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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » The "Gaza Disengagement Plan" is a Wst Bank Expansion Plan

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The "Gaza Disengagement Plan" is a Wst Bank Expansion Plan
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 08 August 2005 08:18 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In his Znet Blog, Noam Chomsky stated the following concerning the Gaza Disengagement Plan:

quote:
Any sane Israeli government would want to remove Israeli settlements from Gaza, where about 8000 settlers take a large part of the land and resources, and have to be protected by huge army contingents.

Far more rational, now that the occupation has turned Gaza into a hell-hole, is to get out and leave it as a prison in which the population can rot. The “Gaza disengagement plan” is, in fact, a US-Israeli West Bank expansion plan, designed to incorporate valuable land and resources of the West Bank into Israel, and leave Palestinians in a few unviable Bantustans which the US and Israel can call a “state”—rather as South Africa called the Bantustans “independent states.”

There is great agonizing now in Israel about the tragedy of the settlers who were handsomely subsidized to settle illegally in Gaza, where they have tortured and terrorized the population and stolen their land and resources, and now will be handsomely subsidized by the same generous fairy godmother (you and your friends) to settle somewhere else. People are wearing orange, etc. As the better Israeli journalists have eloquently described, it is a shame and disgrace. The same is true of the “trauma” of Jews evicting Jews. If Sharon wants to remove the settlers quietly, nothing is easier. Simply announce that the IDF will be withdrawn on date X, and a few weeks earlier the settlers will be gone.

It’s mostly cynical show to justify the US-Israel West Bank expansion programs.



From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 01:24 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If Sharon wants to remove the settlers quietly, nothing is easier. Simply announce that the IDF will be withdrawn on date X, and a few weeks earlier the settlers will be gone.

I have often thought this.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 09 August 2005 11:03 AM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly, it seems that this is now a sort of public relations scheme. Sharon with US backing of course (seeing that Wolfowitz and Perle were Likud advisers)wants to show the Israeli public and the world how "serious" he is about peace, what a huge "sacrifice" he is making, how "difficult" it is to remove settlers and he wants to divert attention away from the fact that he is illegally seizing territory in the West Bank and that all of this will make a real functioning Palestinian state an impossibility.

Of course, the broad plan in the region (in terms of US interests) is to continue the conflict between the Palestinians and the State of Israel.

The reasons are simple: the Israeli government can scare its population into agreeing on huge defense budgets which will allow it to be the "local cop on the beat" (as Nixon once stated) protecting the regional Arab governments from Nationalist takeovers which would endager US and British oil interests. A "Zionist Enemy" (as Israel is called in many middle eastern circles) is also useful to the various presidential sheikdoms in the Middle-East, in order to divert attention away from their repressive regimes to the external enemy.

Unfortunately, the work of genuine Israeli peace activits like Uri Avnery will be made more difficult with this "disengagement" plan and the prospects of a real functioning state for the Palestinian people less likely. All of this of course can change if activists realize and pre-empt the current Likud - Avoda ("labour" party) expansion strategy.


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 August 2005 12:21 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So would you prefer that Israel maintain its settlements in Gaza and give in to those religious freak nutbars that are kicking up such a fuss about wanting to stay there?

I agree, BTW. I think Israel should just stop defending those settlements and say to the religious freaks with Brooklyn accents that live there "Stay if you want but you will become citizens of the Palestinian Authority and no one from the IDF is going to come to your rescue"


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 August 2005 02:01 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the more critical part of the statement is "a US-Israeli West Bank expansion plan, designed to incorporate valuable land and resources of the West Bank into Israel, and leave Palestinians in a few unviable Bantustans".
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 09 August 2005 03:33 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So would you prefer that Israel maintain its settlements in Gaza and give in to those religious freak nutbars that are kicking up such a fuss about wanting to stay there?

Of course not, I think though people should not be fooled that this is a disengagement plan and expose it for what it is the surrender of unviable settlements in order to divert attention away from the annexation of territories in the Occupied West Bank. If people see this reality, then activist and political work here can be much more beneficial to the work that Israeli progressives and Palestinians for the full IDF withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories in both the Gaza district and the West Bank (including the Arab portion of Jerusalem)as a first step in creating an independent state for the Palestinians.

quote:
I think the more critical part of the statement is "a US-Israeli West Bank expansion plan, designed to incorporate valuable land and resources of the West Bank into Israel, and leave Palestinians in a few unviable Bantustans".

Exactly, this is what this disengagement plan really is and it should be exposed as such and the pressure (inside and outide of Israel-Palestine) on the US and Israeli governments should be maintained.


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 03:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The planned eviction should serve this cause. The more difficult it looks, the more useful it would be for rejecting pressures for future withdrawals. As the "moderate settler" Yoel Bin-Nun explained last week, the settlers know very well that their battle for Gaza was lost; by maintaining the struggle, he said, they want to save the other settlements. Sharon shares the same strategy and vision; the very generous economic compensations offered to the evicted settlers also have the same objective: to make any future withdrawal politically and economically impossible.

Disengagement's Foreplay


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

posted 09 August 2005 03:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's nice to see that Chomsky has caught up to all this, finally.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 09 August 2005 03:50 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excuse my ignorance but what about the Golan [Heights]? Is it still occupied by Israel? If so, is that occupation affected by these events in Gaza and the West Bank?
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A good question. I'd say no, at least not directly. This point to the expert manner in which succesive Israel government has divided its Arab opposition, starting with peace treaty with Anwar Sadat and Egypt. Now Israel is able to negotiate (operate against) each Arab group in detail.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 09 August 2005 04:01 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Cue.

P.S. The title of this thread is mispelled misspeled misspelled. OK, I think I got it.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 09 August 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, the “e” in West was deliberately left out to allow for extra space
From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 09 August 2005 11:54 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If Sharon wants to remove the settlers quietly, nothing is easier. Simply announce that the IDF will be withdrawn on date X, and a few weeks earlier the settlers will be gone.

I relize this disengagement is a distraction from what's going on in the West Bank, but I'm not exactly sure how Sharon can remove the settlers quietly. I mean, many of them are Greater Isreal fanatics. They believe Gaza is a holy place. Could he really have prevented them from kicking up a shitstorm during the withdrawl?

[ 09 August 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 10 August 2005 12:05 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it would be good if the Israeli army simply withdrew and stopped protecting these deadbeat freak settlers. That way the Palestinians would quickly come and butcher them all and Israel would be rid of these Brooklyn accented rightwing religious freaks once and for all.

If I was Israeli, I would say "good riddance"!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 10 August 2005 12:22 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dude, how can you SAY shit like that?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 10 August 2005 11:30 AM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That way the Palestinians would quickly come and butcher them all and Israel would be rid of these Brooklyn accented rightwing religious freaks once and for all.

Of course, this is completely insulting to Palestinian people and perpetuates the racist stereotype of wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth fanatical barbaric extremists who only know how to solve political disputes by butchering and bombing and killing. Palestinians are a peaceful people with a rich culture and history.

The vast vast majority of Palestinians (including segments of Hamas, see Uri Avnery on this) is ready to support a two state solution (78% of historical Palestine too Israel and 22% to a new Palestinian State). The vast vast majority of Palestinians are not violent barbarians who are just itching to murder Jews as soon as they get the chance, they are regular peaceful folk who have lived under a horrible, brutal and dehumanizing occupation supported by the world's sole superpower and ignored by the world until recently. Their land has been confiscated by settlers and surely they will want it back, all they have to do is walk into the seized areas and go about their agriculture business. The problem was that water was being diverted from them to the settlements and that they would get shot by settlers for "tresspassing", the settlers would be backed by the awesome power of the IDF and the Palestinians would not be able to do a thing excpet protest and some would take up a lost armed struggle against an much superior adversary backed by the US. Others would attack the civilian population in acts of terrorism since they knew they stood no chance facing the IDF. Then they would be further suppressed for supporting "terrorism" and the cycle would start all over.

If the IDF unilaterally withdrew and the Israeli government offered (as it has compensation as well relocation within the State of Israel), the settlers would pretty much leave. The settlements are unviable if not for the huge subsidies that the Israeli^public pays for which would be cut off. Gaza district is an overpopulated, preactically resourceless piece of real estate that has huge social problems(practically unsurmountable in the current context) so why would anyone excpet a few fanatical religious zealots stay after a withdrawal. And if this minority decided to stay, how would they protect the illegally seized land from Palestinians just going about their business, if they would start shooting people they would not have a huge IDF from protecting them so I think logically if they knew there would be a withdrawal and an end to the Israeli government pumping money into the settlements, they would all just take their compensation packages and go.

I think it is also quite inhumane (to say the very very least) to state that the settlers deserve to die. Many are people from eastern europe who were promised a better life and given a house. I think it is hypocritical for North Americans to judge colonial settlers too harshly, since hey, this is the reason *we* all live on this nice big rich continent. Yet our founding ancestors took care of land disputes by pretty much doing away with the indigenous nations in the history's greated genocidal holocaust.

That being said, I think that kind of talk only plays into the hands of the far right in Israel and makes the work of Israeli peace activits and their Palestinian counterparts much more difficult.

I think what activists should be fighting for right now is financial compensation to the Gaza district as well as monitoring and exposing the annexation of the West Bank.

The broad international left should build coalitions with groups like Gush Shalom in Israel and progressive secular leftists in the Palestinian occupied territories on the basis of a two state solution &thr 78%/22% partitioning), thereafter in the near future a much more viable and reasonable bi-national association between two federated independent republics can be discussed...


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 August 2005 12:03 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course, this is completely insulting to Palestinian people and perpetuates the racist stereotype of wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth fanatical barbaric extremists who only know how to solve political disputes by butchering and bombing and killing. Palestinians are a peaceful people with a rich culture and history.

This is the mideast forum and you are not allowed to say that.

The following is the sanitized version for you to replace in substitution of your opening paragraph:

"Of course, this is completely insulting to Palestinian people and perpetuates the non-complimentary view of wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth fanatical barbaric extremists who only know how to solve political disputes by butchering and bombing and killing. Palestinians are a peaceful people with a rich culture and history. "

Thank you.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 August 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I think it would be good if the Israeli army simply withdrew and stopped protecting these deadbeat freak settlers. That way the Palestinians would quickly come and butcher them all and Israel would be rid of these Brooklyn accented rightwing religious freaks once and for all.

If I was Israeli, I would say "good riddance"!!


I agree with the others about this not only being racist against Palestinians, but a pretty nasty stereotype of settlers as well. I know you like to have fun and post things like this for shock value, Stockholm, but in case you haven't noticed, we're trying to make this forum less contentious by nipping this kind of baiting in the bud. So consider this your first warning to knock it off.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 10 August 2005 12:42 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what is not allowed and I may be mistaken is to call someone racist (direclty or indirectly), which I believe I have not, I do not accuse Stockholm of that. The point I was trying to make, is that such aggressive talk doesn't do any good and perpetuates an image that is created and promoted in the media of Palestinians. The image that has been moulded in the media from movies to the news to things flowing around on the net is a racist stereotype. Palestinians and Arabs in general are the victims of racist stereotypes and seen as violent people by the media. Very little attention is paid to their vast history and great culture. It is not in the public conciousness that the Islamic-Arab invastions of southern Europe were fundamental in sparking the renaissance. Images of violent muraders though are readily available. Hence, one should not jump to conclusions and be sure that Palestinians would all react violently against the settlers no matter how much the occupation has tortured them, it is not instinctive to them to act in such a way, I would argue quite the opposite, their civilized culture is very open to accomodations. Of course, there would be conflicts as I mentioned above. Anyway, my point was that such type of agrresive talk works in favour of the right wing in Israel and does not help.

I do not believe and it was not intention to imply directly or indirectly that Stockholm was racist. I do not think not believe he is. I understood his point, I thought it a comment in bad taste. I do sincerely believe though, that this kind of talk does perpetuate media stereotypes that are quite racist. I think this is a point that needs to be made and hence, cannot be talked about without using the direct terminology.

Nevetheless, your vigilance is much appreciated since I hope this clears up the point I was trying to make and that I had no intention of making an attack on Stockholm directly or indirectly. I was attacking his statement to the best of my ability and based on my personal convictions.

If Stockholm fees personally attacked then I will imediately edit my post as proposed. If Stockholm understands my point and does not find it personally offensive, I still leave it up to the moderator to decide since the last thing I want to do is have this thread degenerate into name calling rather than dealing with an important issue.


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 August 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:
I think what is not allowed and I may be mistaken is to call someone racist (direclty or indirectly), which I believe I have not, I do not accuse Stockholm of that.

Oh...sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you had. I actually got a complaint about the remark from someone else by private mail, because I hadn't seen the thread until they mentioned it.

WingNut - ha ha. While it's true that I'd prefer that people not call each other racists or anti-semites or do the backhanded indirect accusatory thing (since we all know what that leads to in this particular forum, and since just about every person who posts here has demanded that I come down on Macabee and others for doing that same thing), I think that in this case I'm going to take into consideration the fact that Stockholm was obviously trolling for a reaction by writing something outrageous (considering that he did it twice in one thread), and that Tom is not one of the usual people involved in the namecalling and nastiness that has poisoned this forum in the past. But yes, in a way, although WingNut was being facetious, I would prefer that if people think someone is being racist, that they write to me rather than directly labelling people or their posts racist, due to the dynamic in this forum of threads degenerating into accusations of racism and anti-semitism.

I know you think I'm oversanitizing this place by requesting that, WingNut. But I think it needed it, and from the complaints I've received, others have too. That may mean that people on both sides have less leeway to call out racism and anti-semitism when it appears, and that you'll have to depend on writing to the moderator to get it dealt with. Well, I'm sorry, but if those accusations hadn't been so misdirected and abused in the past by people on both sides, then we wouldn't be in this situation.

I personally think this place has been more productive since people stopped calling each other (and their posts) racist and anti-semitic.

[ 10 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 10 August 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think anyone has made an unfair accusation against me. I did NOT want to perpetuate a stereotype of Palestinians being wild-eyed killers.

That being said, has anyone else noticed that everytime you see any of these settler fanatics being interviewed in Gaza they all seem to have these grating Brooklyn accents?? I read that amny of the "settlers" on the West Bank are just poor Israelis who moved there becasuse it was cheap and who are only too happy to take the compensation and move back to Israel proper - but that the settlers in Gaza tend to be US-born fanatical ideologues.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 10 August 2005 04:27 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I take exception to the view that Brooklyn accents are necessarily "grating." It's all in the ear of the beholder, I guess. However, some of the most fanatical settlers in both Gaza and the west bank are from the New York vacinity, and Brooklyn in particular. What I find even more annoying is when they get on their chartered planes and fly over to Israel to vote in the elections, and then fly right back. One of the perks of dual citizenship.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 August 2005 04:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Well, I take exception to the view that Brooklyn accents are necessarily "grating." It's all in the ear of the beholder, I guess.

Agreed.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 August 2005 06:09 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

I know you think I'm oversanitizing this place by requesting that, WingNut. But I think it needed it, and from the complaints I've received, others have too. That may mean that people on both sides have less leeway to call out racism and anti-semitism when it appears, and that you'll have to depend on writing to the moderator to get it dealt with. Well, I'm sorry, but if those accusations hadn't been so misdirected and abused in the past by people on both sides, then we wouldn't be in this situation.

I personally think this place has been more productive since people stopped calling each other (and their posts) racist and anti-semitic.

[ 10 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


I have been away for a bit and have spent some time going over a couple threads to get back into the groove so to write.


Perhaps this belongs more in Rabble reactions but here goes in response to your post Michelle.

Yes it seems that the idea is working, but only partially. I, for one, given at least the last "warning" that got Macabee suspended, am now more than unsure of what can and cannot be written. While Macabee may be somewhat hard to take at times, he/she referred to no one as a racist or anti-Semite although if I understand your reasoning was suspended for suggesting that RSFarrell may have a bias.

So let me understand, as well as refraining from the "A' word and the "R" word we are also no longer permitted to call someone on a perceived bias, is that right? Or has this more to do with the issue of non-mods "policing" the thread?

As you see I am really confused. Sure warnings for name-calling (I wouldnt stop at racist and anti_Semite)but perhaps a PM for other offences that are not as serious? My thoughts for what they are worth.


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

posted 10 August 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

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

posted 10 August 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Follow the policy, ohara, of sticking to the arguments and not attacking other babblers personally, not calling other babblers racists or anti-semites, not taking every conversation off course through policing other babblers for policy violations, and not breaking the rules listed in the babble policy statement, and you'll be fine.

I don't particularly feel like going through a big long explanation of what got Macabee suspended. I explained at the time of each of his warnings and suspension. It's enough. If you were following along at the time, great. If you weren't, then it probably doesn't concern you anyhow. I'm not going to waste my time and everyone else's rehashing it again.

[ 10 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 August 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Americans Raise $14 Million to Aid Uprooted Gaza Settlers

quote:
JERUSALEM, Aug. 12 - A consortium of wealthy Americans has put up $14 million to compensate Jewish settlers for their Gaza Strip greenhouses, and the facilities will be handed over to the Palestinians as soon as the Israelis leave, participants in the agreement said today.

And would someone like to explain to me why the Israeli government can't cough up this money?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 12 August 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
And perhaps at the same time someone can explain to me why Canada doesnt put more money into eradicating poverty.

Dr. Conway, people are free to donate money in any way they choose. There also happens to be substantial funds being made available by Israeli authorities to Gaza resettelers as well


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

posted 12 August 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Conway, HaCohen argues convincingly that one of the reasons Sharon is making the settlers settlment packages so huge is to set a precedent whereby it would be impossible to repatriate a singifcant number of West Bank settlers, without backrupting Israel. Those WB settlers would simply be able to argue in court that they should receieve the same in their compensation packages.

This effectively puts a major resettlement of WB settlers out of reach of future Israeli governments.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 August 2005 08:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
And perhaps at the same time someone can explain to me why Canada doesnt put more money into eradicating poverty.

This is not germane to the discussion. It is, however, a very nice red sna.. uh, herring. (Damn, I wanted a snapper!)

quote:
Dr. Conway, people are free to donate money in any way they choose. There also happens to be substantial funds being made available by Israeli authorities to Gaza resettelers as well

So why can't the Israeli government, which spends around 170 to 200 billion shekels a year (or somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 billion US a year), cough up a piddly $14 mill for these greenhouses? They certainly found the money fast enough for a white elephant of a "security wall".

They could print the money and not even miss it.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 12 August 2005 09:46 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Your "white elephant" is an Israeli's protection against being murdered. It's all relative i guess.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 August 2005 09:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

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

posted 12 August 2005 09:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
State to High Court: Fence route determined not only by security considerations

quote:
In its principal ruling on the issue last year, in the Beit Surik affair, the High Court determined that the state has no authority to build a fence for "political" considerations, such as appending land to Israel.

The state's new stance also highlights a major policy change regarding the "temporary" nature of the fence. Until now, the state has claimed that the fence was a short-term measure, and it was possible to move or dismantle the barrier.


Again, if you are going to pose yourself as some kind of knowledgable poster on the inner working of Israeli society, it would be nice if you would not depend on our ignorance, rather than your knowledge when defeding your arguements.

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 August 2005 10:29 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a broader issue here, which is that this fundraising is another example of throwing an expense that should rightly be incurred by the government, onto the individuals or charitable organizations who can afford to pay for something. And if they can't afford it? Well, tough patooties.

The taxpayers of Israel may understandably not want to subsidize the removal of settlers any more than they wanted to subsidize them moving there, but since the whole job was done under government aegis, it falls to the government to cover the expense, not private individuals.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 12 August 2005 10:55 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
State to High Court: Fence route determined not only by security considerations

Again, if you are going to pose yourself as some kind of knowledgable poster on the inner working of Israeli society, it would be nice if you would not depend on our ignorance, rather than your knowledge when defeding your arguements.

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I have really tried to abide by the rules here but why is it that this Cueball can engage in personal attacks and others not?

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 August 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ohara, would it have killed you to have sent a private mail to me and wait for more than 5 minutes for me to respond to something that happens in a thread? Believe it or not, I'm not here every second of every hour of every day. And the last time you and Cueball started to get into it, I stepped in. Why would you think that I wouldn't this time? And now that you've posted this, probably there will be others who won't be able to resist answering you.

Cueball, I've already asked in the other thread where you posted the same thing, that people refrain from making it personal. Next time, a warning comes with it. Please stop.

Ohara, I don't need an assistant moderator. Yes, even if that means waiting for a few minutes - or an hour - or even half a day! - for me to respond, I still don't need you to play hall monitor.

To everyone else - please don't respond to ohara's post. It's taken care of.

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 13 August 2005 10:41 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

The taxpayers of Israel may understandably not want to subsidize the removal of settlers any more than they wanted to subsidize them moving there, but since the whole job was done under government aegis, it falls to the government to cover the expense, not private individuals.

Yes your point is well taken. I would only add however that if private groups and individuals wish to provide funding as well no one should really have a problem with it.

Taking my earlier argument one step further, I think it can be argued that government is both responsible for poverty as well as its eradication. However if individuals and groups wish to donate to the United Way or to homeless shelters to help government no one should complain. Its called being charitable.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 14 August 2005 11:53 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem is that charity is 10 times less efficient at doing its job than the government is. Too many people, too uncertain a funding source, too few people dedicated enough to do the work.

It's also an abdication of responsibility when the government collectively throws up its hands and says "We're not doing this anymore." This is my problem with the $14 mill going for compensation to settlers in private donations.

I ain't a big fan of throwing good money after bad here, but the settlers won't move unless someone dangles money in front of them. Why? Partly because the whole reason they moved out there in the first place was because of the incredibly fat subsidies. Now, their property values are about nil. No Palestinian-Arab can afford to buy the land, so where's the money going to come from to buy them out and hoof them back into Israel proper? Gotta be the government.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 14 August 2005 01:21 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe this is a dumb question -- if I had time I could perhaps surf and find the answer -- but why is the Israeli government going to demolish the settlers' houses after they move out? After paying for them? Why not sell them to the Palestinians? Isn't this a waste of funds?
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 14 August 2005 02:53 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One reason could be that it will make it easier for everyone involved to make a clean start. This way, no-one can point to a property and say "That is the house that you stole from me".
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 14 August 2005 03:50 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Maybe this is a dumb question -- if I had time I could perhaps surf and find the answer -- but why is the Israeli government going to demolish the settlers' houses after they move out? After paying for them? Why not sell them to the Palestinians? Isn't this a waste of funds?

Doesn't matter. Out of spite, settlers have been setting fire to their houses when they leave. Talk about scorched earth! (I'm keeping mind of the temperatures one may experience in that region. I'm sweating just thinking about it.)


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

posted 14 August 2005 04:07 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Yes your point is well taken. I would only add however that if private groups and individuals wish to provide funding as well no one should really have a problem with it.

The point ought to be that no one should be funneling money to war criminal scum, as if they were pefectly nice innocent people caught by events. These are the shock troops of the Zionists' slow-motion genocide. The world oughtn't to be passing the hat for anything other than the cost of a sturdy hemp rope.

Compensation is an insult, but payment for settler "assests" is obscene. Palestinians rightly reject entirely the idea of "paying" for their own land, or the settlements forced upon them.

Then these "generous" donors come up with the money, supposedly for the Palestinians benifit, are wealthy Zionists with one more handout for racist settlers. It's just as though your daughter was raped, and the rapists' family send you a bill from an escort service.

I hope and believe that the settler scum will be paid in full for the business they did in Gaza, but not in the form of money.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 August 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know what kind of source The Age is, but I have found this same quote, from June 2004, on several sites:

quote:
"The houses will be destroyed so that they do not fall into the hands of terrorists or the mafia run by (Palestinian leader) Yasser Arafat," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"It would have been otherwise had we received assurances that these buildings would be turned over to Palestinian refugees, but as this is not the case, we had no other choice."

According to army radio, the United Nations and the European Union will put even greater pressure on Sharon to transfer the houses to the Palestinians, but the source said he was unaware of any such pressures.

However, he said UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had telephoned Sharon on Friday to assure him of the "UN's support for the courageous plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip."


I don't know whether getting the houses matters to the Palestinians or not, but I must say I'm a bit shocked at the suggestion the Palestinians should ever have been expected to pay for them.

I have seen references in the Globe and Mail in recent days to ongoing discussions between Israel and the Palestinians about how the rubble is going to be cleared and who will pay for that. I should have thought that the responsibility was obvious.


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

posted 14 August 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: I linked to the cached page because otherwise people would have had to register.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 14 August 2005 04:26 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"We spent nearly a million dollars on our home. There is nothing worse than seeing it fall into the hands of a Palestinian"
-Israeli man on CNN followed by the anchor saying with a bit of a laugh.
"Everything is being stripped, everything that isn't nailed down. Even things that are. Even the kitchen sink is gone".

What the hell is up with this hatred?


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 August 2005 04:30 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, they've been shooting at each other for years for a start, PB. And that is a shame all 'round.

However, it is hard not to reflect that precious few Palestinians would ever have had the million to spend on that house, on land taken from them by the Israeli state, and that that settler just doesn't get it. Probably never will. That's a shame too, to spend one's life deluded.


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

posted 14 August 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
HaCohen links these threads together nicely;

quote:

But later, edified by my own feelings of Jewish solidarity, I realised that the urge felt by Jews world-wide to support Israel in these difficult days is quite understandable. So I started thinking how Jews really could, and should, support Israel. Not by supporting Sharon's vision of eternal war, but by supporting us, the Israeli people, whose vision is coexistence side-by-side with the Palestinians in peace, security and prosperity.

[SNIP]

In view of the Intifada, non-ideological settlers – probably a majority in most settlements, especially in the bigger ones – now find themselves both cheated and doubly betrayed.

[SNIP]


Jews in America and world-wide should therefore use their money to support settlers who wish to leave the occupied territories and return to Israel. This should not even be a "political" issue: the settlers (and their children) are held hostage by the Israeli government, exposed to deadly violence. You do not have to be a dove to support people's right not to live in the middle of a battle-field (unless they want to). Sums and conditions can be negotiated, using as guidelines the compensations paid by Israel to the settlers evacuated from Sinai when it was returned to Egypt.

The advantages of such an initiative are numerous.

* On a human level, it respects the free and legitimate will of settlers who wish to leave.

* On a moral level, it does justice to innocent Israeli citizens who conformed to Israeli law and policy, moved to the occupied territories, and now feel abandoned, cheated and betrayed.

* On a national level, it respects the overwhelming majority in Israel that supports evacuation of settlements (without even harming the minority of settlement-supporters).

* On a regional level, it can show Arabs that Jews world-wide are supportive of peace, not of the disputed settlements. Empty settlements can then be sold to house Palestinian refugees.

* On an international level, it conforms to the international as well as American position that the settlements are illegal and form an obstacle to peace.

Now, dear United Jewish Communities of North America: you have collected $265 million in your recent "Israel Emergency Campaign". 65% of the Israelis support evacuating the settlements. Will you take 65% of the sum – $172 million – and offer it to settlers wishing to leave? Or will any other Jewish institution take up the glove? You'll find an overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians behind you, and you will enter History as the initiator of a quantum leap towards Peace in the Middle East.


How Jews Can Support Israel -- Support the People, not the Government

[ 14 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 14 August 2005 05:43 PM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Maybe this is a dumb question -- if I had time I could perhaps surf and find the answer -- but why is the Israeli government going to demolish the settlers' houses after they move out? After paying for them? Why not sell them to the Palestinians? Isn't this a waste of funds?

A reason I've seen is that the settlers' homes are inefficient use of real estate: large (descriptions vary from garden homes to mini-mansions) single family and not suitable for the mass housing required for the Palestinian people. The media reported that the PA wanted Israel to demolish so the PA would not be reponsible for demolishing or deciding who gets mansions. Israeli would do the major demolition and carry away the big rubble, and the Palestinians would do the final clean up and build apartments.

It's a humanitarian and environmental shame to destroy perfectly good buildings, surely some of which could be used for community purposes. Obviously the Palestinians should not be expected to pay, but Israel could just give the buildings to them as a gesture of good will that would not cost Israel anything. Isreael could have discouraged vandalism, by, for example, a policy of deducting twice the value of any vandalism from payments to settlers and giving that $ to the palestinians. It's expensive to demolish, haul away and dispose of buildings.

The lsreali newspaper Haaretz publishes much news in English on disengagement here

[ 14 August 2005: Message edited by: Paul Gross ]


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 August 2005 06:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"I would be so happy that I would have a heart attack," he said. "If they leave, I'm going to get a bull and slaughter it, and then make food for everybody. There will even be enough for [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon."

In Gaza, a Palestinian farmer waits to get his land back


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

posted 18 August 2005 12:31 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
"We spent nearly a million dollars on our home. There is nothing worse than seeing it fall into the hands of a Palestinian"
-Israeli man on CNN followed by the anchor saying with a bit of a laugh.
"Everything is being stripped, everything that isn't nailed down. Even things that are. Even the kitchen sink is gone".

What the hell is up with this hatred?


CS Lewis said that nothing stokes hatred like the secret knowledge that you are in the wrong. "In the beginning, maybe, the nazis wronged the Jews because they hated them, but in the end, they hated them far more because they had wronged them."

Meanwhile in Gaza, tears -- actual tears -- for those settlers burning their houses, destroying their farms:

quote:
"I feel that as a Palestinian this is my territory, this is my land," said Mkhaimar Abu Sada, a political scientist at Al Azhar University in Gaza City whose family became refugees in 1948. "This is my life, and I really want this to be happening right now. But on the other side, it's something on the human level - it's not an easy thing to take someone from their property and make them leave."

. . .

He recalled watching television with his wife and friends on Tuesday. "One Israeli settler lady was talking about that she planted some trees, and she wanted the people behind to look after them," he said. He looked over at his wife, he remembered. "She was smiling," he said, "and at the same time she had tears. So it tells you about the conflicting emotions."



NYT

For the Palestinians who have suffered so much at the hands of these people to recognise the human suffering of a far-less deprived group of people gives the lie to the vile and pernicious bigotry that says that the Palestinian majority can never be entrusted with the rights of the Jewish population -- that says that "the hatreds are too deep" for that -- nevertheless comfortable with the fact that these people presently scorching the earth in Gaza will continue to be part of the Jewish people dominating forever, in their scheme, millions of Palestinians. But whose is truly a raging and irrational hatred? And who cannot forgive?

[ 18 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


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

posted 20 August 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PLO talking points document and map for Gaza pullout, reference material [sample]

quote:
Water: Israel controls Palestinian access to the Coastal aquifer. Israel has over-extracted this aquifer to the extent that it has fallen below sea level and has been contaminated by salt water.

Gas: Since Israel will continue military operations in Gaza’s territorial waters and since Israel will maintain control over Gaza’s borders—thus precluding Palestinian ability to export gas—Gaza will likely remain unable to profitably extract the natural gas resources located off its coast.

Electricity: Due to Israel’s control of borders, Palestinians must purchase most of their electricity from the Israeli monopoly, instead of connecting to the electricity grids of neighboring countries. The rates Israel charges Palestinians are among the highest in the world. If Israel permits Palestinians to freely export their natural gas, Palestinians will be able to develop their own electricity infrastructure. However, the Gazan market alone is too small to make gas extraction economically viable.

Fuel: Israel has effectively ensured that Palestinians can only purchase fuel from Israel.



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

posted 20 August 2005 11:41 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PLO negotiation affairs department

quote:
1) Upon completion of Israel’s Wall, the indigenous Palestinian population will be restricted to ghettoes constituting less than 12% of historic Palestine.

2) In 1967, when Israel began violating the Fourth Geneva Convention by transferring Israeli civilians into illegal Israeli colonies in Occupied Palestinian Territory, Israel claimed the colonies were a “temporary security measure.” More than 37 years later, these colonies have not only become permanent, but continue to expand.

3) There are now approximately 410,000 settlers living illegally in Occupied Palestinian Territory.

4) Israel continues to reserve the right to confiscate Palestinian agricultural land if it is not being regularly farmed, even if the reason that it is not being farmed is due to Israel’s refusal to allow farmers access to their fields.

5) Palestinians from the Gaza Strip are unable to leave the Gaza Strip unless they obtain Israel’s permission to do so, whereas Israeli settlers living illegally in the Strip have complete freedom of movement.

6) 75% of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip survive on only $2 per day

7) During Oslo, the Israeli military continued land confiscation and nearly doubled the population of its illegal colonies.

8) Under the Gaza Disengagement Plan, Israel expects to keep more than 40% of Occupied Palestinian Territory in “exchange” for evacuating from less than 1% of Occupied Palestinian Territory.

9) In order to ensure Israeli control over its colony blocs, the Wall has been routed around these blocs and their planned expansion.

10) The Gaza Strip will remain occupied territory even after implementation of the “Disengagement” Plan.

11) The Wall divides Palestinian farmers from their land, Palestinian students from their schools, Palestinian worshippers from their holy sites and Palestinian patients from their hospitals.



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

posted 21 August 2005 03:57 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How We Left Gaza

Reinhardt's punch line:

quote:
"Over the years we have become accustomed to the idea that “US.
pressure” means declarations that have no muscle behind them. But suddenly the
words have acquired new meaning. When the U.S. really does exert
pressure, no Israeli leader would dare defy its injunctions (and certainly
not Netanyahu). And so we have pulled out of Gaza. If the U.S. continues
to lose ground in Iraq, maybe we will be forced to pull out of the West
Bank as well."

From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425

posted 22 August 2005 12:06 AM      Profile for A longsuffering conservative     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sharon has done the right thing by withdrawing from Gaza and several small settlements on the edge of the West Bank.

But, he is being too clever by half. Isn't it obvious that you can't put the genie back into the bottle -- it's like trying to reclaim your virginity!

The political currents will leave Israel with no choice but to eventually pull out of most of the West Bank. Sharon may be long gone but a successor government will have to do the deal.

If I was a settler living on the West Bank, my depression would be starting just about now.


From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 22 August 2005 05:18 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by A longsuffering conservative:
The political currents will leave Israel with no choice but to eventually pull out of most of the West Bank. Sharon may be long gone but a successor government will have to do the deal.

If I was a settler living on the West Bank, my depression would be starting just about now.


Israel has much more invested in the WB than in Gaza. Gaza has been a thorn in Israel's side, requiring massive troop and material engagement by the IDF in order to protect little in the way of infrastructure or political capital. The WB is a very different story. Not only is there the whole "Historic Judea and Samaria" nonsense, there are water supplies, massive infrastructure investment, and That Damned Wall to think about.

I don't see why - with the usual unwavering support of the U.S. I would add - Israel can't continue to occupy large parts of the West Bank and continue expanding settlements there for some time.

From a traditional 'realist' (in the political theory sense) point of view, Israel has nothing to gain and everything to lose by giving up the West Bank.

[ 22 August 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 23 August 2005 11:25 AM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the Globe this morning it is written: "Prime Minister Ariel Sharon signalled [sic] again that he plans to expand, not dismantle, key settlement blocs in the West Bank."

Ariel Sharon is quoted as saying in an interview with the Jerusalem Post: "I will build. This is something you will see in a short time, that there will be no second disengagement."

Interestingly, the same paper also includes a comment by Israeli secularist and novelist Amos Oz, who argues: "...when the time comes to give up the West Bank and east Jerusalem in return for peace with the Palestinians [... will] Palestine regard all of this as a bold Israeli step toward a historical compromise with them? Will they reciprocate by taking bold steps against their own fanatics? Or will they regard the clashes between Jews and Jews as a first syndrome of Israel's disintegration and try to inflame the situation in Israel by launching a fresh wave of Palestinian violent and terrorism?"

Considering Amos Oz likely wrote this one or two days ago, it may have been before Sharon's interview. His piece is no longer relevant. The Palestinians continue to have every right to resist occupation and the theft of their land.


From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
uh clem
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1078

posted 23 August 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for uh clem   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The settlers' retreat was the theatre of the cynical

Jonathan Steele
Friday August 19, 2005

Contrast the world's overwhelming coverage, especially on television, of the departure of Israeli settlers from Gaza with the minimal reporting of larger and more brutal evictions in previous months.
There was no "sensitivity training" for Israeli troops, no buses to drive the expellees away, no generous deadlines to get ready, no compensation packages for their homes, and no promise of government-subsidised alternative housing when the bulldozers went into Rafah.


An interesting point of view in The Guardian that seems to me to be painfully accurate

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: uh clem ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 23 August 2005 08:06 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re: Sharon and settlement expansion: no suprises there.

Re: The differing ethics of "transfer": also, no suprises there. Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are still homo sacer in Israel's body politic. This recent transfer of Jews (full citizens) just illustrates this seperation of classes.

When you kick a Jew, you apologise ahead of time, use a Nerf-covered slipper, and apply ice when you're finished. When you kick a Palestinian you wear the steel-capped boot and continue kicking until he doesn't come back for more. And you never, ever, ever, apologise. You him and haw, you regret, you cry crocodile tears, but in the end you blame the Palestinian for making you have to punish him.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 27 August 2005 03:18 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A sane statement on the Gaza withdrawal:
quote:
. . this difficult yet crucial measure taken by Israel can become a solid step towards putting the peace process back on track.

Those Israelis and Palestinians most able to move things in a positive direction are now in the forefront, creating new opportunities for peace, progress, democracy and for both peoples to live in freedom side by side, and everyone in Israel, Palestine and the international community must work to maintain the momentum.

We in the Socialist International join Palestinians and Israelis in believing that a decisive step has been taken, one that demonstrates that further and other necessary ones can be made towards peace through a process of negotiation, compromise and concessions from both sides.

Today is an important moment for all who condemn violence and terrorist acts, who continue to work for peaceful resolutions to conflict, who believe that a common future of peace for Israelis and Palestinians is possible.


Note that the last semi-annual meeting of the SI Council was May 23 in Tel Aviv and Ramallah opened by speeches by Shimon Peres, Leader of the Labour Party and Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, and Imad Shakur, Member of the Palestinian National Council representing Fatah. In Ramallah, the delegates to the Council had a special meeting with the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. Other participants from the Middle East included the Constitutional Democratic Assembly, RCD (Tunisia's governing party); the Republican People’s Party, CHP (Turkey's official opposition); and with observer status the Democratic People’s Party, DEHAP (Turkey's Kurdish party, whose President spoke); the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, PDKI; and the Jordanian Democratic Party of the Left, JDPL.

The Council's Middle East Statement was adopted unanimously:

quote:
• The Socialist International welcomes Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and some settlements of the West Bank. It must, however, be coordinated with the Palestinian Authority as a part of the Roadmap and followed by negotiations on final status issues.
Negotiations must be based on international law, and UN resolutions, and the goal must be the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. We encourage initiatives such as the Peace Coalition Geneva draft, which helped clarify positions and offered opportunities for peace, as envisaged in the third part of the Roadmap.

• The Socialist International underlines the successful steps in the Palestinian electoral process. The SI extends its support to the further strengthening of the reform process in Palestine and supports the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to stop all forms of violence, disarming militia groups, and to include all political parties in the political process, leading to a strengthening of multi-party democracy. The SI calls on the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to include women in the negotiating teams, and to work to protect the rights of women and children during and after conflicts. Young women and men in particular should have a strong role in shaping the future.

• We urge the Israeli government to refrain from activities that would undermine a peaceful outcome. All settlement activities and the building of the wall on Palestinian territory must stop.

• The Socialist International calls upon its member parties and calls upon the international community to extend financial support to the Palestinian Authority and foster concrete cooperation projects that could lead to economic and social development.



From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 August 2005 03:35 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That sucks.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 August 2005 03:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, I read it wrong. It doesn't entirely suck. It is a little porridge like, however.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 27 August 2005 03:51 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It doesn't entirely suck. It is a little porridge like, however.

Perhaps you should offer your culinary services to Fatah, which voted for it.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 August 2005 04:09 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahh, yes well, supporting Feteh, is really something I do on principle because they are the largest Palestinian resitance group, and the one with the bigest mandate, and it is not my business to second guess what Palestinians need to do in order to regain their right. I am much more aligned politically with the PFLP, as well as the others who opposed Oslo. They charged, and Edward Said was pretty good on this point, that it was essentially a sell out, and it was.

But then there are ideals of what is right and wrong, and then there is politcal reality. If I were a member of Feteh, I would likely have voted for it too, but I am not so I can say what I like. Just because something is politically expedient, and necessary, does not mean that it is objectively correct.

Do you mind that I don't adhere to the strict party discipline of a party that I am not a member of?

So that is my advice to Feteh: We want less sugar and less liquid with our oats.

[ 27 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 08 January 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:
No, the “e” in West was deliberately left out to allow for extra space

I know it's a few months late commenting on your spelling...but if it's any consolation to you Tom, y'all were talking about the middle-east...so the vowels don't really matter since they speak semitic tongues out there.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca