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   » Leftist union leader contends for Israeli Labor Party leadership

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Leftist union leader contends for Israeli Labor Party leadership
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 09 June 2005 11:53 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone know anything more about this?

Labor Party Contest Becomes Bitter Fight (Forward, June 10, 2005)

quote:
TEL AVIV — Three weeks before the primary elections for the leadership of the Labor Party, the sleepy dowager of Israeli politics suddenly seems abuzz with activity. Five men are battling desperately to lead Israel's second-largest political party and occupy the seat once held by the likes of David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin.

It is a curious battle, considering that nobody expects the winner of the June 28 primary to become Israel's next prime minister. Optimists see the contest as a fight for the right to rebuild Labor as a fighting opposition once Sharon's disengagement is completed. Cynics call it an opportunity to try reviving a corpse. Still, the fight is as bitter and ruthless as Israel has seen in a long time.

Of the five contenders, two have been to the top already — namely former prime ministers Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak. A third, former defense minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, is the only Labor chairman who never had the chance to lead his party into national elections, having been deposed in midterm by Amram Mitzna in 2003.

The other two contenders have emerged as possible spoilers from the party's pre-primary registration period, which ended this past Tuesday. One, of them, Matan Vilnai, is in the traditional Labor mold: an Ashkenazic ex-general like Rabin, Barak and Mitzna. The other, Amir Peretz, is a dark horse — in more ways than one.
***

Peretz, chairman of the Histadrut — the still-mighty trade union federation — is a completely different political animal. Moroccan born, he entered politics as a union activist in the Negev development town of Sderot, went on to become mayor and then a Knesset back-bencher, but was never considered leadership material by the party's Ashkenazic-dominated old guard. In 1994 he left the party, along with his friend and ally Haim Ramon. Together they mounted an unprecedented insurgency that ousted Labor from control of the Histadrut, its main power base. A year later, Ramon, the better known of the two, returned to Labor, where he has been under a cloud ever since because of his role in downsizing the union. Peretz stayed on as Histadrut chief, steadily gaining popularity as the main opponent of Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's neoliberal economic policies. He finally rejoined Labor last year, bringing his own power base with him.

Peretz represents a unique prospect for Labor. The party has been obsessed for years with its image as a shrinking bastion of the old elites, out of touch with "the people." Peretz, the immigrant child of the Other Israel, is everything the party isn't. Even the ex-generals, who once wouldn't have dreamed of playing second fiddle to someone like Peretz, are beginning to understand his potential. At press time, he was expecting an imminent declaration of support from former navy commander and former Shin Bet security service chief Ami Ayalon. Vilnai is said to have reached an understanding with him to join forces behind whoever does best in the primaries.

When he spoke to the Forward this week, Peretz estimated that some 30,000 newly registered Labor members are his supporters, "and unlike others, they will be there on Election Day." This alone, he believes, should be enough to move him into the two-man runoff that is expected. He also believes that he will get a significant share of votes among the 25,000 Israeli Arab voters, most of whom were signed up by backers of his rival Ben-Eliezer.


[ 09 June 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 09 June 2005 12:25 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Haaretz: Let Peretz Run

quote:
Peretz brings a left-wing perspective on both the peace process and social issues, a unique combination. For years, he has stressed more than the other candidates the link between wasting money on the settlements and the distress of the weaker elements in society. He has promoted an egalitarian worldview and has come up through the ranks from mayor of Sderot through the Histadrut Labor Federation to the Knesset, and not from chief of staff to cabinet.

While labor unions in Europe are a source of support for social-democratic parties, in Israel the Labor Party has become identified more and more with Tel Aviv and the kibbutzim. Peretz's candidacy can open the party to a new following, and a more civilian agenda, and it is to be hoped he will not evade the presentation of his policy on the peace process. Even if the party's members prefer a different candidate, Labor must not topple Peretz's candidacy, thus giving up the different agenda he represents.


American Prospect: Is the Israeli Labor Party Ready for a Pocket Book Primary?

quote:
The political thinking has been that Israel needs a strong military leader to run its political wing, too -- at least until there is a resolution to the conflict with the Palestinians. (Though Shimon Peres doesn’t have a military background, he is the father of Israel’s nuclear program and that gives him some security cache). But, the reality is that it’s been the right -- the Likud -- that has been able to capture populist majoritarian sentiment, even while it has instituted draconian privatization and welfare measures modeled on Margeret Thatcher.

The elitism of the dovish left -- coupled with neo-liberal policies -- have been a complete turn off to the voters who should be supporting a left-wing peace agenda. And it’s these economic policies that have eroded much of the electoral support that Labor -- and the peace camp -- need to build support for a final status arrangement with the Palestinian. Then, there’s Amir Peretz.

Born in Morocco, he came to Israel with his family when he was four years old and settled in Sderot, a Negev development town (the one where the Kassam rockets from Gaza fell t throughout the Intifada). He was badly wounded in the Israeli army (he walks with a limp) and returned to Sderot, where he rose through the ranks of the local workers’ council to become mayor at age 30. He ran -- and won -- in Labor’s open primaries in 1988, entering the Knesset for the first time. He was an early support of Peace Now, one of the few political leaders from the Moroccan Jewish community to do so. But his political vision was always more populist than other dovish leaders.

In a 2003 interview, he told me: "I am a peace person, and I fully support the establishment of a Palestinian state, but in Israel if you ask someone if they are left or right, they will tell you about Abu Mazen or Arafat, not about single mothers."

Israel, Peretz insists, can't afford high levels of inequality.

"The State of Israel demands from its citizens to sacrifice its most precious thing," he said. "All our sons are recruited into the army. On the front we are totally equal. When they return from the field, the state is not committed to anything. Our solidarity is the guarantee for our existence."



From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 10 June 2005 11:33 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
bump.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 11 June 2005 08:08 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peretz is the best of a motley crew. I don't know much about Vilnai, but I can't believe Peres keeps demeaning himself in his lust for power. Now, he has broken his promise not to run again. Barak and Ben-Eliezer flat out suck. Anyway, Labor is no longer labor, and I doubt Peretz will be successful. He should have teamed up with the Yahad party, headed by Yossi Beilin.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 11 June 2005 10:21 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Josh, would the Zionist Yossi Beillin be acceptable to you?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 June 2005 12:39 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This Peretz guy sounds fantastic. Its about time that someone started talking about some bread and butter issues in Israel and its also about time that the Labour Party tried to shake up its image by getting a leader with Sephardic roots who can actually talk turkey with ordinary people. he could be to Labour like what Clinton was to the Democrats!!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 11 June 2005 04:43 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I were in Isreal right now, I'd vote communist.

They are the only party who seems to care about immigrant workers.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 11 June 2005 04:48 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Josh, would the Zionist Yossi Beillin be acceptable to you?

"Acceptable"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But that's the party I hope would do the best. I see them as the best chance for reaching an accord, and paving they way ultimately for a one-state solution, which is the only solution that will bring real peace and justice to the area.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 11 June 2005 04:56 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

he could be to Labour like what Clinton was to the Democrats!!


Shudder. Besides, Labor's already become "Clintonized" in terms of its economic policy. Peres and Barak both stand for that. The only thing missing is they haven't renamed themselves "New Labor."

