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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Abbas: Era of Suicide Bombers May be Over

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Abbas: Era of Suicide Bombers May be Over
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 30 May 2005 03:45 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"We stopped the culture of violence," [Abbas] added, "and the Palestinian people have started looking at it as something that should be condemned and it should stop."

Haaretz

Interesting, if brief, snippet. How much of this is purely internal politics (Abbas badly needs to take Hamas down a peg for his own political survival) and how much is positioning on the grander scale, it does appear that Abbas is willingly taking the PA in a drastically different route than Arafat did.

I wonder if our esteemed babblers could give their impression on this public statement (to a US news agency, no less), and its possible impact on the current conflict.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 30 May 2005 07:15 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What route would you say Arafat took the PA? Did he really take the PA in any route at all? Seems to me Arafat wanted to take the PA down a route that involved a Palestinian state, and when that didn't happen and Ariel Sharon pushed a political ploy for a comeback into a volatile situation, events overtook him.

I suspect that if Abbas tries to pursue a nonviolent route but has no really strong agenda of nonviolent resistance to replace the violent kind, events are gonna overtake him too.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 30 May 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think it's necessarily a non-violent route. I think what Abbas' primary short-term goal is, is to centralize military power under his rule and establish himself as the sole legitimate voice for Palestine.

Whatever else can be said of Arafat, and maybe it was a function of his iconic status, he did not seek to do any such thing. Frankly, I think he preferred to have Hamas there and engaging Israel in a violent manner. Abbas sees things differently.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 30 May 2005 08:25 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I don't agree with th eprevious post which assumed that Arafat had a legitimate tact. He did not. He rejected that last peace offer to him (which was not perfect but contianed many of the elements now sought) andattempted to use terrorism as a tact to get his cake and eat it too. So Abas must take a different tact.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 May 2005 10:09 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whoa careful Peech you will now have opened he flood-gates
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 30 May 2005 10:10 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Isn't that what dialogue is all about?

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 May 2005 11:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quit trolling, Macabee.

Welcome to babble, Peech.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 31 May 2005 01:30 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mac, did you notice that I was suggesting Arafat was seeking to accomodate Hamas militarily?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 May 2005 02:02 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course he did. He had to co-opt the infrastructure in order to control it.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 31 May 2005 04:05 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Well, I'd have to say I disagree with all and sundry. Firstly, Arafat did not reject "the last offer" (which in any case was a pretty lousy offer). He took it under consideration. Barak then packed up and abandoned the talks. Barak, therefore, was the one who ended the talks.

Just as importantly, Israel's voters swiftly rejected Barak's (comparative) generosity and elected Ariel Sharon, "the bulldozer" a settlement-builder and war criminal par excellence. So it was ultimately the Israeli electorate that rejected peace and chose war.

Secondly, Arafat was the accomodationist. He imprisoned hundreds of Hamas members in his day -- a dozen members of Hamas died in Arafat's prisons. He confiscated weapons, shared intelligence, gave on return; the lot. In return, of course, he got more of the same from Israel; nothing but settlements, closures, and endless stalling.

Ultimately Arafat realized he'd been had and tried to use the second intifada to force Israel back to the bargining table. He witheld cooperation and helped arm militants -- very understandably.

Abbas believes in non-violence, but not in accomodation. He seems to have learned from Arafat's mistakes and refuses to attack Hamas, confiscate weapons or concede anything or borders or return prior to final status talks. This is both smart and popular. It is smart because Israel response positively to pressure and negetively to signs of weakness; disarm Hamas and Israel will feel that much less urgency to end the occupation.

It is popular because Palestinians know that the one advantage they have over the Israelis is that they are not on the verge of a civil war. They know Israel is working the classic colonial strategy of playing one group of natives against the other. They are going to hold on to their weapons, stop attacks and hope the political leadership comes through with a deal. Which is, incidentally, the definition of a cease-fire (not one side disarming itself while the other contributes nothing but demands.)

Unfortunately, this strategy is already starting to break down. Palestinians see that even with a leader committed to non-violence, a Hamas agreeing to the 1967 borders (as a "long-term interium agreement" in Israeli parlance), and an effective truce in place, the Israelis will not stop building settlements, will not start talks on a permanent settlement, will not lift the internal closure.

It's business as usual for Zionism inc., and consequently we see an uptick in rocket and shooting attacks, by hardliners at first, then more aggressive Israeli attacks, airstrikes, housing demolitions, leading to more attacks on Israelis, and before you know it, the 3rd intifada.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panasonic
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9220

posted 31 May 2005 10:41 AM      Profile for Panasonic        Edit/Delete Post
It seems simple enough.

