us support what you call Jewish (or Israeli) self-determination, while at the same time glossing over the fact that the self-determination you are defending, is based on denying Palestinians that self-same right.

If I were less polite I might describe this kind of fluttering from one moral code to another for the sake of convenience as self-seving hypocrisy that amount to outright lies... but I wont.

[ 30 May 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 30 May 2005 08:20 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
A key point is that the injustice continues. America stole land from the Native Americans, but today, besides a tardy and long-overdue effort to return some of those lands, every native American is an equal citizen of the United States.

The same is true of every Catholic in Northern Ireland and every Basque in Spain.

The Chinese displaced ancient peoples in their forgotten spread across Asia, but there are not today millions of people on their borders asking to return home, complete with deeds to land and keys to their houses.

Zionism cannot survive without extending and compounding the original injustice. And it is a deeply hypocritical ideology. On the one hand, their only basis for seizing Palestine above any other land was the claim of a distant relationship to people who inhabited it 2,000 years ago. On the moral strength of that claim, they forced their way in.

Faced with a dispora not 2,000 years old but 50, and carried forward not by distantly related co-religionists but by people who stood themselves in the doors of their homes before their expulsion, Zionists say -- "So sorry -- impersonal forces of history -- can't re-write the past."


You truly believe that Native Americans are equal as you describe? Clearly you havent visited with many Native Americans or spoken to their leadership.

As for your view of Middle East history it is as equally cockeyed as your understanding of equality and discrimination.


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

posted 30 May 2005 08:24 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Today you would have us support what you call Jewish (or Israeli) self-determination, while at the same time glossing over the fact that the self-determination you are defending, is based on denying Palestinians that self-same right.


I have never denied Palestinians that same right (if you want to talk about lies why dont you start there?)in fact I have always held that in order for there to be a true peace we must have a two-state solution and self-determination for both peoples.

It is you , it seems to me, that would give self determination to one people by advocating a one state solution that by all understanding would signal the end of the Jewish state.


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

posted 30 May 2005 08:50 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fascinating discussion. Such a world tour. Sorry I never noticed it before.

I'm sure this is a bit of a drift, and it always pains me to disagree with my friend swallow, but I felt I had to make a small peep about the construction of historical and national consciousness in France.

I read the French C17, the period of high classicism in French literature and also, even more interestingly, I think, the period in which we can watch the beginnings of French historiography, which in a sense amounts to the creation of a creation story. Its other immense value, of course, is its gathering power as a meditation on historical catastrophe thus far and the potential for reviving in France the old European dream of the Republic.

Both those projects are clearly evident by the mid-C17 in French writing, and they are fully formed and inexorable by the turn of the century.

And just as a loose memory, I think of Henri de Navarre, who became Henri IV (and here we're already back in the late C16) and was clearly a dedicated builder of national consciousness. Remember the great line about putting a chicken in every pot?

I think that claims of the building of national consciousness in Europe must be exceptionally nuanced. Whenever I've tried to pin down any origins, I have just found myself going back and back and back, at least as far as David Hume did, into the Middle Ages, to the point where the great migrations begin to settle down.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 30 May 2005 09:22 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
You truly believe that Native Americans are equal as you describe? Clearly you havent visited with many Native Americans or spoken to their leadership.

As for your view of Middle East history it is as equally cockeyed as your understanding of equality and discrimination.


If you will suggest these historical parallels, then you need to pay attention to the details. Native Americans are equal citizens under the law. Palestinians are not. Native Americans still suffer discrimination (I never implied otherwise), but they are vastly better off than the Palestinians, who are denied citizenship and equal rights in the nation-state that stole their homeland.

Besides the recycled ad homineum, you don't have an argument, or you are hiding it well. "You don't understand history" is Zionist-speak for "hold on while I come up with some excuse for my racist double standards."

In fact there's nothing wrong with my history -- which is really more like current events. A hostile minority forced their way onto someone else's land. They have no right of self-determination on someone else's land. You can argue that it is too late to change borders; but it is never too late to empower the people trapped within them.

[ 30 May 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 May 2005 01:55 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

I think that claims of the building of national consciousness in Europe must be exceptionally nuanced. Whenever I've tried to pin down any origins, I have just found myself going back and back and back, at least as far as David Hume did, into the Middle Ages, to the point where the great migrations begin to settle down.

By that you mean after the Mongols had finished "rationalizing" the silk road?

I actually followed up on this with a little research, and I asked someone who is somewhat better versed on this subject than I, and asked about the claim that only 10% of people incorporated into France after 1793 spoke French.

Their response was:

"What is a language? Some people say it is a dialect with an army behind it. I mean: do people in tent city in Toronto speak English?"

[ 31 May 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 31 May 2005 02:01 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Besides the recycled ad homineum, you don't have an argument, or you are hiding it well. "You don't understand history" is Zionist-speak for "hold on while I come up with some excuse for my racist double standards."


It great to have you around farrel.


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