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 11 June 2005 06:36 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:

"Acceptable"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But that's the party I hope would do the best. I see them as the best chance for reaching an accord, and paving they way ultimately for a one-state solution, which is the only solution that will bring real peace and justice to the area.


Well you wont get your wish. Beillin is on record as a person who is a Zionist to the core and has always supported a two-state solution.

You see Josh as a Zionist, Beillin understands that a one-state solution will mean the end of a Jewish state. He would never advocate such and those that do IMHO are anti-Jewish.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 11 June 2005 06:49 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well then, according to you, I guess I am. Of course, since it's your HO, I'm not too concerned.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 11 June 2005 06:55 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Well you wont get your wish. Beillin is on record as a person who is a Zionist to the core and has always supported a two-state solution.

You see Josh as a Zionist, Beillin understands that a one-state solution will mean the end of a Jewish state. He would never advocate such and those that do IMHO are anti-Jewish.


JOSH IS JEWISH! You stupid, ignorant Ziofaschist fuckwit!


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 11 June 2005 07:08 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He knows that. But he believes Judaism and Zionism are one in the same. Or, to put another way, he can be said to consider me "objectively" anti-Jewish.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 June 2005 07:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Well you wont get your wish. Beillin is on record as a person who is a Zionist to the core and has always supported a two-state solution.

You see Josh as a Zionist, Beillin understands that a one-state solution will mean the end of a Jewish state. He would never advocate such and those that do IMHO are anti-Jewish.


Well I guess then, any jews who do not show their commitment to th cause, by packing up and moving to Israel are anti-semites. Those remaining will be much relieved when the Zionist finally pack their bags and divest themselves from involement in local Jewish cultural and community organization, as we will no longer have to listen to their screechy hisrionics, or pay tax to their cause.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 June 2005 08:04 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Shudder. Besides, Labor's already become "Clintonized" in terms of its economic policy. Peres and Barak both stand for that. The only thing missing is they haven't renamed themselves "New Labor."

I am referring purely to style. Clinton had a common touch and was able to appeal to the great unwashed in a way that Democratic candiadtes before him and since him have not been able to.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 11 June 2005 09:19 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
He knows that. But he believes Judaism and Zionism are one in the same. Or, to put another way, he can be said to consider me "objectively" anti-Jewish.

It's an old propaganda mind trick. If you are against the five-year-plan, you are against the party; if you are against the party, you are against the state; if you are against the state, you are against the people; if you are against the people, you are a traitor, etc.

Hitler did the same thing. Nazism was about the protection of the poor Germans being "terrorized" by the Czechs and the Poles -- and if you didn't get that, then you were clearly anti-German.

One might say that the central dogma of facism is that the state and the people are organically linked, and that therefore the glory of the state is the glory of the people, and damage to the state is an attack upon the people.

Translate this fascist thinking into Jewish terms and you have a syllogism; Whoever is against the state is against the people; the people are the Jews; whoever is against the Jews is an anti-Semite; therefore anyone who is against the state is an anti-Semite.

It makes perfect sense -- if you're a fascist.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 11 June 2005 09:35 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Hitler did the same thing. Nazism was about the protection of the poor Germans being "terrorized" by the Czechs and the Poles -- and if you didn't get that, then you were clearly anti-German.
Translate this fascist thinking into JEWISH TERMS

It makes perfect sense -- if you're a fascist.



ERGO according to RS then Israel is a fascist Nazi state. Makes complete sense and I am sure his statement is not meant to sound anti-semitic.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then....

But not to digress (too much) Labour is looking really hopeful as an alternative to the old guard that has no real vision for the future.

[ 11 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 11 June 2005 10:33 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
[QB]


ERGO according to RS then Israel is a fascist Nazi state.


Umm . . . maybe you should learn how to write English sentences before you start interpolating Latin?

Of course, you are, once again, lying as to the content of my message. I clearly did not say that Israel was "a fascist Nazi state," not that you let the truth of the matter get in your way as a general rule.

I swear, you either read every third word and then dash off a reply, or you have some sort of bona-fide dyslexia, because neither your accounts of my posts, nor of other people's posts, nor of my sources, nor of your own sources, are ever accurate or complete.

"Makes complete sense and I am sure his statement is not meant to sound anti-semitic.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then...."

Of course you're going to call me an anti-Semite. What else have you got? You're a bigot who reads at a third-grade level. It's not like you can pen a logical argument.

[ 11 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


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

posted 12 June 2005 05:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ERGO according to RS then Israel is a fascist Nazi state. Makes complete sense and I am sure his statement is not meant to sound anti-semitic.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then....

FYI: There seems to be a working defintion around here, that Fascism and Nazism are related but not equivalent. Nazism being a virulent for of nationalist authoritatrian dictatorship, often with militarist overtones.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 12 June 2005 10:04 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nazism is a form of fascism, its extreme incarnation in terms of militarism and totalitarianism, and putting the theories of "scientific racism" into practice by systemic genocide of "criminal" races and subjugation of "inferior" ones.

Israel is not fascist and certainly not "Nazi", but it has become a highly militarised society; this has had disastrous consequences not only for the Palestinians but for Israelis themselves. (Many feminist writers in Israel have commented on this).

I think a lot of people are getting sick of the line that criticising Israeli policy or the theories behind Zionism is necessarily "anti-semitic". Genuine anti-semites crop up on babble from time to time and babblers are swift to expose them, whatever our opinion on the solution to the Israel/Palestine question.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 12 June 2005 11:17 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

JOSH IS JEWISH! You stupid, ignorant Ziofaschist fuckwit!


So what? I have heard this time and again. Frankly it makes no difference. Those IMHO who advoate the end of the only Jewish democratic state in the world are anti-Jewish. My opinion and I would argue the opinion of hundreds of thosusands, even millions of Jews and non_Jews alike

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


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

posted 12 June 2005 11:19 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

It's an old propaganda mind trick. If you are against the five-year-plan, you are against the party; if you are against the party, you are against the state; if you are against the state, you are against the people; if you are against the people, you are a traitor, etc.

Hitler did the same thing. Nazism was about the protection of the poor Germans being "terrorized" by the Czechs and the Poles -- and if you didn't get that, then you were clearly anti-German.

One might say that the central dogma of facism is that the state and the people are organically linked, and that therefore the glory of the state is the glory of the people, and damage to the state is an attack upon the people.

Translate this fascist thinking into Jewish terms and you have a syllogism; Whoever is against the state is against the people; the people are the Jews; whoever is against the Jews is an anti-Semite; therefore anyone who is against the state is an anti-Semite.

It makes perfect sense -- if you're a fascist.



Didnt take too long I see before Israel and Jews who support Israel get compared to Hitler and Nazism. Yes Farrel use what ever sophistry you wish but Peech read you correctly as many others (lurkers and all) will as well. This happens almost as a culture at times here on Babble. It is sick and anti-Semitic.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


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

posted 12 June 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So what? I have heard this time and again. Frankly it makes no difference. Those IMHO who advoate the end of the only Jewish democratic state in the world are anti-Jewish. My opinion and I would argue the opinion of hundreds of thosusands, even millions of Jews and non_Jews alike

This is pointless.


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

posted 12 June 2005 01:20 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CMOT are you saying that a Jew cannot be anti-Jewish? Please explain why not.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 June 2005 01:27 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

Didnt take too long I see before Israel and Jews who support Israel get compared to Hitler and Nazism. Yes Farrel use what ever sophistry you wish but Peech read you correctly as many others (lurkers and all) will as well. This happens almost as a culture at times here on Babble. It is sick and anti-Semitic.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


You're not making a rational argument, Mac: just libel. Try expressing why being against the policies of a state indicates you hate a people, and you will find the assumptions you are using to formulate "YHO" are the fascist beliefs I've described.

Both you and Peech distort the truth when you pretend that I compared "Israel and Jews that support Israel" to "Hitler and Nazism." The comparsion I made was between people who try and silence their critics by wrapping themselves in the mantle of "the people" and pretending their ideology in coextensive with their welfare.

Not even all Zionists pull this shabby trick. It's a speciality of the true bottom-feeders, of whom, as you point out, there is no shortage in this world.

Accusing people of anti-Semitism for opposing racism and ethnic cleansing and those who justify it -- that's what's sick.


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

posted 12 June 2005 01:34 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Farrel it was you who injected Hitler into this discussion. It was not necessary and left you wide open. Even in your warped thesis there is no comparision. It s sad you believe otherwise
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 June 2005 01:37 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
CMOT are you saying that a Jew cannot be anti-Jewish? Please explain why not.

Sure a Jew can be anti-Jewish. The settlement movement is anti-Jewish. The expulsion of the Palestinians was anti-Jewish. Israel's race laws are anti-Jewish.

Opposing racism, hate, and oppression is very Jewish. Not being smart or decidicated enough to go back to your books, and come up with a rational argument for Zionism, and instead phoning in charges of racism against anyone who opposes you, thousands of years of legendary scholars would say: not very Jewish.

I would say a better question is what makes you think you have any idea what constitutes "anti-Jewish." If you have some expertise in the matter, please say so. Otherwise, you are just claiming to represent "the Jews" and say, as a member of the tribe, what beliefs are hateful, and that presumptive arrogance is precisely what collapses when you direct your libels at other Jews.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 June 2005 02:09 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Farrel it was you who injected Hitler into this discussion. It was not necessary and left you wide open. Even in your warped thesis there is no comparision. It s sad you believe otherwise

Well, a number of things occur to me here. First, this is a discussion board, not a boxing match, so I am not concerned with whether I have "left myself wide open" to the anemic slapping and scratching of the likes of you and Peech. Was it true and relevant? That's my only concern. Try it my way some time.

Second, when you are reading, you have to look at the words around each word, and consider them in order as they modify one another's meanings. Both you and Peech seem to have a great deal of trouble with this. You see one of your favorite words, and you are off into your spiel, without stopping to find out what was being said.

Third: if we make no comparisons to Hitler, than we have not learned anything from Hitler, and the same goes for Nazism, fascism and any other historical disaster. Since it is never going to be 1933 in Weimer Germany again, all comparisons to the Nazis are going to be with things that are different from the Nazis. That's what "comparison" means.

So I stand by my comparison. Incidently, during the Mandate, Ben-Gurion publically compared Begin to Hitler, and Begin compared Ben-Gurion to Hitler (they were both right). Was David Ben-Gurion anti-Jewish? Was the leader of the Irgun and author of "The Revolt" anti-Jewish? Enquiring minds want to know.


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

posted 12 June 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Both you and Peech seem to have a great deal of trouble with this.
Yes of course we do . Basically anyone who disagrees with you falls into the same boat.

And your comments regarding Ben Gurion et al, they are proven Jewish heros. Their aim was to have a strong, safe Jewish state.It is clear that their use of hyperbole at the time do not make them anti-Jewish. Others whose sole focus is to end the Jewish state, well that is an entirely different matter.


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

posted 12 June 2005 03:48 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Yes of course we do . Basically anyone who disagrees with you falls into the same boat..

Well, no, that would once again be a mistake on your part. Lots of people here disagree with me, yet they somehow manage to read my entire post, and their criticism reflects an actual understanding of what I said.

You and Peech are not just wrong on the issues, you are very sloppy readers whose posts invaribly misrepresent other posters' work, as is the case here.

quote:
And your comments regarding Ben Gurion et al, they are proven Jewish heros.

"[The Irgun and the LHI] introduced into the arena what is now the standard equipment of modern terrorism, the camouflaged bomb in the marketplace and bus station, the car- and truck-bomb, and the drive-by shooting" (Righteous Victims, Morris, 681).

I guess nothing says "proven Jewish hero" like planting milk-carton bombs in markets, blowing up buses, and assasinating diplomats. Nice to know what your values are.

quote:
It is clear that their use of hyperbole at the time do not make them anti-Jewish. Others whose sole focus is to end the Jewish state, well that is an entirely different matter.[/QB]

But if the use of "hyperbole" does not make them anti-Jewish, then logically it doesn't make anyone else anti-Jewish; you have simply decided that certain people are anti-Jewish, and therefore what is innocent in your heroes' mouths is presented as proof of your enemies' guilt.

Thus you have assumed what you are trying to prove -- that your opponents are motivated by anti-Jewish prejudice. This fallacy is called "begging the question." Try again.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


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

posted 12 June 2005 04:29 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But if the use of "hyperbole" does not make them anti-Jewish, then logically it doesn't make anyone else anti-Jewish;
Yes we know you like to be clever by half and to engage you in a discussion about the difference between the Irgun targetting British soldiers during the British mandate and suicide bombers targeting public buses, children and pizzerias is frankly not worth the time. We know where your ethics are at and the fact that you must deride ours is a blatant example.

Those who engage in advocating the destruction/dissolution (call it what you will) of the world's only Jewish state are anti-Jewish. That they also engage in comparing Jews to Hitler adds only fuel to the argument


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 12 June 2005 04:54 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Others whose sole focus is to end the Jewish state, well that is an entirely different matter.

There are two different problems in this one sentence.

1. The phrase "sole focus" implies that those who disagree with your position concerning a two-state vs. a one-state solution have no other issue on their minds, i.e. they're obsessed fanatics instead of just people who disagree with you. Rhetorically effective but incorrect.

2. The entire phrase "whose sole focus is to end the Jewish state" implies that your opponents argue as they do precisely because they want to destroy Israel. You make no room for the possibility that they may argue as they do because they think it's the best way to achieve a peaceful solution. You can certainly argue that, demographics being what they are, such a solution would have a certain outcome with regards to the nature of Israel. But you have consistently failed to demonstrate that people like Josh at whom you throw this accusation are motivated as you say they are. Still you presume that motivation so you can argue that they're anti-Jewish which is, after all, just another way to say that they're anti-semitic.

That in turn allows you write something like this:

quote:
This happens almost as a culture at times here on Babble. It is sick and anti-Semitic.

Which is blatant bullshit.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 12 June 2005 05:43 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Umm . . . maybe you should learn how to write English sentences before you start interpolating Latin?

Of course, you are, once again, lying as to the content of my message. I clearly did not say that Israel was "a fascist Nazi state," not that you let the truth of the matter get in your way as a general rule.

I swear, you either read every third word and then dash off a reply, or you have some sort of bona-fide dyslexia, because neither your accounts of my posts, nor of other people's posts, nor of my sources, nor of your own sources, are ever accurate or complete.

"Makes complete sense and I am sure his statement is not meant to sound anti-semitic.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then...."

Of course you're going to call me an anti-Semite. What else have you got? You're a bigot who reads at a third-grade level. It's not like you can pen a logical argument.

[ 11 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]



It appears that you cannot read your own posts as the words which lend to their logical conclusion of anti-semitism are YOUR OWN you ignorant bigoted twit. The fact that you cannot help but continue personal character assignations and not stick to facts indicates that I must have touched a nerve otherwise..why bother?


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

posted 12 June 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

FYI: There seems to be a working defintion around here, that Fascism and Nazism are related but not equivalent. Nazism being a virulent for of nationalist authoritatrian dictatorship, often with militarist overtones.



Ans so what? Read his post.

Translate this fascist thinking into Jewish terms.....

The logical conclusion & tone of his post is bigoted. Which is my point. It's Not an exercise in mere sophistry.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


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

posted 12 June 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Nazism is a form of fascism, its extreme incarnation in terms of militarism and totalitarianism, and putting the theories of "scientific racism" into practice by systemic genocide of "criminal" races and subjugation of "inferior" ones.

Israel is not fascist and certainly not "Nazi", but it has become a highly militarised society; this has had disastrous consequences not only for the Palestinians but for Israelis themselves. (Many feminist writers in Israel have commented on this).

I think a lot of people are getting sick of the line that criticising Israeli policy or the theories behind Zionism is necessarily "anti-semitic". Genuine anti-semites crop up on babble from time to time and babblers are swift to expose them, whatever our opinion on the solution to the Israel/Palestine question.


I would agree with you but the words RS have used are clearly bigoted. Just read his post. Stop with the triple hearsay posts.

Otherwise let RS explain what his words

" Translate this fascist thinking into JEWISH TERMS"

really mean. I'm sure he will come up some oh so clever response that is an attempt to cover his perverse ideology.

This orginal stream is all about the Labour movement in Israel as hope for the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians living in peace. So let's cut the rhetoric and get back to the discussion can we?

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


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

posted 12 June 2005 06:34 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, there are reasons that people like farrel need to analogize Jews and Hitler/nazism, that being to derail, confuse and accuse.

Godwins law tells us that the person who brings up Hitler Godwins law in such threads is seen as the loser in the debate.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 12 June 2005 06:36 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
[QB]Peech, there are reasons that people like farrel need to analogize Jews and Hitler/nazism, that being to derail, confuse and accuse.

Godwins law tells us that the person who brings up Hitler Godwins law in such threads is seen as the loser in the debate. [QUOTE]


Apparently so. Equally effective is the zionism = racism card.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 12 June 2005 06:49 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And it's counterpart, the "criticize Zionism = anti-Semitism" card.

Take that card away from Mac, and his deck would be empty.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 12 June 2005 07:35 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
And it's counterpart, the "criticize Zionism = anti-Semitism" card.

Take that card away from Mac, and his deck would be empty.


Can you point out even one instance where I have said that critisizing Zionism is anti-Semitic? Of course you cannot so this clearly shows that not only do you lack judgement but you are willing to also confuse and obfuscate to drive your agenda.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 12 June 2005 10:12 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, let's see, there's this:

quote:
You see Josh as a Zionist, Beillin understands that a one-state solution will mean the end of a Jewish state. He would never advocate such and those that do IMHO are anti-Jewish.

Question the central Zionist notion of a "Jewish state"? You're anti-Jewish. Advocate a one-state solution? Ditto.

Seems pretty cut-and-dried. It's pretty much your constant refrain on babble.

I think pogge put it best above: you allow no room for those who sincerely believe that a binational state is the best way to achieve a just and peaceful solution. Or those who have a hard time seeing how Israel can maintain its status as a "Jewish state" without losing its democracy or its soul, given the demographic realities on the ground. (FWIW, I'm undecided on the one-state/two-state debate; I can see merit, and problems, in both arguments.)

Disagree with one-state advocates if you want; construct counterarguments if you want. But attributing the vilest ulterior motives to those with a different view just hopelessly mires the discussion in the muck.

But I guess all that's just part of my "agenda". Whatever.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: beluga2 ]


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 June 2005 10:34 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Yes we know you like to be clever by half and to engage you in a discussion about the difference between the Irgun targetting British soldiers during the British mandate and suicide bombers targeting public buses, children and pizzerias is frankly not worth the time. We know where your ethics are at and the fact that you must deride ours is a blatant example.

Those who engage in advocating the destruction/dissolution (call it what you will) of the world's only Jewish state are anti-Jewish. That they also engage in comparing Jews to Hitler adds only fuel to the argument


1. Your quote doesn't relate to the body of your post

2. The Irgun targeted women, children, and civilians along with the occasional solider. That you don't know that really makes it laughable that you would think you had anything to offer on the subject of the history of Palestine.

There is no difference between the murder of civilians by the Irgun and their murder by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, except of course that the latter are fighting to end a racist occupation while the former were fighting to create one.

3. You are simply repeating the claim that to refer to the Nazis makes one anti-Jewish, and you have not addressed how it is that your "heroes" like to make the comparison, as do the settler rabbis and Israeli MKs, including Holocaust survivors.

4. Being against equal rights for everyone is racist. Being for equal rights does not mean that you are for the "destruction" of anything except a racist system. You are a bigot who is also a Jew; being against you as a bigot does not imply that I am against you as a Jew.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 June 2005 10:46 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Peech, there are reasons that people like farrel need to analogize Jews and Hitler/nazism, that being to derail, confuse and accuse.

Godwins law tells us that the person who brings up Hitler Godwins law in such threads is seen as the loser in the debate.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]


Apparently you didn't read the rest of the citation:

quote:
However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Since it hasn't ended the thread, I take it my fellow users recogise that by employing the rhetorical tactics of Nazis, you triggered Godwin's law. Therefore the thread continues . . .

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 June 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

I would agree with you but the words RS have used are clearly bigoted. Just read his post. Stop with the triple hearsay posts.

Otherwise let RS explain what his words

" Translate this fascist thinking into JEWISH TERMS"

really mean. I'm sure he will come up some oh so clever response that is an attempt to cover his perverse ideology.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


I'm not clever, Peech, it's just that you're stupid. Normal looks like clever to you.

The words mean what they say. Are Jews incapable of thinking in a fascist way? Some would say you disprove this proposition all on your lonesome, but it is also prima facie racist. Jews can be anything. What is facist thinking look like when it is a Jew that's doing it? Short answer: Macabee. Long answer, read the post -- if you can.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 June 2005 10:54 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Ans so what? Read his post.

Translate this fascist thinking into Jewish terms.....

The logical conclusion & tone of his post is bigoted. Which is my point. It's Not an exercise in mere sophistry.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


Peech, you make me smile. You read at a third-grade level, and yet you think you can analyze someone's "tone." Keep aiming for the stars, big guy, and if you want to see what a bigot looks like, go find a mirror.


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

posted 12 June 2005 11:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
CMOT are you saying that a Jew cannot be anti-Jewish? Please explain why not.

Well, if you and your ilk keep up with these non-sensical attempts to redefine langauge in the manner of Newsqueak, you will find that more and more Jews will become anti-Jewish, as you define it, because you will have made it impossible for them to be reasonable, sensitive intelligent and fair minded human beings, and at the same time support your definition of Judaism.


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

posted 12 June 2005 11:16 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Oh, and guys, don't think I haven't noticed that you are still misrepresenting my post by claiming that I compared Israel to Nazi Germany (which is certainally a valid comparsion, in the right context, despite the fact that it is not what I said). You force me to quote myself:

quote:
Both you and Peech distort the truth when you pretend that I compared "Israel and Jews that support Israel" to "Hitler and Nazism." The comparsion I made was between people who try and silence their critics by wrapping themselves in the mantle of "the people" and pretending their ideology in coextensive with their welfare.

Not even all Zionists pull this shabby trick. It's a speciality of the true bottom-feeders, of whom, as you point out, there is no shortage in this world.

Accusing people of anti-Semitism for opposing racism and ethnic cleansing and those who justify it -- that's what's sick.


You just keep on lyin', boys -- that's what you're good at.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 June 2005 11:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech and rsfarrell, would you mind maybe getting a room?

CMOT Dibbler...come on. You're usually more controlled than that.

Macabee, josh is not calling for the end of Israel, he is calling for a "one-state solution" which, if I've read him correctly in the past, means that Jews and Arabs get to live there in a multicultural state where both ethnicities and religions are protected. Stop twisting his words and stop calling him "anti-Jewish".

Everyone else - this thread gets shut down if the nastiness doesn't stop.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 June 2005 11:24 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[QB]Peech and rsfarrell, would you mind maybe getting a room?
[QB]

So now you want to play nursemaid? Get your story straight, Mod.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 June 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Listen, I'm sorry you didn't like my last moderating decision. Tough. This forum is a pain and a half to moderate, and I'm constantly getting people from both sides whining that I'm unfair.

This thread is getting ugly and you're one of the reasons that's happening, along with the others I've also mentioned in my post. So cut it out. If you have a problem with me, write to Audra: audra(at)rabble(dot)ca.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 June 2005 11:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Oh, and guys, don't think I haven't noticed that you are still misrepresenting my post by claiming that I compared Israel to Nazi Germany (which is certainally a valid comparsion, in the right context, despite the fact that it is not what I said). You force me to quote myself:

You just keep on lyin', boys -- that's what you're good at.


Its a pretty simple rule. Never bring up the Nazi's in any context which also includes a negative characterization of Israel. It does not matter how far away the to references are from each other, or if you in no way directly link the two, the result will be the ad hominem attack freely intrapolated from what you said and then extrapolated to be anti-semitic. It doesn't really matter what you say, it is just a means of shutting down discourse, so that whatever might be true about your negative characterization of Israel gets lost in ensuing conufsed tirade.

I think someone has a school somewhere for this kind of thing.


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

posted 12 June 2005 11:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's true, Cueball. So, maybe don't bite.

Is this going to get back on the topic of the leadership of the Israeli Labour Party, or is it time to shut this one down?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 13 June 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
CMOT Dibbler...come on. You're usually more controlled than that.

I'm sorry.

No. I don't think this thread will get back on topic. It has turned into a boxing match, just like about every thread on this forum.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 12:23 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I'm all for new alignments in the Labour party as probably the (only) hope for a solution and progress in Israel and in finding a peaceful solution in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. I truly believe that all parties want a peaceful solution, just that often each side (much like this thread) gets hijacked by those who have thier own objective.
I'd like to say more but I'm studying for my grade 4 latin exams while gazing into the mirror. Mirror mirror on the wall.....
BTW Michelle I do appreciate your moderating. So thank you.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


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

posted 13 June 2005 12:25 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There will be peace in our time!
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 12:30 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I hope so. I hope it comes very soon. And I think the parties must keep talking and new people with vision come forward...which BTW was the topic of this thread!

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 13 June 2005 12:32 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes suree Bob!
quote:
There will be peace in our time!

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

posted 13 June 2005 12:51 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Peretz is the best of a motley crew.

Why do you consider him motley? Is he the Isreali equvilient of Jimmy Hoffa?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 June 2005 02:50 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the interest of getting back on track...

LabourStart: Eric Lee interviews Amir Peretz

quote:
Amir Peretz:
Israeli politics differ from politics almost everywhere else in the world because the traditional difference between 'left' and 'right' has been distorted by the occupation and the argument over politics. Today, a person in Israel doesn't identify himself as 'left' or 'right' because of his views on subjects like taxation, for example, but instead because of his view regarding a Palestinian state and a peace settlement. As as result of this, there has been created in Israel a strange situation in which the lower classes and the working class tend to support the parties of the right, and the upper class tends to support the left. Not only does this situation prevent the left from having a decent chance at winning elections, but it has also caused the concept of peace to become an elitist product which is identified with factory owners and not with factory workers.

I see this as the main problem that needs to concern all those who seek peace in Israel and abroad. The Israel Labour Party has in fact adopted in recent years a right-wing socio-economic policy which almost doesn't differ from that of Netanyahu and the Likud, and for that reason fell apart in the last elections.

In 1977 Menachem Begin, who then stood at the head of the Likud, created a revolution and removed the Labour Party from power. Begin's revolution was a social revolution, based on promises of social change and on giving a feeling of belonging to the working class, which felt that the Labour Party was alienated from them. Begin carried out a social revolution, but used the "train ticket" he received from the people to travel to the occupied Palestinian territories.

I would like to be the Menachem Begin of the Labour Party, to return to it the social values and the support of the people. If I receive from the people the same "train ticket" that they once gave to Begin, I intend to travel with it towards peace.



From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 02:56 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Robbie.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 03:01 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I think the real question is not who will lead the Labor party but rather whether it has enter an irreversible death spiral now that Arabs are its largest single constituency. Will the red-blooded racist Jewish masses ever take them seriously again?

You have to remember that this party owes whatever success it has had to thugish military apparchiks who convinced the public that peace with the Palestinians would be the one-sided affair that Israeli Jews largerly want. From "expel and Arabs and take their places" Ben-Gurion to "there are no Palestinians" Meir; from "break their bones" Rabin to "6,048 settler houses in 20 months" Barak; the Labor party leadership's record is comparable to Likud with a better press agent.

Peretz might be different in spirit but it hardly matters; the Israeli people will never elect him. They elect thugs because they want thugs. They Labor party reflects that reality, and is unlikely to oppose it successfully.


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

posted 13 June 2005 08:21 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Will the red-blooded racist Jewish masses ever take them seriously again?
Calling Jews racists , use to be against Babble policy. Farrel has now shown his true colours. Will this be permitted to continue?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 08:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Will the red-blooded racist Jewish masses ever take them seriously again?

rsfarrell, this is completely against babble policy. Consider this a warning.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 01:11 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
As I mentioned on another thread:

(From the Jerusalem Post)

Some statistics:

59% of Jewish Israelis would not tolerate having an Arab citizen as their boss (JPost).

70% of Jewish Israelis oppose land sales to Arabs (Haaretz).

63% believe Arab citizens of Israel should be "encouraged to leave" by the state (Haaretz).

I believe that supports the assertion that "the masses" (i.e., not all, but a signifigant majority) of Israeli Jews are, in fact, racists.

A racist consciousness in society in not particular to the Jewish people but has emerged wherever an ideology needed to justify inequality.

What part of this is against babble policy, exactly?

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 02:06 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Would it help if, instead of saying it straight out, I quoted from this editorial?

quote:
Eradicate racism in the stands

By Haaretz Editorial

Betar Jerusalem's fans showed this week that Israeli society - or at least part of it - is severely ill, infected with blatant, contemptible racism. At a soccer game between Betar and Bnei Sakhnin, some Betar fans did not hold back racist curses against Abbas Suan, Bnei Sakhnin's midfielder. They didn't like the fact that an Israeli Arab scored the equalizing goal against Ireland, thus leaving Israel still in the race for the World Cup. They did not like the fact that the Arab team has twice defeated Betar Jerusalem. "You can go crazy over the fact that Arabs beat us," said one of the fans, repeating the same kind of contemptible racist remarks made for generations about Jews in the countries where they were in the minority.

Or is the editorial board at Haaretz also guilty of "racist . . . excluding language" (which I assume is the policy you are referring to?)


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 13 June 2005 02:10 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
As I mentioned on another thread:

(From the Jerusalem Post)

Some statistics:

59% of Jewish Israelis would not tolerate having an Arab citizen as their boss (JPost).

70% of Jewish Israelis oppose land sales to Arabs (Haaretz).

63% believe Arab citizens of Israel should be "encouraged to leave" by the state (Haaretz).

I believe that supports the assertion that "the masses" (i.e., not all, but a signifigant majority) of Israeli Jews are, in fact, racists.

A racist consciousness in society in not particular to the Jewish people but has emerged wherever an ideology needed to justify inequality.

What part of this is against babble policy, exactly?

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


Then say "Jewish Isrealis and not "jews"


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 02:17 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Then say "Jewish Isrealis and not "jews"


I thought that since we were talking about elections in Israel, that was implied. I said "Jews" to distinguish them from Israel's 1.7 million non-Jewish residents, not to imply that all Jews felt that way or that their Judaism and their racism were necessarily connected in some way.

I would have said "Israeli masses," except that that seems to exclude, as analysts are wont to do, the 20% of the Israeli masses who are not Jews, and are the targets of the racism in question, not its authors.

Sorry for any confusion.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
What part of this is against babble policy, exactly?

The part where you attribute character flaws to an entire group of people based on the fact that some of those people exhibit them.

You're really getting on my nerves, rsfarrell. If you can't figure out why "racist Jewish masses" is not an appropriate thing to say on babble, then maybe this board just isn't for you.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 02:33 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

The part where you attribute character flaws to an entire group of people based on the fact that some of those people exhibit them. .


That is an absolute misrepresentation of what I said and I take offense at it.

The term "masses" necessarily implies a contrast with others, typically an elite of one kind or another. Saying the American masses are obsessed with Paris Hilton does not imply that I, an American, am.

Read a little more carefully before you accuse someone of something like that.

quote:
You're really getting on my nerves, rsfarrell. If you can't figure out why "racist Jewish masses" is not an appropriate thing to say on babble, then maybe this board just isn't for you.[/QB]

Well, it's obvious that I get on your nerves from the way you're acting. And if you don't think the truth or falsehood of a claim makes any difference, just how something sounds, you might want to ask yourself what you are getting out of discussing these issues here or anywhere.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 02:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not continuing this further. Complain to audra if you have a problem with me.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 13 June 2005 02:53 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Turn the statement around, rsfarrel. If Mac or Peech or someone else made a statement about "red-blooded Arab masses" being unprepared for peace or some such nonsense, you'd be just as fighting mad.

Language does matter, you know.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 02:57 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Turn the statement around, rsfarrel. If Mac or Peech or someone else made a statement about "red-blooded Arab masses" being unprepared for peace or some such nonsense, you'd be just as fighting mad.

Language does matter, you know.


There might have been a better choice of words there. I had a clear picture in my head of what I was talking about; but it would have behooved me to be less poetic and more specific.


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

posted 13 June 2005 03:02 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And that is all anyone is saying, including Michelle. She quoted the offending passage - not the argument underlying it - and informed you that it was against rabble's policy. I think you should have been able to accept that, and I think you now owe her an apology.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 03:13 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
And that is all anyone is saying, including Michelle. She quoted the offending passage - not the argument underlying it - and informed you that it was against rabble's policy. I think you should have been able to accept that, and I think you now owe her an apology.

I do not believe that the words, as written, violated babble policy by being racist.

Therefore I don't think that Michelle was correct in saying that they were, and therefore I don't think I owe her or anyone else an apology.

I do think the confusion warrents a sensitive explanation, which is what I have been doing for the last half-a-dozen posts.

How about we let it go and talk about something else?


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

posted 13 June 2005 03:35 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Read a little more carefully before you accuse someone of something like that.
This is your typical response to everything and anyone.

The fact that you still dont understand your terminology as being racist is very troubling. Coyote and others tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but clearly you believe YOU are right and everyone else is wrong.

You are engaging in racist language. Get off your high horse, acknowledge your mistake and move on. Failure to do so would leave us all with the clear idea that you are indeed a racist and in this particular example an anti-Semite.


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

posted 13 June 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
After reading that article I'm somewhat baffeled. I can't really see what makes Ol' Amir problematic. He seems like your standard issue social democrat.

He's against the occupation and his Moroccan roots give him a connection to Isreal's oppresed masses that someone like Barak wouldn't have.

He has a firm grasp on the bread and butter issues that effect the average Isreali.

What's wrong with him?

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


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

posted 13 June 2005 03:41 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle has explained it well. What is it you dont understand?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
You are engaging in racist language. Get off your high horse, acknowledge your mistake and move on. Failure to do so would leave us all with the clear idea that you are indeed a racist and in this particular example an anti-Semite.

Okay, okay. I appreciate the support, but he's already been told.

Also, I think CMOT was referring to a leadership candidate with his post, but I'm not sure. Anyhow, let's move on.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 June 2005 03:44 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Get off your high horse, acknowledge your mistake and move on. Failure to do so would leave us all with the clear idea that you are indeed a racist and in this particular example an anti-Semite.

Excuse me? He already said he wanted to move on. Why can't you move on?


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

posted 13 June 2005 03:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh! Michelle! Hi.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 03:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edited to say: Oh, skdadl, hi to you too! Um, just disregard the rest of that stuff I wrote below.

Okay, really, instead of everyone quoting everyone else's posts and telling them to move on, could we ACTUALLY move on? I think everything's been said on both sides already, and meta-arguments are not going to solve anything.

Thanks, CMOT, for continuing the conversation on topic.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 13 June 2005 03:51 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, I wasn't talking about Ferrel. I was talking about Amir Peretz.
I didn't make that clear, sorry.

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

posted 13 June 2005 03:52 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No prob
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 13 June 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Excuse me? He already said he wanted to move on. Why can't you move on?


Only because he says he wants to move on but goes right back to claiming he said nothing racist. Skdadl you of all people I expect more from when such racist crap is put on Babble. What is clearer and clearer to me is thatb your attitude towards me clearly colours your response. Too bad


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 03:57 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Argh! Stop it! Stopitstopitstopit! I'll hold my breath till I turn blue! Don't think I won't!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 June 2005 03:59 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Orange sherbet, Michelle?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 04:04 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I have to pull this car over, I'll...oh, why thank-you, skdadl. Don't mind if I do.

So...how 'bout that Amir Peretz?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 13 June 2005 04:18 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
If I have to pull this car over, I'll...oh, why thank-you, skdadl. Don't mind if I do.

So...how 'bout that Amir Peretz?


He does look like a nice guy

What's his background? Did he work at a power plant like Yitzak Rabin's father?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 June 2005 04:21 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I prefer pear sherbet - I've had a kind with specks of dark bitter chocolate ... Sherbet is a word of Arabic origin, and appropriate in such a hot climate. Comes from the root sorba (to drink) - probably Hebrew has a similar root-verb ...

Back to Peretz: the Labour Start interview is interesting indeed Peretz in Labour Start - or did Michelle and skdadl mean that he is a rather pleasant-looking fellow?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 13 June 2005 04:49 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally my preference is pistachio Ice cream
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 13 June 2005 04:58 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Leadership contests are always fun to watch no matter what country or what party. But in the Israeli system of elections where the party leader basically submits a list of candidates the leaders position is that much more important.

The real qustion of this leadership race is the following:

Does Labour go to the past or to the future in the election of a Party Leader. If back to the past will it be Barak or Peres. If to the future then can Peretz unite the Labour party of Israel.

But once a leader is elected the real issues become:
Can Labour win against Likud?
Can Labour form a coalition to control the Knessett.

To me this race is democracy at its best. Does a party go backwards or forwards for the future.

Will the new leader of Labour not only win over the Israeli public but can he/she win over the leadership of Israel's neighbours.

We will all have to wait and see.


For those who want to want to say that all Israeli politicians are the same I remind you that for true peace to exist there needs to be trust between the government of Israel and the government of Palestine.

Maybe Peretz and Abbas can trust each other. And if they do trust each other. THen the world is that much closer to seeing 2 states living side by side in peace as friends and neighbours.

Edited to add:

It seems that whenever a discussion of Israel and Palestine takes place it goes back to the question of 1 versus 2 states.

It has to be recognized and realized that the question of whether their will be 1 state or 2 states was answered and agreed to many years ago. The World recognizes that their will be 2 states.

The only issue that remains, and yes it is a huge issue, but the only issue that remains surrounds the logistics regarding the 2 states.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 06:24 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Interesting Post Miles. Thanks. I also found the interview with A P very stimulating.

"Israeli politics differ from politics almost everywhere else in the world because the traditional difference between 'left' and 'right' has been distorted by the occupation and the argument over politics. Today, a person in Israel doesn't identify himself as 'left' or 'right' because of his views on subjects like taxation, for example, but instead because of his view regarding a Palestinian state and a peace settlement. As as result of this, there has been created in Israel a strange situation in which the lower classes and the working class tend to support the parties of the right, and the upper class tends to support the left. Not only does this situation prevent the left from having a decent chance at winning elections, but it has also caused the concept of peace to become an elitist product which is identified with factory owners and not with factory workers.

I would like to be the Menachem Begin of the Labour Party, to return to it the social values and the support of the people. If I receive from the people the same "train ticket" that they once gave to Begin, I intend to travel with it towards peace."

I think everyone here wants to see peace in our time...soon.

Now where is that sherbet ?

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Here is where I would say you are misreading the situation:

"For those who want to want to say that all Israeli politicians are the same I remind you that for true peace to exist there needs to be trust between the government of Israel and the government of Palestine."

Of course the politicians are different. It's the people who are the same. For all the praise heaped on the idea of "democracy," very few people seem to apply it to the problem of Israel's refusal to agree to a reasonable peace.

Of course you can find an individual who thinks peace is worth the price. You may even get him into the prime minister's chair. But you will never get him to end the conflict because it is the relationship between the two peoples, not between the two governments, that counts in the end.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 13 June 2005 09:53 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Here is where I would say you are misreading the situation:

Of course the politicians are different. It's the people who are the same.


I guess this is where you and I will always disagree.

You it seems to me do not think that the Israeli people and the Palestinian people want peace.

Well I think you are sadley mistaken. I think that both Israelis and Palestinians want peace.

I believe that both peoples hold out the hope and prayers of their generations that they will see the day in the very near future that 2 countries will live side by side in peace as friends as neighbours as brothers and sisters.

I know that soon and I hope very soon that the Country of Israel and the Country of Palestine will be those friends and neighbours.

So if in my post about the future leader of the Labour Party and what may or not come from this leadership convention sound too hopefull for peace and sound too hopeful that we are so close to this peace.

Well it is because to quote Rabin: Enough of blood and tears.

Too much blood from both sides has been spilt. Blood is red. Blood is not Israeli or Palestinian it is a persons. and to want to see an end the bloodshed is to want to see peace.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 10:05 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:

I guess this is where you and I will always disagree.

You it seems to me do not think that the Israeli people and the Palestinian people want peace.

Well I think you are sadley mistaken. I think that both Israelis and Palestinians want peace.

I believe that both peoples hold out the hope and prayers of their generations that they will see the day in the very near future that 2 countries will live side by side in peace as friends as neighbours as brothers and sisters.

I know that soon and I hope very soon that the Country of Israel and the Country of Palestine will be those friends and neighbours.

So if in my post about the future leader of the Labour Party and what may or not come from this leadership convention sound too hopefull for peace and sound too hopeful that we are so close to this peace.

Well it is because to quote Rabin: Enough of blood and tears.

Too much blood from both sides has been spilt. Blood is red. Blood is not Israeli or Palestinian it is a persons. and to want to see an end the bloodshed is to want to see peace.


I prefer a more representative Rabin quote: "Break their bones."

Everyone (virtually) desires peace. That is not the question. The question is always whether you are willing to forgo victory. Of course Israelis want peace, in the sense that they want the Palestinians to stop making such a nuisance of themselves and settle down to their third-class status in the Land of Israel.

The Palestinians, I think, are willing to forgo victory. In their place, I might take a harder line, but I am not. Israelis are simply not ready; only 34% support a straight swap; peace and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

If you have reasons for your optimism, please share them; I'm sure I'd like to be optimistic right along with you. From here it looks like you're got your head in the sand.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


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

posted 13 June 2005 10:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:

You it seems to me do not think that the Israeli people and the Palestinian people want peace.

Well I think you are sadley mistaken. I think that both Israelis and Palestinians want peace.


Miles, which set of government negotiators stands to secure more territory the longer negotiations are delayed?


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

posted 13 June 2005 10:15 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball over the last week that is the one question you keep asking regardless of the answer given. You ask who benefits from no peace, who benefits from delayed peace, who benefits from not wanting peace, who wants peace more, who wants peace less....

here is my final answer. no one benefits from delaying a bloody thing. Both sides suffer. Both sides suffer equally the longer it takes to accomplish the agreed upon solution of 2 states. 1 Palestinian and 1 Israeli living as friends and neighbours sisters and brothers side by side.

You see Cueball both sides loose. No one group wins by any form of delay. Both sides equally loose


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

posted 13 June 2005 10:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is not an answer to the question I asked. IN fact you have never answered the question. I did not ask, whether or not in an abstarct sense which side benefited but in a concrete sense in terms of territory, as per government negotiators.

You have simply shoveled me some air-airy new age crap about peace and love. And it is crap.

I asked you a concrete question about the material politcal and territorial positions of the relative persons. Why do you refuse to answer the question, is it because you don't know the answer, or because you know the answer, and that answer makes your analysis based on mutual guilt and culpability highly suspect.

The one overt and obivious fact about the history of Israel, is that any of the wars fought have not ever advantaged the Arab parties involved and on each occassion they have lost territory. The implication is obvious, except to the willfully blind, and naive.

Peace (a real peace, a negotiated peace, a strong peace) would mean an end to israeli territorial expansion, a fact that Areil Sharon is very well aware of.

[ 13 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 13 June 2005 10:29 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

And to whose benefit was it when Arafat rejected peace, literally walking away from a substantial offer without any counteroffer at all? Of course we all know that the Intifada started shortly thereafter which cost the Palestinians and Israelis in blood (as Miles has stated.)Let's face it notwithstanding what Western armchair intellectuals think (present company included) the real parties; Palestinians and Israelis realize that compromise must be made on both sides and from that and that alone peace will come.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 10:33 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
From Haaretz:

Man found wandering naked in Jerusalem after castrating himself
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/587381.html

Coming tomorrow: Israeli government spokesman: We have found a "partner for peace"


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 10:33 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

The one overt and obivious fact about the history of Israel, is that any of the wars fought have not ever advantaged the Arab parties involved and on each occassion they have lost territory. The implication is obvious, except to the willfully blind, and naive.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


And in each case the wars were started or threatend BY THE ARABS. So they lost. Show me one case in history where the losersactually GAIN something? I think you are New Age Cue because for you it would be just lovely and nice if the Arabs who lost got tehir cake and ate it too. This is the real world though and this whole thread is about ne possibilites and not "let's turn the clock back and give those poor Palestinians "their" land back." It's never going to happen.
Peace = compromise not vistory.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 13 June 2005 10:33 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
That is not an answer to the question I asked.

Really?

You asked:

quote:
Miles, which set of government negotiators stands to secure more territory the longer negotiations are delayed?

I answered:

quote:
You see Cueball both sides loose. No one group wins by any form of delay. Both sides equally loose

So please tell me where did i not answer the question. You asked who gains. I answered both loose.

Therefore if both loses neither wins.


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

posted 13 June 2005 10:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Cue:

And to whose benefit was it when Arafat rejected peace, literally walking away from a substantial offer without any counteroffer at all? Of course we all know that the Intifada started shortly thereafter which cost the Palestinians and Israelis in blood (as Miles has stated.)Let's face it notwithstanding what Western armchair intellectuals think (present company included) the real parties; Palestinians and Israelis realize that compromise must be made on both sides and from that and that alone peace will come.



I reject this anaylysis of Camp David, as it ignores ongoing talks at Taba.

Palestinian negotiators continued to negotiate after Camp David, as you should know Because Sharon said explicitly that he would, if elected tear up any agreement made by Barak, and if there were no ongoing talks why would it be necessary for Sharon to assert such in his 1999 campaign, if it really was the case that Arafat had ended talks?


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

posted 13 June 2005 10:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:

So please tell me where did i not answer the question. You asked who gains. I answered both loose.

Therefore if both loses neither wins.


Ahh so if no peace is concluded, the actually terrtories under disupte will evaporate through some sort of magical process?

Or are you are saying the peace negotiation if implimented now would be the final division of the territories along demogrpahic lines of partition as defined by the facts on the ground, as they are now?

[ 13 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 13 June 2005 10:41 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


I reject this anaylysis of Camp David, as it ignores ongoing talks at Taba.

Palestinian negotiators continued to negotiate after Camp David, as you should know Because Sharon said explicitly that he would, if elected tear up any agreement made by Barak, and if there were no ongoing talks why would it be necessary for Sharon to assert such in his 1999 campaign, if it really was the case that Arafat had ended talks?


The fact is that Arafat walked away knowing full well that Barak would likely be defeated and Sharon would follow (you know Sharon is I gather from your colourful descriptions of him in your posts...) Do you really think Yasser Arafat the great Palestinian leader (who by the way wasn't Palestinian and wasn't Yasser Arafat) didn't know this too? Conclusion: he didn't want or was afraid of peace.

The Intifada had already begun prior to Taba:

The summit took place against the backdrop of the failed Camp David 2000 Summit between Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, and a Palestinian Intifada that commenced against Israel, with the Palestinians launching a variety of violent attacks against Israeli targets. The Palestinians asserted that the visit to the Temple Mount by the Likud leader Ariel Sharon was a justification to launch the new Al-Aqsa Intifada in September of 2000. For US President Bill Clinton, the peace diplomacy culminating at the Taba Summit was a final attempt to win an important political victory before he was to leave office (in the shadow of his own impeachment in 1999) and with expected changes of policy expected with the inauguration of President George W. Bush on January 20, 2001. On February 6, 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected as the new prime minsiter of Israel, and he refused to meet in person with the Palestinians' leader Yasser Arafat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


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

posted 13 June 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know peech, I like you. But I am not going to discuss these issues with you when you continually throw in all these off topic red herrings, such as that Yasser Arafat was not born in the West Bank, but Egypt, etc. etc. (a highly debatable assertion only held, or thought worthy of serious debate by the most wild-eyed of the Zionist sect. My point is not that I will not discuss the realtive merits of Yasser Arafat's liniage, the fact is that the topic you brought up the Camp David accords, and the issue of Arafat's heritage is completely irrelevant to that issue. Arafat could be from mars but that has no relevance to Camp David, or the fact that he was the Negotiator for the Palestinian side, recognized by Israel, and also the leader of the Palestinian authority.

Such distractions such as Yasser Arafat geneaology are of absolutely no relevance, except as a kind of smear, to the issue at habd, which you raised. If you want to talk about some people very tenuous theories about why Yasser Arafat was not a Palestinian, start another thread, but be aware that if you are going to assert citizenship on the basis of the original place of birth, as the most important factor in determining someones nationality the you should be aware another logical conclusion to be drawn from that is that at leaset half of all Jews living in Israel can not claim to be Israeli, as they were born elsewhere.

If, you or I, or anyone reading this thread is to get any value out of it, it is important to keep debate within things that relate (at least indirectly) to the subject at hand.

[ 13 June 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 13 June 2005 10:53 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
[QB]

And in each case the wars were started or threatend BY THE ARABS. So they lost. [QB]


Crack open a history book, Peech.

Every war between Israel and her neighbors, two excepted, started with Israel invading one of the states neighboring.

1956: Egypt. 1967: Egypt, Jordan, Syria. 1981: Lebanon. And those are just the highlights of a consistant record of aggression by Israel involving thousands of border violations and attacks.

There were two exceptions, as I've said. The Arab states intervened in the Zionist-Palestinian conflict in 1948 to try and prevent the foundation of a racist, aggressive expansionist neighbor. They weren't successful, but they were certainally justified.

In 1973 Syria and Egypt attacked with the specific and limited aim of winning back territory lost to Israel in 1967. Again, a justified war, unlike Israel's naked aggression targeting its neighbors.

You could read this in any history book, Peech. It's really not fair to inflict your ignorance on everyone.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 10:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That'll have to be the last word - long thread.
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