Take the path of Non-violent confrontation stick to your core beliefs and in time with patience you will have achieved your goals.

With NVC you maintain the higher moral ground which gives you the empathy and needed support of the world around you.

Had the Palestinians done this where would they be today?

They would have their own state.

Self Determination.

They would economically be far ahead of the rest of the Middle East.

A Free Secular Palestine next to another Free country Israel.

How unique!

Now, once I took a look at the goals and the core beliefs of the Palestinians then for me the light bulb went off.

Non-violent Confrontation didn't align with the Palestinians goals or core beliefs.

The problem for Abbas is now that you have Muslims blowing up other Muslims in Iraq its hard to sell S-Bombers as a response to the actions of the IDF.

Before you could toss a party for the family of a suicide bomber because he killed Jews.

Today you have X-amount of Iraqies getting killed each day and that just isn't as joyful as dead Jews.

The news reports have bombs going off in Pakistan this weekend. Go figure.

The Genie is out of the bottle and the Islamists can't put it back in. Its now part of the culture.

It seems so simple.

Non-violence was never an option because that which it would have gained held no interest.


From: Windsor | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 31 May 2005 11:45 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, there's a racist screed if ever there was one. Tell me Panasonic, how would non-violent resistance have stopped the settlement expansions? It hasn't stopped the wall.

And of course your perfectly blind-folded eyes recognizes no foreign intervention in Iraq? These are not Arabs fighting an occupation to you, but Islamists fighting Islamists, right? To you all Arabs are Islamists?

On the larger issue, if Palestinian violence has come to an end, great. Now if only something could be done about Israeli violence.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 31 May 2005 11:52 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Take the path of Non-violent confrontation stick to your core beliefs and in time with patience you will have achieved your goals.

This is a fine ideal, but go tell that to the pieces of Rachel Corrie that are still stuck between a bulldozer's tracks.

Try this idea on for size: maybe Israel should practice non-violence.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Panasonic
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9220

posted 31 May 2005 12:13 PM      Profile for Panasonic        Edit/Delete Post
My God WingNut,

For once can someone in the MidEast section of babble do better than racist?

Technically aren't the Jews the same race of people as their Palestinian conterparts?

Just once.

Take what I said and tear it apart.

Prove me wrong.

Had Non-Violence been used the whole issue of Settlements would have never come up. The fence would not have gone up. Instead of Bull Dozers you would have had tractors.

The point back is that had Non-violence been the choosen method Israel would have come off as storm troopers and overlords.

The Palestinians would have held the higher moral ground based on their actions they would have acheived more.

But that is all based on the idea that their goals had to do with Self Determination.

Today who calls the tune in both Israel and Palestine? Zionists on one side and Islamists on the other.

Non-Violence had a good twenty year opportunity to take hold and now that time has passed.

Apply it anywhere you want.

If your against abortion bombing a clinic proves what?

If you want the English out of Ireland bombing a department store proves what?

If your an Eco activist setting a car dealership on fire proved what?

So today the Suicide bomber is in play in Pakistan as the Shites and Sunnies go at it.

Now in the example of Pakistan which side has the freedom fighters snd which side is the occupiers?

Jack.


From: Windsor | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 31 May 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Non-violent Confrontation didn't align with the Palestinians goals or core beliefs.

Core beliefs? Palestinians are inherently violent?

quote:
Today you have X-amount of Iraqies getting killed each day and that just isn't as joyful as dead Jews.

Macabee might call this demonizing (if you were speaking of Israelis).

quote:
The Genie is out of the bottle and the Islamists can't put it back in. Its now part of the culture.

Part of the culture? Their culture? Not ours? Not Israeli? Only their culture?

You can say they are technically the same people, but to be born Palestinian in Israel or the West Bank is quite different than to be born Jewish and the hatred between the two groups is palpable.

I mostly agree with you on the issue of violence. But I would suggest to you that even in periods of relative calm and during peace negotiations settlement activity did not slow down one bit and, in fact, accelerated to "change the facts on the ground."

The Wall is not a response to violence. A response to violence would be to withdraw from the West Bank and build a wall along internationally recognized borders. The Wall is both a land grab and an effort to isolate Palestinian communities and alienate them from their traditional activites, land and each other. It is a crime against humanity.

Almost all protests against Wall construction have been peaceful and yet Palestinians continue to die, the Wall continues to be built and world opinion and media attention continues to be disinterested.

So why is Palestinian violence an issue but Israeli violence accepted?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 31 May 2005 01:15 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
This idea that non violence is the answer is ridiculous. You can't have one without the other. Read fucking Derrida. As for morals, fuck morals, morals don't exist. When the Israelis roll with tanks and bulldozers they have no problem droping constructed moralism at the door.

Further with the violence question, the palestinian struggle has grown in popularity since the intifada of 87. The VIOLENT one. Violence does work, it matters how it's propagated but can work. In India there was violence to which actually wore down the Brits. It was just as important as what Ghandi was doing. Obviously those in power prefer the retoric of King to say X. One is a bit more legitimizing of the social order then the other.

As for two states, it would be like legitimizing all white south africa(they were buddies with israel btw). People should cheer the crumbling of Israel.And ultimately all states, but certainly that one.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 May 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Panasonic:

Take the path of Non-violent confrontation stick to your core beliefs and in time with patience you will have achieved your goals.

How nice that we alwayss find time to moralize to the downtrodden about non-violence, and then arm our police forces to the hilt.

Of course the fact that the IDF has admitted that their undercover agents infiltrate Palestinian demonstrations and throw stones at the cops or the IDF, will not convince you that it is Israeli policy to encourage confrontation, not disarm it.

quote:
Had Non-Violence been used the whole issue of Settlements would have never come up. The fence would not have gone up. Instead of Bull Dozers you would have had tractors.

Actually the fence idea has been around a very long time. Try googling this: Allon Plan.

The Allon plan was first publicly viewed not 2 months after the blood from the 1967 Israeli invasion of JOrdan, Egypt and Syria had dried. This plan outlines the settlement plan roughly along the same lines as we see it today, it is complete with geoglogical surveys and extensive urban planning, including the construction of bypass roads and security fences.

Panasonic, can you imagine the city of Toronto putting together a plan to develop its waterfront in less than 2 months, let alone 2 years or even 20? Yet Israel puts together a whole resettlment plan for the West Bank in the same period? Any architect or urban planner will tell you the idea is ridiculous and the plan must have been in the works for years.

Conclusion: Israel had been working on a plan for the division and settlement of the West Bank prior to the beginiing of the 1967 war.

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 31 May 2005 05:00 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nevermind that, Our core beliefs offer qualms about using massive violence against a country that did nothing to us, kill over a 100,000 of them, and don't even think twice about continued use of our SUV's.

But they should use non-violence. Makes it easier for our tanks as we run over them.


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

posted 31 May 2005 05:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

This can be found in the "History" section ay the Jewish Cultural Library. Mis-categorized obviously given that the Allon Plan is the present day reality (and possible futture) for Palestinians, not history at all.

The Allon Plan was adopted by the Israeli govenrment in 1968, long before the first sucide bombing occurred in April 1993.

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 01 June 2005 02:55 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Take the path of Non-violent confrontation stick to your core beliefs and in time with patience you will have achieved your goals.

With NVC you maintain the higher moral ground which gives you the empathy and needed support of the world around you.

Had the Palestinians done this where would they be today?


I would argue that most Palestinians have remained nonviolent throughout the history of the occupation of their country, and that the Palestinian "violence" that gets referred to is perpetrated by a tiny fraction of the Palestinian population. The actions of suicide bombers do not represent the vast majority of Palestinians who have employed nonviolent resistance, similar to that of African-Americans during the civil rights movement.

It is precisely this culture of nonviolence amongst the vast majority of Palestinians that has resulted in the Palestinian cause receiving the support that it has among progressives.

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Panasonic
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9220

posted 01 June 2005 10:58 AM      Profile for Panasonic        Edit/Delete Post
Vigalante,

quote:
This idea that non violence is the answer is ridiculous.

Turn a phrase, "This idea that violence is not the answer is ridiculous."

Clear, Crystal Clear.

Got it.

Pretty much what we have today.

Violence is the answer.


From: Windsor | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 01 June 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Violence is the answer.

It works for Israel.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 01:45 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, it really doesn't.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 June 2005 03:44 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Quit trolling, Macabee.

Welcome to babble, Peech.


Sorry quite right....

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

posted 01 June 2005 03:51 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
As for two states, it would be like legitimizing all white south africa(they were buddies with israel btw). People should cheer the crumbling of Israel.And ultimately all states, but certainly that one.
As far as I am concerned this is an anti-Semitic statement.

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

posted 01 June 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As far as I'm concerned, it isn't.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 04:02 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a difference between thinking someone is wrong, and I think Vigilante is wrong on a lot of things including his priorities when it comes to Israel/Palestine, and suggesting their comments which say nothing about Jews or Jewish people are anti-Semitic.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 04:03 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moreover, do you have anything to say about the topic at hand, Macabee? Instead of repeating the same smear over and over and over again?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 01 June 2005 04:09 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
As far as I'm concerned, it isn't.

Guess we are all entitled to our opinion but for me anyone who specifically supports the destruction of the world's only Jewish state is engaging in anti-Semitism.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 04:14 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Except, as an Anarchist (which I am not at all) he HAS to posit the fall of ANY state, INCLUDING Israel, as a good thing. We both think he's wrong there. In fact, as I examine and discuss the issue more, the further I get from my once closely-held belief in a One-State solution (but it's still not anti-Semitic to believe in it). So there you go.

But Mac: Do you have any comments on Abbas' public statement and what it means to the Peace Process and internal Palestinian politics?

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 June 2005 04:23 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Plus, he did not say "destruction." He said "crumbling," which is very close to the traditional Marxian notion of the "withering away" of the state. And as Coyote notes, he is an anarchist, and was consistently looking forward to the end of nation-states in general.

Also, Mac: you did not just express an opinion: you made a charge, and a charge that these days, given what is going on in Ottawa and Washington, could be a dangerous one.


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

posted 01 June 2005 04:23 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In fact I believe Abbas' statement is courageous. I only hope it is also prophetical
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 04:52 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I think Mac is right. Non violence is the only way. All the rest is open to "interpretation”. Who was there 1st, who started what, who is a colonialist etc etc. Right now the Only solution is discussions, negotiations and ultimately a compromise that will create 2 states living in peace. Violence is not a viable means. With al due respect Arafat was not sophisticated to see this. Fortunately it appears that the present parties do. Let's all hope that peace can be obtained in this tiny region and move on. Peace to you all!
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am always an advocate of non-violence, so fair enough Peech. I just wonder why you don't feel Israel should have to prove its non-violent bona fides.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 05:03 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
I am always an advocate of non-violence, so fair enough Peech. I just wonder why you don't feel Israel should have to prove its non-violent bona fides.

Because that involves a whole discussion (debate) as to whetehr it is defending itelf justifyiably or not. And quite frankly it's not aproductive debate unless you just want to debate and not find a peaceful solution. I think not.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 05:13 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And why can the same not be said for Palestine? Let us not get lost in semantics: Suicide bombing of civilian targets is not on. But unless you completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of the violence takes place in the Occupied Territories, and that the vast majority of casualties are Palestinian, it is impossible not to at least give creedence to the argument that much Palestinian violence is indeed in self-defence.

But come now, let us advocate for non-violence, and deplore together all targetting of civilians, their homes, and their communities; be the agressor Israeli or Palestinian, bet the victim Israeli or Palestinian. Surely someone concerned for a peaceful resolution, such as you, can agree to that?


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 05:21 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
And why can the same not be said for Palestine? Let us not get lost in semantics: Suicide bombing of civilian targets is not on. But unless you completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of the violence takes place in the Occupied Territories, and that the vast majority of casualties are Palestinian, it is impossible not to at least give creedence to the argument that much Palestinian violence is indeed in self-defence.

But come now, let us advocate for non-violence, and deplore together all targetting of civilians, their homes, and their communities; be the agressor Israeli or Palestinian, bet the victim Israeli or Palestinian. Surely someone concerned for a peaceful resolution, such as you, can agree to that?



I was waiting for your "strong" response given your bias (Palestinian Solidarity Movement). 1st suicide or (more correctly)homicide bombings, regardless of the target are soon to be rightfully called crimes against humanity as so they should. secondly I am against bulldozing homes and targeting civilians BUT it is well known that Palestinians have been assembling bombs and executing acts of terror using and shielded by civilians.. So let's call a spade a spade. All terror and violence is off. But sitting a lame duck is also off. How can you possible justify 15 year olds being recruited to blow up innocent people in pizerias no matter WHAT your cause is? Have you seen the movie the Weather Underground? The message is that terror is wrong period.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 June 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Coyote: given that you are, as Peech tells us, clearly biased, and he so clearly isn't, that pretty well settles things, doesn't it.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 05:35 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
That's pretty good sophistry Sk. But that is not what I meant. I meantt that nonviolence is a (if not only) viable solution. And to engage in inflammatory debate as to whom is right or rong in order to score points is not productive. But thanks for your point of view.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964

posted 01 June 2005 05:37 PM      Profile for The Other Todd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Guess we are all entitled to our opinion but for me anyone who specifically supports the destruction of the world's only Jewish state is engaging in anti-Semitism.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/index.cfm


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My strong "bias" is towards non-violent resistance, period. I have had the honour of working with a good many Palestinians AND Israelis (as well as many diaspora Jews) as a member of the International Solidarity Movement. I do not endorse all positions of the ISM, but the overall goal of ending the Occupation through non-violent means is indeed my "bias".

I am also happy to proudly align myself with those members of the Palestinian community in Palestine and abroad who do very much so oppose, at much greater risk than I ever have had to face, those elements that do engage in the unspeakable practice of recruiting children for suicide missions. I am equally proud to align myself with those Israelis, many of them not much older than the suicide-bombers to whom you refer, who refuse to serve an unjust Occupation; with groups such as B'Tselem who stand as proud Israelis against the horrific record of the IDF in Occupied Palestine; with groups such as Rabbis for Human Rights representing Rabbis from the Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox streams of Judaism.

My "bias" is towards a peaceful solution recognizing the common right to self-determination and security.

Yes indeed. I am biased.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Other Todd:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/index.cfm


And your point is?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 05:44 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Coyote;
Touche!
I guess we have more to agree on then to disagree.

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

posted 01 June 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And my point is that you, and the rest of the so-called pro-Israelis, keep shifting the arguement everytime something obviously contradicts what you want to believe.

For instance my introduction of the Allon plan as evidence that the occupation was an intentional outcome of the 1967 war for the purposes of annexation, and not a reaction to Palestinian agression, has recieved no attention whatsoever.

Likewise, Coyotes clarification and deeper discussion of the the dynamics of the Palestinian resistance, is now ignored in favour of an agreement to disagree.

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
And my point is that you keep shifting the arguement everytime something obviously contradicts what you want to believe.

For instance my introduction of the Allon plan as evidence that the occupation was an intentional outcome of the 1967 war for the purposes of annexation, and not a reaction to Palestinian agression, has recieved no attention whatsoever.

Likewise, Coyotes clarification and deeper discussion of the the dynamics of the Palestinian resistance, is now ignored in favour of an agreement to disagree.

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Wasn't adressing you and wont get sucked into your "reality".


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964

posted 01 June 2005 05:51 PM      Profile for The Other Todd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
And your point is?

Are they self-hating Jews, or is Maccabee doing his usual zionism=judaism shtick?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964

posted 01 June 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for The Other Todd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
In fact I believe Abbas' statement is courageous. I only hope it is also prophetical

On quislings:

Media grossly exaggerate Palestinian voter turnout

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3508.shtml

More here:

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/306.shtml


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 June 2005 05:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Wasn't adressing you and wont get sucked into your "reality".


ROFL. Exactly!

I maintain that the reason that these surface discussion are favoured by pro-Zionists is that the position is untenable morally, when exposed to any kind of deeper analysis based on the facts. Rather than engage in this kind of deeper analysis most heartfelt Zionists would rather ignore what does not conveniently mesh with cherrished ideas.

Look at the map above outlining the Allon Plan. It comes from a pro-Zionist source.

[ 01 June 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 01 June 2005 05:54 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Other Todd:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/index.cfm


Give me a break. These guys are bigots. Ask them where they stand on abortion or same-sex marriage and quote them here.

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

posted 01 June 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Other Todd:

On quislings:

Media grossly exaggerate Palestinian voter turnout

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3508.shtml

More here:

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/306.shtml



So Abbas is a Quisling?

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

posted 01 June 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He's on the edge. Lets say that he and Wojciech Jaruzelski have some things in common.

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964

posted 01 June 2005 05:59 PM      Profile for The Other Todd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Give me a break. These guys are bigots. Ask them where they stand on abortion or same-sex marriage and quote them here.

Are they Jews or aren't they? Are they anti-Semites or aren't they? That's the question.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 06:00 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mac, weren't you deriding babblers who disdained the late Pope because of his position on just these issues?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964

posted 01 June 2005 06:00 PM      Profile for The Other Todd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
So Abbas is a Quisling?

He's Israel and the US's man. No doubt.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Other Todd:

Are they Jews or aren't they? Are they anti-Semites or aren't they? That's the question.


Zionism = the quest for Jews to find or establish a homeland (i.e. nationalism)

The site you refer to contains quotes from many religious leaders who on (extreme) religious views do not accept the formation of any "state" (political) as a Jewish homeland.
Therefroe your analogy or justification for your "point" is ill-founded.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 06:04 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're free to believe as you wish. I think Abbas is playing a dangerous game, dealing with the fallout of Arafat's corruption and Israel's increasing enroachment. Is he a saint? I'm sure not.

I support Abbas as the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian Authority. He has at least the mandate Arafat had.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 06:06 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Coyote we must (not we but they) give Abbas a chance.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 06:08 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball:

Relax ...you wont get a rise out of me. Sit back and enjoy!

BTW isn't trolling or baiting off limits ??

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


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

posted 01 June 2005 06:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Zionism = the quest for Jews to find or establish a homeland (i.e. nationalism)

The site you refer to contains quotes from many religious leaders who on (extreme) religious views do not accept the formation of any "state" (political) as a Jewish homeland.
Therefroe your analogy or justification for your "point" is ill-founded.


The point is dear, that not all Jews think that being a Zionist is an essential, and necessary outcome of being Jewish. Many disagree. Many, based on Torah, actually firmly disagree.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 06:11 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 06:14 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

The point is dear, that not all Jews think that being a Zionist is an essential, and necessary outcome of being Jewish. Many disagree. Many, based on Torah, actually firmly disagree.


so what?


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

posted 01 June 2005 06:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Cueball:

Relax ...you wont get a rise out of me. Sit back and enjoy!

BTW isn't trolling or baiting off limits ??

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]



Excuse me, asking you to respond to evidence entered into the thread is trolling? Typically, as a means of ignoring the facts, you choose an ad hominem approach to the debate.

Rather than actually look at a map, note that it is dated 1967, and that it is evidence of a borad plan of annexation duly adopted by the Israeli goverment, long before Hamas was founded, you make an appeal to manners?


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

posted 01 June 2005 06:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

so what?


The point is that if Jews don't all agree, then it is hypocritical for Israel to claim that it is acting on behalf of all Jews, everywhere. I personally think Israel is harmful to my future, not beneficial to it.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 06:17 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball:

As I said at teh outset I will NOT deate history with you or anyoneelse as it it counterproductive. You have yourpoint Idisagree. The debate here is about nonviolence.

Have a nice day.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 06:18 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

The point is that if Jews don't all agree, then it is hypocritical for Israel to claim that it is acting on behalf of all Jews, everywhere. I personally think Israel is harmful to my future, not beneficial to it.


Then don't visit. I think your point of view is harmful to me but I don't challenge your right to exist.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 06:26 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But really, "non-violence" was thread drift anyways. My original question had to do with the change in tack Abbas in bringing to Fatah, the PLO, and the PA - including a more confrontational relationship with Hamas and the centralization of military authority.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 June 2005 06:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Cueball:

As I said at teh outset I will NOT deate history with you or anyoneelse as it it counterproductive. You have yourpoint Idisagree. The debate here is about nonviolence.

Have a nice day.


New Zen Koan:

Q: "What is the sound of one hand clapping."

A: "A peech"

You can not have a debate about non-violence without talking about violence.

The debate here is about also about the right of any and all persons to resist occupation by a foreign power. They may choose violence as a means, if necessary. This is an enshrined principal of international law.

I agree that suicide bombing against civlian targets is a war crime. But then so is any attack upon civilians. The means is irrelevant, but this does not mean that Palestinians do not have the right to armed resistance.

I know that you would like to dispose of the historical context of the Palestinian resistance because the history is incovenient to your position, and presenting the case tabula rasa moreso.

But there it is: The Allon Plan, in all its glory, provided to you by non-other than the pro-zionist organization: the Jewish Virtual Library.

And its institution at the end of brutal military invasion by the IDF in 1967, means that the occupied persons have a right to kill any Israeli military personnel in the territories, and this is sanctioned by international law.

[ 01 June 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 01 June 2005 06:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Then don't visit. I think your point of view is harmful to me but I don't challenge your right to exist.


I don't challenge your right to exist. I challenge your right to make others existence secondary to "your" existence.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 June 2005 07:10 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How come I never hear of all these pro-Israelis who support the two-state solution protesting Israeli violence and continued settlement expansions?

Do you agree Peech Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 07:22 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
How come I never hear of all these pro-Israelis who support the two-state solution protesting Israeli violence and continued settlement expansions?

Do you agree Peech Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders?


When there is a negotiated peace then I think Israel should withdraw to wherever the border is agreed to be. BTW how com eyou aren't protesting th ePalestinian "violence."?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 01 June 2005 07:23 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wing. When you say pre-1967 borders I assume you also include the Golan Heights in this discussion. What does the Golan have to do with a Palestinian state? I understand Gaza and the West Bank and am in favour of the creation of a viable Palestinian State that will live side by side with Israel in peace and harmony.

But why bring Syria and the Golan when discussin a Palestinian State?


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 07:25 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

I don't challenge your right to exist. I challenge your right to make others existence secondary to "your" existence.


That is a loaded statement which is largely inaccurate.
To me it's clear you would prefer a one state "solution". Is that correct?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 07:25 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Wing. When you say pre-1967 borders I assume you also include the Golan Heights in this discussion. What does the Golan have to do with a Palestinian state? I understand Gaza and the West Bank and am in favour of the creation of a viable Palestinian State that will live side by side with Israel in peace and harmony.

But why bring Syria and the Golan when discussin a Palestinian State?


Agreed!


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 07:25 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jpj: Most people implicitly understand that when talking in relation to Israel's pre-'67 borders and a Palestinian state, Golan is left out of the equation. Separate issue.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 June 2005 07:27 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Particularly given that the PA does not claim Golan as a part of its territory.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 June 2005 07:28 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You see, Peech, you are a hypocrite. You call for an end to Palestinian violence but defend Israeli violence or say "but not lets talk about that."

You think Palestinians should surrender the right of return but will not categorically state that Israel should withdraw to the '67 borders, Because, really, you don't believe they should. You support the actions of the Israeli government in "changing the facts on the ground."

I, on the other hand, have maintained the position that both sides should cease violence all along and have always supported peaceful resistance on the part of Palestinians even though many have disagreed with me.

So why don't you drop your smarmy, fake attempt at compromise and tell us what you really think? Should Israel withdraw all settlements and return to the '67 borders and end violence as a policy?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 07:28 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
The Golan was captured because Syria was using it as a launching pad to reek havic on the farmers (Kibbutznicks) below. Since Syria has not negotiated peace (yet) the GOlan must be left out.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
]
TSK TSK. Name calling won't get a response. "Wing-Nut" So I take it you propse a one state solution then.

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 June 2005 07:31 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See, you must engage in propaganda based lies. The Golan heights was captured only after Israel continuously violated the truce agreements and seeded Syrian land with settlers. Even Israeli history acknowldges the war with Syria was precipitated by Israel and the prize was water. Why must you always lie?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 07:32 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
See, you must engage in propaganda based lies. The Golan heights was captured only after Israel continuously violated the truce agreements and seeded Syrian land with settlers. Even Israeli history acknowldges the war with Syria was precipitated by Israel and the prize was water. Why must you always lie?

Your opinion does not necessarily= the truth Wingnut no matter how many tiems you repeat an untruth.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 June 2005 07:32 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't expect a response in any case. You can't respond directly to direct questions. Everything is an obfuscation.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 07:33 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I don't expect a response in any case. You can't respond directly to direct questions. Everything is an obfuscation.

Insults don't merit areply.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 June 2005 07:33 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree. But it is your untruth and the real truth has been posted on Babble to many times to be counted.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 07:34 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I agree. But it is your untruth and the real truth has been posted on Babble to many times to be counted.

And if you repeat a lie often enough then..does that make it true?

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 June 2005 07:35 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well you continue to try and no serious historian has accepted it yet.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 07:36 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Well you continue to try and no serious historian has accepted it yet.

Who do you mean by "serious" historian?

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 June 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One with credentials and no bias on either side. The history is widely and easily available. To a google search like this:

syria golan water israel site:edu

It will bring up educational sites only.


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

posted 01 June 2005 08:59 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
He's on the edge. Lets say that he and Wojciech Jaruzelski have some things in common.

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]



What utter bunk. I guess the thought of peace is just too much for you to handle.

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

posted 01 June 2005 09:00 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Other Todd:

Are they Jews or aren't they? Are they anti-Semites or aren't they? That's the question.


Yes and yes

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

posted 01 June 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

The point is dear, that not all Jews think that being a Zionist is an essential, and necessary outcome of being Jewish. Many disagree. Many, based on Torah, actually firmly disagree.


Screw off with the "dear" shit. It is misogynist and patronistic.

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

posted 01 June 2005 09:29 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Give me a break. These guys are bigots. Ask them where they stand on abortion or same-sex marriage and quote them here.

Ad hominem tu quoque.

You've been wrong many times on many things. Should we assume that you can never possibly be right?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 09:32 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Zeebub:

What on earth are you talking about and I am still waiting for a quote from a "real" historian from Wing Nut. I might be old fashioned but last time I looked Google was not a historian.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 01 June 2005 09:33 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Yes and yes

Darn self-hating Jews: always getting in the way of a perfectly good plan to make Zionism coextensive with Judaism.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 01 June 2005 09:37 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Screw off with the "dear" shit. It is misogynist and patronistic.

Straight out of The Idiot's Guide to Debate, chapter 2 entitled When in Doubt, Change the Subject...


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 09:39 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Darn self-hating Jews: always getting in the way of a perfectly good plan to make Zionism coextensive with Judaism.


Careful your revealing your true colours now.....

And what is your point anyway?

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 01 June 2005 09:47 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It would be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the English language and/or the desire to comprehend it. Follow the argument.

Macabee's assertion that Jews Against Zionism are 'antisemites' is part of a series of arguments which try to make Zionism (the position that Jews require a state of their own in accordance with the principle of national self-determination) coextensive with Judaism (the belief in a certain G-D who gave his rules for mankind to a violent homicidal dude named Moses whilst the latter was strolling around in the mountains.) This series of arguments eventually falls onto the absurd notion of a 'self-hating Jew' to describe those who oppose the core tenets of Zionism and it's practice as essential to the practice of Judaism or to belonging to the Jewish ethnic group.

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 01 June 2005 09:54 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Glad to finally find out that Moses was a violent homicidel dude:

quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
(the belief in a certain G-D who gave his rules for mankind to a violent homicidal dude named Moses whilst the latter was strolling around in the mountains.)

So i got to ask .... how do we know he was a homocidel and violent dude?

In my studies of the bible from both the Jewish and Christian scholars I have never read or heard Moses reffered to as homocidel.

and since Christians also beleive in the notion of god giving the 10 commandments to Moses have you not just also attacked Christianity?

So what is your source for this notion?

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 01 June 2005 09:59 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
It would be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the English language and/or the desire to comprehend it. Follow the argument.
Macabee's assertion that Jews Against Zionism are 'antisemites' is part of a series of arguments which try to make Zionism (the position that Jews require a state of their own in accordance with the principle of national self-determination) coextensive with Judaism (the belief in a certain G-D who gave his rules for mankind to a violent homicidal dude named Moses whilst the latter was strolling around in the mountains.) This series of arguments eventually falls onto the absurd notion of a 'self-hating Jew' to describe those who oppose the core tenets of Zionism and it's practice as essential to the practice of Judaism or to belonging to the Jewish ethnic group.

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]



What a completely perverse interpretation. Lookout Mr. Irving here you come....

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


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

posted 01 June 2005 10:37 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Straight out of The Idiot's Guide to Debate, chapter 2 entitled When in Doubt, Change the Subject...


Actually I was exposing sexist behaviour here however since it was one of your buddies you are more intent it seems on defending his offensive crap. You are something else

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

posted 01 June 2005 10:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

That is a loaded statement which is largely inaccurate.
To me it's clear you would prefer a one state "solution". Is that correct?


Theoretically yes. But unlike some people, I do not propose to know that is best for Palestinians. I believe all states should be secular at the very base, and believe that state organized around one specific racial or religious group are by their very nature anti-democratic. So yes, I theoretically support a single unified democracy inclusive of all persons in Israel and the WB and Gaza, wherein all religious, cultural and racial social formations are treated equally under the law.

Do you have a problem with equality as a central tenent of governance?

Most of the Palestinian leadership that I can accept politcally (left-secular organizations -- such as the PFLP and Fateh as opposed to Hamas and IJ) have agreed to the two state solution in prinicpal so that is good enough for me.

I notice that you persist in avoiding any kind of recognition of the Palestinian position. This in its self is indicative, as it has been the stone deaf resistance by Israelis to even listening to the issues that Palestinian raise in negotiations, which has been the central problem to making peace negotiations move forward.

How are Palestinians supposed to negotiate with a negotiating partner wich refuses even to acknowledge or attempt even to undestand their position? The fact that you, and others like you, can't even begin even discuss issues such as the Allon plan in the relatively tame environment of an internet chat forum speaks volumes about Zionist intransigence.

[ 01 June 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 01 June 2005 10:42 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is turning ugly. Anti-Jewish and anti-Christian. It is a bigotted diatribe that leaves one stunned. Rabble is quickly turning into a place where it seems permissable to not just attack faith but do so in a manner that if it were done to Islam or other faiths there would be a justifiable hue and cry. For some reason attacking Christianity and Judaism seems not to make the radar screen of most.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 June 2005 10:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is anti-christian or anti Jewish about saying that I believe that all states should be based on the prinicpal that "all religious, cultural and racial social formations are treated equally under the law?"

Are you insane?

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 June 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh would you looky here. 103 posts.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca