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   » Tales from the Israeli race war

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Tales from the Israeli race war
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 22 August 2005 10:09 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post

Settlers attempting to destroy the minaret of an old mosque located inside Sa-Nur on Monday. (AP)


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

posted 22 August 2005 10:16 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Palestinians: Settlers vandalize at least eight West Bank villages

quote:
Mosque Desecrated by Spray Painting and Distribution of Porn Images The same afternoon of the terror attacks in Shefamr, the Dahmash Mosque located in a Jewish neighbourhood in the city of Lid (Lod) was desecrated when a Jewish settler distributed pornographic images and racist flyers which called for the killing of Arabs and their expulsion from the state. The vandals also spray painted racist slogans on the mosque’s walls.

The mosque’s sheikhs filed a complaint with the police and gave them photographs of the suspect taken by witnesses. Security guards were then sent to the four mosques in the city. Sheikh Yusef el-Baz, the city's imam, said: "At a time when incitement against the Arab minority in Israel is provoked by ministers and officials of the Israeli authority, I wouldn’t be surprised if people will see this as a green light for committing similar crimes."

In 1948 the Israeli Army entered the Dahmash Mosque and killed several worshippers inside. The mosque was closed for several years under official state order but was recently opened after a public outcry by local residents.


http://www.arabhra.org/


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

posted 23 August 2005 12:16 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

In 1948 the Israeli Army entered the Dahmash Mosque and killed several worshippers inside. The mosque was closed for several years under official state order but was recently opened after a public outcry by local residents.


That was back when Ben Gurion was handing out presents to Arabs to make them stay in peace and security in the only free and democratic country in the Middle East -- oh wait... I forgot, Israel is the only country in the Middle East, and its privilaged here by having a whole forum all to itself!

Wich raises an interesting question, what were the forms of government in the individual Arab states in the 10 years following 1948, most were monarchies, I know that, but were they absolute monarchies or constitutional monarchies?

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 23 August 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

That was back when Ben Gurion was handing out presents to Arabs to make them stay in peace and security in the only free and democratic Middle East.

Wich raises an interesting question, what were the forms of government in the individual Arab states in the 10 years following 1948, most were monarchies, I know that, but were they absolute monarchies or constitutional monarchies?

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I will try to answer this interesting question.


Egypt:

Before the coup against King Farouk in 1952, Egypt was a constitutional monarchy. Effectively, the king's power was somehow limited against the parliament whose biggest block consisted of the Wafd party, by far the most popular party in Egypt. Many times, the Wafd party could enforce its own candidate for PM on the monarch. That is not to paint a rosy picture, since effectively, the country was under British tutelage, and the British could pop up the monarch against his foes (the Wafd party was staunchly anti-British, and it as founded in 1919(?) precisely to contend British colinialism. Al-Wafd means in Arabic the delegation, particularly the Egyptian delegation headed by Saad Zaghloul intending to go the Versailles Peace Conference, but which was stopped from doing so by the British who sent Zaghloul and his comrades to exile in Malta(?). This led millions of Egyptians to go down to the streets in protest. I am digressing here.

Lebanon:

Lebanon was a democratic republic. In 1948, the president was Bshara el-Khouri, who has been in office since he was elected in 1943 (for a 6 year term. He managed to land himself another term in 1948, but could not stay in office till 1954 as forseen because popular protests and parliamentary activism impeached him in 1952. Camille Sham'oun was elected to succeed him)

Syria:

Syria was (yes, believe it or not) a democratic republic. The president was the popular Shekri el-Ouwwatli (I don't know when he was elected. Probably 1943 or 1944), and the PM was Fares el-Khouri (not related to the Lebanese president at the time).
In 1949, due to the Syrian parliament's (the elected parliament, mind you) refusal to give concession to private American oil companies to transport oil from Iraq to the Syrian port of Lattakyeh, the CIA ousted Ouwatli and installed the puppet head of the army Husni el-Za'eem (he was an agent of the military apparatus, but I'm not sure whether he was the army commander). Za'im ratified the contract to give the oil company all what it needed, but his reign did not last for long. In 1950, he was ousted. In 1952, democracy returned to Syria, and Ouwatli was again voted into office. In 1959, Syria and Egypt formed the unified Arab republic which turned Syria virtually into an Egyptian province under Nasser's regime. The Syrians separated in 1961 from Egypt, and enjoyed 2 years of democratic rule till the Ba'ath party performed its coup, and his been in power since 1963.

Jordan:

the horrible monarchy was under the rule of King Abdallah, but unlike Egypt, it was not constitutional, and effectively, the British ruled it entirely without any popular representation in parliament as in Egypt.

Iraq:

Iraq has gained its independence since 1931, and became a member of the league of nations. Though the monarchy was staunchly pro-British (lest not forget that the kings of Jordan and Iraq were neither Jordanian nor Iraqi, but rather King Abdallah and King faysal were the sons of the Shrif Hussein of Hijaz, who allied with the British in WW1. They ruled over these 2 countries because of British tutelage). This same pro-British monarchy who laid docile as there was incitement and riots against the indegenous Iraqi Jewish population in 1948 (while the monarchy wasn't indigenous), and this pro-British monarchy which mainatined contacts with the Zionist apparatus, agreeing with them to encourage immigration of Iraqi Jews as canon fodder for demographic obssessions and as cheap labor in Israel, as long as the Iraqi state can retain their properties (Avi Shleim. He says to the effect that the Iraqi regime told the Israeli authoroties that they didn't mind sending their own Jews to Israel had it not been for the prominent roles they played in the Iraqi economy, the Isrealis said that the Iraqis could retain the Jewish properties, and so in 1951, the Iraqi government issued a decree stipulating that any Iraqi (they said Iraqi, not Jewish Iraqi, but any Iraqi) who wished o leave may do so, but has to renounce the Iraqi citizenship).

So in 1948, you had Syria and Lebanon as democratic republics, Egypt as a constituational monarchy, and Iraq/Jordan as absolute monarchies.


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 23 August 2005 02:48 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Court remands Shas leader's grandson for attacking Arabs

By Itim

Jerusalem Magistrate's Court remanded two Jewish men on Tuesday suspected of carrying out racially-motivated attacks against Arabs in the Shmuel Hanavi neighborhood last Wednesday.

Yonathan Yosef, 26, the grandson of Shas party's spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, and his friend, Moshe Haim Sharaz, 20, are accused of throwing stones and puncturing the tires of Arab-owned cars.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/616227.html



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

posted 23 August 2005 03:02 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:


Israeli youth trash W. Bank gas station

By Amira Hass

A group of Israeli youths vandalized the gas station at the entrance to the northern West Bank settlement of Sa-Nur yesterday at noon. The station is owned by Camil Gerard, a native of the adjacent village of Jebaa who is a Canadian citizen.

According to Palestinian witnesses, the vandals trashed the station for several hours, pouring fuel on the floor and causing extensive damage to the building and offices. Military officials said the damage was minimal due to the immediate arrival of the army.




http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/614591.html



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

posted 23 August 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Court jails 2 Jerusalem Jews for beating, robbing Palestinian man

By Jonathan Lis, Haaretz Correspondent

The Jerusalem District Court sentenced two Jewish residents of the city to three years in jail after they were convicted of committing a racially motivated assault on a Palestinian last January.

Yitzhak Ohayun and Ovadia Yehuda arrived at around 1 P.M. on the Shaul Hanavi road in Jerusalem. They noticed there a Palestinian and proceeded to beat him all over his body, throw him on the floor, curse and threaten him.

The pair took off the Palestinian's jacket and stole his wallet containing NIS 1,000 and various important documents. They also took his mace canister and cellphone earphones before finally leaving the man unconscious.

Passers-by helped the Palestinian get to hospital, where he was diagnosed with a broken nose and cuts to his face and over the rest of his body.

The officers who examined Ohayun and Yehuda had difficulty in finding additional motives for the attack beyond hatred of Arabs.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/615273.html



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

posted 23 August 2005 10:13 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Paul Fromm use to have an online digest that purported to report on crime. However all the crime it reported on had people of colour as the perpatrators and whites as victims. This thread, although Im sure the author di not do so intentionally, reminds me of that digest.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 August 2005 10:17 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Huh. I thought it sort of reminded me of Global news.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 August 2005 10:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Paul Fromm use to have an online digest that purported to report on crime. However all the crime it reported on had people of colour as the perpatrators and whites as victims. This thread, although Im sure the author di not do so intentionally, reminds me of that digest.

So you are saying that Farrel's posts here are antisemitic, and that he is to be compared to Fromm? By extension, I guess, since it appears here on this site, the same conclusion might be drawn about the whole board. Is that what you are saying?


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

posted 23 August 2005 10:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Warning number one, Macabee.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 23 August 2005 10:36 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Paul Fromm use to have an online digest that purported to report on crime. However all the crime it reported on had people of colour as the perpatrators and whites as victims. This thread, although Im sure the author di not do so intentionally, reminds me of that digest.

I think if there were truly a dearth of reporting on Palestinian violence, that criticism would have some merit. In fact, though, Palestinian violence is reported everywhere and hyped ceaselessly, while Israeli violence and other forms of racial and religious bigotry are little reported, and, even more importantly, the mass nature of the phenomenon and its ideological foundations are completely ignored in the western press.

The links I have put up so far are about racially (or, if you prefer, religiously) motivated violence, but that is not the topic of the thread. Israel is waging a silent war against Palestinians, whose goal is unchanging; for Palestinians to cease to exist in any form which poses a question to total Jewish dominence in Palestine.

This war involves violence, it involves theft, it involves harassment and planned neglect. In the classic segragationist mode, it includes everything from the murder of activists, to exclusion from certain forms of employment and places of residence, to discrimination in education and racist incitement. Yet few people recognise it as a cohensive strategy. Few people look at the violence and other injustices as the expressions of a state ideology, prefering to blame extremism or the cycle of violence or most often simply to ignore them entirely.

In starting this thread, I was inspired by CMOT's very successful and inspiring "Israeli resistence" threads.

Just as it is important to see and recognize the Israeli resistence, it is important to see and recognize what they are resisting.

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 24 August 2005 08:17 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

So you are saying that Farrel's posts here are antisemitic, and that he is to be compared to Fromm? By extension, I guess, since it appears here on this site, the same conclusion might be drawn about the whole board. Is that what you are saying?


I don't draw that conclusion. What I perceive is that much of the board is consumed by opposition to what is viewed as imperialism. Unfortunately, another perception is that the energy invested against imperialism trumps that of opposition to abuses such as that committed by Iraq in the past and by extremist Muslim sects against women and other minorities, in which the majority of blame is diverted to U.S. relations with the regimes involved and not as much to the regimes themselves. "Yes, we know the regimes are bad, but the U.S.. Yes, we know Saddam was bad, but Rumsfeld shook his hand..." are the answers I've seen. For instance, from what I've observed, the crowd numbers of public protests against the Iranian regime are a lot smaller, and are mostly attended by people who lived in Iran, than that devoted to opposition to what is viewed as imperialism.

Am I correct?

In terms of anti-Semitism, the very few posters who have veered in that direction have been quickly dealt with.

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 August 2005 08:41 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:

I don't draw that conclusion. What I perceive is that much of the board is consumed by opposition to what is viewed as imperialism. Unfortunately, another perception is that the energy invested against imperialism trumps that of opposition to abuses such as that committed by Iraq in the past and by extremist Muslim sects against women and other minorities, in which the majority of blame is divered to U.S. relations with the regimes involved and not as much to the regimes themselves. "Yes, we know the regimes are bad, but the U.S.. Yes, we know Saddam was bad, but Rumsfeld shook his hand..." are the answers I've seen. For instance, from what I've observed, the crowd numbers of public protests against the Iranian regime are a lot smaller, and are mostly attended by people who lived in Iran, than that devoted to opposition to what is viewed as imperialism.

Am I correct?

In terms of anti-Semitism, the very few posters who have veered in that direction have been quickly dealt with.

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]


You are incorrect. Yes, I abhor imperialism and occupation. No, I don't apologize for the likes of Saddam Hussein. I try to understand how a ruthless dictator like Saddam can come to power and hold said power for decades. That Rumsfeld handshake goes a long way towards finding an explanation for Saddam's resiliance.

Women are discriminated against in nearly all fundamentalist religious societies. Everyone on the board is aware of the oppression brought on by the Taliban (how did they acheive power, anyway?) and Saudi Arabia's repressive regime (people like Bindar Bush). Hell, I first learned about RAWA on this board. As far as I can tell, RAWA is being dutifully ignored by the current Afghan government (such as it is) and right wing hawks alike.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2005 08:44 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for writing that, Joel.

I think people DO write about atrocities that Islamic (and other) governments commit, but there usually isn't much of a discussion because no one disagrees that the governments are wrong for doing so.

You raise an interesting point about the way we talk about western (particularly US) imperialism when the subject of abuses in places like Iran, Iraq, etc. comes up. People also talk about the way the US influences Israel, and the role they play in Israeli aggression against Palestinians. The difference is that countries like Iran seem to be reacting AGAINST western imperialism, whereas many people feel that Israel is to be acting WITH western imperialism, or AS a western colonizer. I'm not sure if I'm saying this very well.

Anyhow, let's take Iran. I think that Iran might actually have become a relatively secular democracy had there not been western interference in overthrowing a perfectly legitimate, democratically elected leader in 1953. Since then, Iranian governments have been reactionary, oppressive and alternatively propped up and demonized by western states, particularly the US. Yes, the butchers in government in Iran are responsible for their atrocities. But what we want to be careful of when people post stories that inflame us against the Iranian government is that we don't lose sight of the fact that it is western influence in that country that has made it what it is today. The reason we want to be careful of this is because generally a surge in "Iranian barbarian" stories is a way of softening up the public to be sympathetic to the US going in and "liberating" the country from its chains (and what this generally consists of is bombing the fuck out of the people and their infrastructure, destabilizing the country, trying to put their own puppets into power, and getting stuck in a quagmire).

When people talk about Israel and Palestine, they also very often make the connection with the US. They also talk about Western imperialism and how it figures into the whole situation. But in this case, Israel is seen to be co-operating with western imperialists - they're actually seen to BE western imperialists, pushing the indigenous off their land and oppressing them. The reason Israel and Iran are not treated the same way in discussion is because it's not the same situation.

People are careful to make sure Iranian or Iraqi atrocities are viewed in the context of US imperialism because those stories are often a way of saying, "Look at those barbarians! We westerners should invade them and teach them how to be human!" Whereas stories of Israeli atrocities are, first of all, often spun as "necessary for security", and secondly, are not generally a way of saying, "Hey, we should invade them and teach them how to run their country!" (In fact, often the Israeli side is often spun as the noble force in the midst of savages.)

[Edited because I can't believe I used "indigent" in place of "indigenous". Thanks to the person who gave me the heads up. ]

[ 24 August 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 24 August 2005 08:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it really comes down to the fact that Israel, through our alliances with states, is much more closely politically coneected to us than Iran. As far as Israel and the US goes we are on the inside track, as far as Iran goes, we have little to nothing to do with it. We are part of the process of throwing Palestinians of there land, through our alliance, and our social organization, and that is one of the reasons we feel more connected to what the US and Israel do.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 August 2005 08:57 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Joel, I'm having a little trouble following your logic.

You seem to be saying that, in being anti-imperialist, we are unbalanced, so in order to get ourselves balanced, we should also be supporting ... imperialism?

I mean, that's what your argument comes down to.

Am I charmed by the many autocracies, theocracies, or kleptocracies I know of in the developing world (a number of them such good allies of the U.S.)? Not at all. But do I consider that the solution to the often horrific abuses going on in those places is for the West to go clod-hopping in under the cover of overweening self-righteousness? No. Not that either.

It is possible to think in some complexity, Joel.

And just because something needs to be done doesn't mean that just anything is the right thing to do.

In particular, you refer to human-rights abuses, especially the oppression of women, in some states. Again and again on babble, the point has been made that there are in most places very strong local liberation groups who know way better than a bunch of condescending Westerners what needs doing, and who have often asked us to support them rather than presume to direct them or blunder in where we don't understand what is needed.

The cynicism of Western imperialists when they make arguments about women's oppression was made blindingly clear by Laura Bush and Cherie Blair in that gag-worthy video they made to help their hubbies rationalize the latest stage in the international rape of Afghanistan. And what part did their hubbies ever offer to the women of RAWA, easily the most heroic and sophisticated political movement in that country, all through the years of the Taliban? Zip.

You have a bad case of White Man's Burden, I'd say, Joel.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2005 09:01 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great post, skdadl, except for this:

quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
You have a bad case of White Man's Burden, I'd say, Joel.

We're trying to avoid this sort of thing in the ME forum these days.


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

posted 24 August 2005 09:04 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, sorry, and I'll remember that. I was just quoting rasmus, though, from a post in the anti-racism forum. Still, I see the problem.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 24 August 2005 09:07 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Joel, I'm having a little trouble following your logic.

You seem to be saying that, in being anti-imperialist, we are unbalanced, so in order to get ourselves balanced, we should also be supporting ... imperialism?

I mean, that's what your argument comes down to.

Am I charmed by the many autocracies, theocracies, or kleptocracies I know of in the developing world (a number of them such good allies of the U.S.)? Not at all. But do I consider that the solution to the often horrific abuses going on in those places is for the West to go clod-hopping in under the cover of overweening self-righteousness? No. Not that either.

It is possible to think in some complexity, Joel.

And just because something needs to be done doesn't mean that just anything is the right thing to do.

In particular, you refer to human-rights abuses, especially the oppression of women, in some states. Again and again on babble, the point has been made that there are in most places very strong local liberation groups who know way better than a bunch of condescending Westerners what needs doing, and who have often asked us to support them rather than presume to direct them or blunder in where we don't understand what is needed.

The cynicism of Western imperialists when they make arguments about women's oppression was made blindingly clear by Laura Bush and Cherie Blair in that gag-worthy video they made to help their hubbies rationalize the latest stage in the international rape of Afghanistan. And what part did their hubbies ever offer to the women of RAWA, easily the most heroic and sophisticated political movement in that country, all through the years of the Taliban? Zip.

You have a bad case of White Man's Burden, I'd say, Joel.


I'm not saying anyone should lessen their opposition to what they feel is wrong. It's just that from what I'm seeing, there could be more visible expressions of solidarity with the oppressed in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia(although not to the point of bumbling in and co-opting a liberation cause) than what I and others have observed, even just by focusing on a particular atrocity that has been committed. Like I said, the few anti-current-Iranian-regime protests I've observed (at least in Montreal) have only been attended by a handful of people.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 24 August 2005 09:08 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
You have a bad case of White Man's Burden, I'd say, Joel.


For the record, I don't take offense.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2005 09:10 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think people might be worried about showing up for an anti-Iranian regime demonstration because they think it might be construed as support for invading Iran and "bringing them democracy".

You can bet that if a crowd of 1000 people showed up in front of the Iranian embassy and protested Iranian government actions, that's exactly how the hawks would spin it. I know that I personally would worry about that.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 August 2005 09:12 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I might add, Joel's argument is similar to saying our mothers keep complaining about our being out in the cold with wet hair rather than being concerned about our suffering from the common cold.

Put another way, if we stoppd going out in the cold with wet hair, we would suffer less from the common cold.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 24 August 2005 09:13 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I think people might be worried about showing up for an anti-Iranian regime demonstration because they think it might be construed as support for invading Iran and "bringing them democracy".

You can bet that if a crowd of 1000 people showed up in front of the Iranian embassy and protested Iranian government actions, that's exactly how the hawks would spin it. I know that I personally would worry about that.


That's very unfortunate, because we all know numbers at a protest are very important.

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 August 2005 09:21 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Joel, I can't recall -- did you join in any of the babble discussions about Zahra Kazemi? There have been a number of them.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 August 2005 09:24 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Joel_Goldenberg: What I perceive is that much of the board is consumed by opposition to what is viewed as imperialism. (my italics - N.Beltov)

What this board is often "consumed" by is the distractions of un-progressives and trolls. Just for the record, imperialism has been defined as ...

quote:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;

(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;

(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;

(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and

(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.


In summary then, ...

quote:
Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

We have the monopolies and the export of capital from Canada. By my reckoning, that makes Canada an imperialist country. So being "consumed" by opposition to "what is viewed as" imperialism makes perfect sense to me. We concern ourselves with, primarily, the actions of our own country and what we can do about it. Makes perfect sense to me for an activist-centred progressive Canadian discussion forum.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 24 August 2005 09:29 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Joel, I can't recall -- did you join in any of the babble discussions about Zahra Kazemi? There have been a number of them.


Actually no, and I should have.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2005 02:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:

That's very unfortunate, because we all know numbers at a protest are very important.


Yes, that's why I wouldn't feed the US warhawk machine by going to a street protest against the Iranian government. Because my presence and that of everyone else would be spun as a show of support for invading Iran.


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 24 August 2005 02:46 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Lebanon was a democratic republic.

It was governed by the national covenent, correct?


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

posted 25 August 2005 02:19 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
O soldier, where art thou?

By Yossi Sarid

A few Israelis - Arab lovers - are still taking an interest in Israel's Palestinian neighbors even during these days of disengagement. There is no doubt that this is an extreme manifestation of eccentricity, not to say self-hatred, which has been so typical of converts across the generations.

Last week, three of these weirdos - Dafna Banai, Yishai Rosen-Zvi and Ehud Krinis - went to the village of Salem in the West Bank to meet with Ahmed Issa and hear from him what happened on July 18, 2005, at the Azmut checkpoint.

. . .

On that day, more than a month ago, Ahmed was on the way from Nablus to his village by taxi, bringing back his wife and their newborn daughter from the hospital. Only 24 hours had passed since the birth and the family was already heading home. As usual, they stopped at the checkpoint. It was a punishingly hot day and Ahmed naively thought that the officer at the checkpoint would show consideration for the special situation of his wife and for Tala, their one-day-old daughter. The officer, though, was not especially impressed and ordered Ahmad to retrace his steps. Obeying, Ahmad turned around and started back to the taxi. He never made it.

With his back to the officer, he was shot in the leg, and one bullet was enough to wound both legs. Ahmad spent a week in the hospital and now is back home. For the next two months he will hobble about on his two injured legs and will not be able to work and earn a living.

Photographs of Ahmed, his bandaged legs and little Tala in his arms are on file with the paper. He does not cry in the photos, does not shout and does not even curse the checkpoint soldiers and police, because he is a man of sorrows and has known suffering, like many of his people. And what will his wrath achieve, what good will it do.

. . .

And the officer who opened fire - where is he now? Who knows? Probably he was among the evacuating forces in the Gaza Strip or the northern West Bank - polite, genteel and totally uncruel.

Maybe he even exchanged an embrace with Pinhas Wallerstein, that merciful and compassionate embrace that stifled so many tears in so many homes; the same Wallerstein who at the beginning of the first intifada also shot a Palestinian youth who threw stones at the car of the head of the Binyamin Regional Council and member of the Yesha leadership. Wallerstein stopped the car, got out, shot the fleeing boy in the back and killed him. The army, the police, the prosecution and the court joined forces on how to keep Wallerstein out of the hoosegow; he was convicted of offenses that underwent occupation sanitization and given a few months of community service as penance.

. . .

And it is even possible that the officer who shot Ahmed Issa is at this very moment accompanying a settler woman who is about to give birth or who gave birth a day or two ago and is cradling her baby in her arms. With pleasant demeanor he helps them, tearfully; he will accompany them, the Good Samaritan, to the checkpoint, they will not walk alone, and he will make sure, with determination and with sensitivity, that they do not wait an unnecessary second under the blazing sun.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/616838.html


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 25 August 2005 02:20 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

It was governed by the national covenent, correct?


yup. still is. The 1943 pact was only modified in 1989's Taef accord that ended the war.


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 25 August 2005 03:51 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:

yup. still is. The 1943 pact was only modified in 1989's Taef accord that ended the war.



The next question I was going to ask you was "how can a system that guarantees that a man of a certain faith will govern a state be considered democratic?" but then you would probably reply, "how can a system that vitually guarantees that a bunch of rich white guys govern Canada be considered democratic?"
At which point my arguement that Lebanon should be considered a quasi democracy instead a actual 100% democratic country would fall to peices and I would end up feeling rather silly.

Anyway, I think I should stop derailing this thread and leave rsferrel to archive stories of racist violence from the West Bank.


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

posted 25 August 2005 04:07 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A few Israelis - Arab lovers - are still taking an interest in Israel's Palestinian neighbors even during these days of disengagement. There is no doubt that this is an extreme manifestation of eccentricity, not to say self-hatred, which has been so typical of converts across the generations.

Is he being sarcastic or does he actually believe that the activists are self hating?


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

posted 25 August 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
He's being sarcastic.
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 25 August 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Arab Woman Expelled from Flight Attendant’s Course Because of her Ethnicity

When Nisreen Abu Rabiya, from Haifa, enrolled in the Israeli Airline El Al flight attendant’s course she thought she was one step closer to her dream job. However, she quickly realized that by pursuing this dream she would have to encounter obstacles beyond professional challenges associated with the training. Eventually she found herself expelled from the course.

Abu Rabiya, the only Arab student in the course, said: “I realized that being enrolled in this course would be sensitive since I come from a minority group but I decided to go for it anyway. I was the only one of all the participants in the course that was not allowed to enter the area of the Ben Gurion Airport freely. There was always a guard accompanying me wherever I went even when I had to try on my attendant’s dress and undergo a health examination.” Eventually Abu Rabiya was told that she would not be allowed to continue the course because she did not have ‘the right professional qualifications.’

Abu Rabiya’s classmates said that she was an excellent student and received high grades on her exams. Until the day she was expelled she had a grade of 95%. One of her classmates questioned El Al’s credibility saying that Abu Rabiya was the only student in the course that was treated as a security threat by El Al.


http://arabhra.org/publications/wrap/2005/wrap232.pdf


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

posted 25 August 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Poor Arab Towns Not Included for Income Tax Exemption

On June 21st, 2005 the Knesset enacted an amendment to provide tax benefits to localities in Israel located up to seven kilometers away from the Gaza Strip. The benefits would grant citizens of Israel in these localities a reduction of 13% in their income tax payments. However, in addition to these border towns the Knesset's Finance Committee arbitrarily added three further towns (Bet She'an, Hazor HaGelilit and Arad) and two regional councils (HaArava HaTikhana and Hevel Elot) to the list of localities eligible for income tax benefits even though they were not located within this radius.

In total, a further 18 Jewish localities in the Naqab were added to the list of those eligible for such benefits by the Finance Committee but no Arab towns were included.

Apetition was submitted by Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel in the name of the heads of five Arab towns from the Naqab – Hura, Kessife, Lagiyya, Rahat, and Shaqib al-Salam (Segev Shalom) – to the Supreme Court against the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General requesting these towns also be included for tax exemptions since their socio-economic status is among the lowest in Israel.

A court hearing will be held on August 10, 2005.


I know stories like these -- a women expelled from flight attendant school, a tax policy debate -- do not provoke the instant horror of a racist beating or mass land confiscation, but I implore everyone interested in the problem to look it, because it represents one of the hundreds of ways, large and small, that Zionism uses to push non-Jews to the margins of society and someday, they hope, into oblivion.

It's not about terrorism and response. It's not even about nationalism vs. nationalism. It's about Zionism's fear of the Palestinians' very existence, and what that stubborn fact of Palestinian endurance says about the future of the Zionist enterprise. It's Zionism vs. reality.


http://arabhra.org/publications/wrap/2005/wrap232.pdf

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


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

posted 25 August 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
For the Palestinian citizen's of Israel, life in the "only democracy in the Middle East" is one long day at this beach. Specifically, this day:

quote:
Attacks on Arabs by Anti-Disengagement Protesters

On July 4, 2005 150 orange-clad protesters opposing the disengagement plan attacked Arab beach goers in Qiryat Haim. The protesters wielded sticks, stones and knives and shouted “Death to the Arabs” and “A good Arab is a dead Arab.” The protest was called “disengaging Arabs” and “purifying Qiryat Haim of Arabs.”

Many of the Arab beach goers were attacked and chased even though police were present there. Police did not intervene because, they said, nobody filed a complaint.16


How do you "file a complaint" while you're being beaten with sticks and slashed with knives? Who cares? It's the Fourth of July in Israel, where "the right of the people to institute new government" is the cardinal sin of denying the state's "right to exist."http://arabhra.org/publications/wrap/2005/wrap232.pdf

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 26 August 2005 10:34 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
Say, as a rough example, you work in the office…an evil office where you got constantly repressed by some bully staff. You’ve been given a small corner with almost no room to move and 13` old computer screen…etc. What are you going to do? Start killing you co-workers? Bomb their cars? If you think you are so noble and being repressed, you, as a civilized person, would make a case out of it. You’ll probably start exercising, meditating, as an adult you’ll talk to your manager, director…media, ministry of labor for investigation and I’m sure order will be restored and you’ll get a bigger or even new office, monitor, get bullies fired etc. Feeling miserable makes people vulnerable to even more attacks and their nervous system irritable and unstable. I’m all for order and respect of the international laws and cooperation. Whatever one may say- we are not living in the unjust medieval world of cruelty. There are peaceful means of dealing with anything, any from of tyranny under whatever regime. There has to be a strong positive will of people alongside with government to resolve the situation for good.

Bu when someone is saying that they want to see Israel to be gone completely it is clearly a miserable and irrational approach of those who wants no peace but strive for power on citizen’s backs and suffering. Nothing more then gangs in law, and I’m talking about both sides of the conflict.

[ 26 August 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 August 2005 03:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its very interesting but the late Dr. Rantisi of Hamas, contructed his thesis that there would be a never ending war with Zionism, on the basis that Zionism is intractable, and unaccomodating, not on the basis that the Jews must be expelled. The war would be an inevitable result of Zionisms refusal to budge on the issue of complete soveignty.

That is the way it read to me, anyway.


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

posted 26 August 2005 09:42 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Say, as a rough example, you work in the office…an evil office where you got constantly repressed by some bully staff. You’ve been given a small corner with almost no room to move and 13` old computer screen…etc. What are you going to do? Start killing you co-workers? Bomb their cars? If you think you are so noble and being repressed, you, as a civilized person, would make a case out of it. You’ll probably start exercising, meditating, as an adult you’ll talk to your manager, director…media, ministry of labor for investigation and I’m sure order will be restored and you’ll get a bigger or even new office, monitor, get bullies fired etc.

Thoughts on this analogy:

1. Uh, you ever work in an office? Ever have a bully for a boss? 'Cause it doesn't sound like you have the slightest idea how that plays out in real life.

2. Someone in a bad job can quit. Someone under occupation does not have that option -- they have been subjugated by force. I suppose you'd tell a man in chains on a slave ship to "start exercising, meditating"? That's a better analogy to what's going on in Palestine. Someone shows up with a gun to take your land and force you into the life of "woodcutters and waiters," and see how much good "mediating" does you.

3. "Order" will not "be restored." There is no order -- there is no law that the rapist and murderers, land-theives and pogrom organizers are obliged to respect. And if fighting for freedom is morally the same as fighting against freedom, if adovacating simple democracy and freedom for all people is morally the same and fighting to deny it to the wrong race or creed -- then there is no order to be restored.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 27 August 2005 12:34 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
[QB] What are you going to do? Start killing you co-workers? Bomb their cars? If you think you are so noble and being repressed, you, as a civilized person, would make a case out of it. You’ll probably start exercising, meditating, as an adult you’ll talk to your manager, director…media, ministry of labor for investigation and I’m sure order will be restored and you’ll get a bigger or even new office, monitor, get bullies fired etc.

All of this assumes the existence of methods of conflict mediation. Corporate policies, chains of command, clearly demarcated legal responsibilities, etc. These do not exist for Palestinians under occupation. Who are they to turn to? Who is the "manager (or) director" for the Palestinians? Shall they plead to Sharon? The IDF? The Israeli Supreme Court? Who is it that has the authority to mediate the conflict in the way a corporate bureacrat would?

And seeing that fail, where is it that they can turn for supplementary redress? We run into a similar problem with the notion of legal bodies (e.g. Ministry of Labour). What Ministry is there for the Palestinians? The UN could function in this way, but Israel does a fine job of ignoring them and/or declaring them "antisemitic" any time a ruling comes down which is not in it's favour. They are not bound by any "international law" that they don't see fit to follow. That's the fundamental problem behind an anarchic international system.

The fundamental problem with your analogy is that in an office enviroment in, say, Canada, you are assumed to be a more-or-less equal player - entitled to certain rights and mediation processes to redress grievances. The problem with the Occupation is that it effectively keeps Palestinians outside the system of black-letter laws and mores that could provide the basis for effective conflict resolution. They are not equal players. They are more like prisoners, or those in an asylum who have had the ability to take decisions on their own behalf taken away.

quote:
Whatever one may say- we are not living in the unjust medieval world of cruelty.

No, we are living in a rather unjust post-modern world of cruelty. Helicopter gunships are cruel weapons, they just don't have that personal edge (at least for the executioner) of an axe and a basket.

quote:
There are peaceful means of dealing with anything, any from of tyranny under whatever regime.

Lots and lots of talk here, no concrete solutions. Can you name one of these means and show why you think it would be effective given the conditions Palestinians find themselves in?

I'm not saying there aren't any, but instead of speaking platitudes about pacificism, I think it would be more productive to speak about what pacificism is the right strategy in this case.

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


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 August 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What are you going to do? Start killing you co-workers? Bomb their cars?

They call that going postal.

There is such a thing called the theory of numbers. It argues it is easier to predict the actions of a large group of people than the actions of an individual. The common and easy example is the reason yelling "fire!" in a movie theatre is illegal. If you did so, it would be entirely difficult to predict what an individual might do. He might stand and leave. He might decide to continue watching the film until he hears sirens or can smell smoke. He might panic.

However, the theory states, in a crowded theatre, panic would likely ensue and people could be harmed. As they were in exactly such a circumstance and, now, it is illegal to yell "fire!" in a theatre.

So, if we ask the question: "Imagine a people have been given a small corner of their country with almost no room to move, cut off from their fields and family, deprived of their water and live stock, reduced to a stateless, lawless existence, and subject to the arbitrary actions of an occupying power and citizens known as settlers . What are you going to do? Start killing you co-workers? Bomb their cars?"

Almost invariably, yes.

So knowing that, the next logical step is to end the condition. Whether it be prohibiting yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre or ending an occupation.

Would you agree?

[ 27 August 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 29 August 2005 09:57 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Would you agree?

These all sounds OK but does not make much sense in this case. We are not kids to play a blaming game like who started first or to unconsciously (without realizing first what’s going on) react to some silly condition. As grow up’s and rational people we perhaps need to strive towards peace, understanding and cooperation on a conscious level, with full realization of the causes and effects taking place.
Basically sounds like your argument supports any unconscious violent act, like war in Iraq for instance. Someone said fire and there you go- dumb people star killing each other. What a life, hey.

My believe is-if we should search for any unhealthy condition it has to be within ourselves, that would eliminate useless blaming game and misery of violence. Its time to take full responsibility for thoughts and actions.

Examples of non-violent resistance are plenty. One is Martin Luther King.

[ 29 August 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 August 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First of all, there has been a very succesful attempt to disassociate persons such as Martin Luther King from the rest of the civil rights movement. Yes it is true, that King opposed violence as a tactic used to battle US apartheid laws, but the movement as a whole was not anti-violence, and examples of organized black black resistance are numerous. King is not the only civil rights leader or the only one who impacted US policy.

So Kings message of 'peace' has to be contexutalized in the wider political climate in the US, in which a large section of urban black people, allied with the Hisapnic population and dissident students were arguing for open revolt. The seriousness with which the US state took the possibility of open revolt can be shown simply by noting that for the entire Vietnam war period the US government held its elite 82nd Airborne unit (but for one brigade) in reserve on the US mainland. It can be argued that the reason King and his views were held in such high regard by people such as Bobby Kennedy and the LBJ adminstration is because he offered a compromise route that would help avert outright revolt.

It can be said that the potential for armed resistance opened up the social space which allowed for King's message to be heard. This does not dimish Mr. King's stature or what he achieved, but places it in a wider movement, of which he alone was not the soul proprietor.

Also, it has never been clear whether or not King pacifist approach was a simple catch-all politcal philosophy appropriate to all circumstances. King spoke very strongly for the Viet Cong resistance to US war several times, a fact that indicates that King's non-violent approach, was more tactical than philosophic, believing that enfranchisement for black people in the states might be achieved through less radical measures.

These uncomfortable facts have slowly been pealed from the mainstream historical record leaving King to appear as the sole inheritor of the historical legacy of civil rights movement of the 60's, as a purely pacifist ideology a view that dovetails nicely with white middle class sensibilities.

I think you should read Soul on Ice by Malcolm X and also this article by Ran Hacohen:

The Palestinian Gandhi

quote:
"Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?" is a quite popular question, especially abroad. You won't often hear it asked (with the inevitable self-righteous shrug) here in Israel: after all, the Israeli culture itself worships violence, with the semantic field of "war" being the richest in the modern Hebrew language, with militarism as the state religion, and with popular wisdom expressed in rules of thumb such as "where force won't do, try more force."

But Americans love the Gandhi riddle. While their governments give Israel gigantic military aid, private Americans with the best intentions – and Britons such as actor Ben Kingsley – translate the film Gandhi into Arabic and screen it all over the occupied territories as an example for the Palestinians to follow.

The intentions of "the Gandhi Project" must be noble. And though international law and conventions unambiguously acknowledge the right of occupied peoples to use violence against their oppressors – just like guerrilla fighters did under Nazi occupation – the question whether violence or nonviolence serves their cause better is for the Palestinians to decide. There are, of course, several convincing arguments in favor of abandoning the violent resistance, most notably the huge benefits that Israel draws from portraying the Palestinians as "terrorists" to legitimate the use of its overwhelming military superiority against them.


This article should be read carfully and all the way through, because it includes details, largely confirmed by the western press, of a demonstration in Bil'in where Israelis undercover agents threw stones at IDF soldiers at what had been a peaceful protest.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 29 August 2005 04:58 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, it’s a good article.
But isn’t it just adds oil to the fire. I don’t think we need more of that right now. Are you seeking even more hatred towards those Israeli ‘bastards’? (and Israelis are not monsters. There are plenty of people in this country who also wants peace, justice and a place call home)

I believe it leads towards greater misery. Perhaps we ought to look forward towards real ways of fixing the problem. That is beyond the emotional reactions and incidents as described in the article. Nothing will change in a day. Persistence and patience therefore are the keys, but not violence. Because killing each other is barbaric and if you justify one murder you basically justifying mass killing. Exceptions are when you are attacked and you have no other choice as to protect yourself and your homeland, when situation is literally between life and death. In all other cases killing and violence in general needs to be avoided, and in fact replaced by persistent, intelligent, unified action. Yes, one activist may be assassinated, another taken to prison, but ultimately the word and energy of noble action will spread, it will find solidarity around the globe, and governments would have no other choice as to step in and change the situation. Soviet Union is a great example of such peaceful resistance that led to the collapse of once mighty Soviet Empire (who would guess?) by transforming it off course to something much better.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 29 August 2005 05:43 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
[QB]Because killing each other is barbaric and if you justify one murder you basically justifying mass killing. Exceptions are when you are attacked and you have no other choice as to protect yourself and your homeland, when situation is literally between life and death.


How does one gauge when the line has been crossed? At what point is existence actually threatened and violence justified? I only ask because with this "exception", you are tacitly giving justification for murders and other violence carried out in the course of the IDF occupation of Palestine. It is EXACTLY this line of reasoning which is used by the Israeli administration, it's media and the population at large to justify the ill treatment of Palestinians, the building of That Damned Wall and more.

Strangely, it is also this exact logic which is used by Palestinians to justify their acts of violence against agents of the occupation and Israeli citizens. So what are you saying that is new?

Another question that arises is whether or not there is more to 'life' than our mere physical/animal existence? Is there not something "more" to being human than just being alive? If so, then at what point is this humanity sufficiently threatened as to justify violence in return?

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


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 29 August 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
These all sounds OK but does not make much sense in this case. We are not kids to play a blaming game like who started first or to unconsciously (without realizing first what’s going on) react to some silly condition.

Well, see, first you asked a very simplistic question to which I provided you a very reasonable answer and now you try to dismiss human nature as childish.

It is not a question of blame or counter-blame but a simple fact that it is easier to predict the response of a group of people to specific circumstances than an individual. And in response to your question, it is entirely predictable that Palestinians will respond violently to the brutal Israeli occupation.

So you say you are interested in solutions and I say the obvious solution is an end to the occupation which would supercede the requirement for any kind of resistance peaceful or violent.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you don't seem to dispute the Palestinian need to resist but rather you only take exception to the method of their resistance. Do you not find that ironic?

But, back on topic. I did asked you, if you are interested in solutions, isn't the obvious solution an end to the occupation? But as far as I can tell, you did not respond to that question.

So let me try again, do you agree the occupation of the West Bank should end as the logical step to ending resistance violent or otherwise?

[ 29 August 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


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

posted 29 August 2005 07:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
Yes, it’s a good article.
But isn’t it just adds oil to the fire. I don’t think we need more of that right now. Are you seeking even more hatred towards those Israeli ‘bastards’? (and Israelis are not monsters. There are plenty of people in this country who also wants peace, justice and a place call home).

So your saying that Israeli's like Hacohen who support Palestinians self defence should shut up? I rather thought you were advocating that people "should search for any unhealthy condition it has to be within ourselves, that would eliminate useless blaming game and misery of violence. Its time to take full responsibility for thoughts and actions." Hacohen is an "Israeli bastard" who has done just that.

What this article does is inspire critical thinking. He has looked inside himself, and the society he lives in a presented an internal critique. I think you should do the same and look at how Canada, and yourself as a Canadian support Israeli repression by blaming Palestinians for the violence, rather than looking at the way the government and society that you live in supports the "cycle of violence" by continuing to support Israel diplomatically and in the case of the US militarily.

Rather than preaching, which is what you are doing.


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

posted 29 August 2005 09:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just can't figure out why we always end up talking about pacifism in the context of Palestinians, as the weak and opressed are some how specially obliged to show a level of tollerance beyong that of their opressors. Why doesn't the IDF hand out flowers at check points and give Palestinian children helicpoter rides?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 30 August 2005 10:19 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
Whatever dude. I’m not proposing any solution to this conflict. I just expressed my point of view supported by my own experience. Really, I don’t care about Palestinians and Israelis-they deserve each other in a way.

I’ve never supported US military or any other military actions either. And that’s something what Bush or some Texas ranger would say-you liberal pacifists nothing more then preachers, the real power is in a gun.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 30 August 2005 10:53 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
So let me try again, do you agree the occupation of the West Bank should end as the logical step to ending resistance violent or otherwise?


See, you look at it as a one way street. It sounds like the problem is in Israelis. Palestinians are just half humans…or they are small brothers of Israelis…or they are less important…or poor relatives. However I believe that they should take their faith in their hands. Just like an individual. None can do things for you, or live your life for you, or settle your disputes. The support of the community (in local and broader sense) is off course essential. But everything comes down to the individual. Dependence leads to misery and danger of loosing one’s individuality by being succumbed to dogma (of religious, militant or other nature).
I’m not against the end of the occupation, but as I’ve mentioned before, the condition of total elimination of Israel is irrational and will lead to even more suffering. Some individuals, on both sides, want just that- rule other people’s destinies by making them dependant on their (extremists, militants, idiots) degrading dogma. It is psychology 101: the strive for control and power fueled by inner complexes and fears translated as irritation and hatred. They would tell peace loving people to shut up, because nothing can be done without gun. God bless the bullet. NOT.

These few, it seems, are like school bullies, or neighborhood gangs but with strong ideology (dogma). They want to appear as good-doers…but good they do not, only kill innocent people…no matter children, adults, arabs, jews… Frankly-they don’t care, because care they not. I think all these ‘myths’ about militants as angels-protectors need to be exposed as poisonous and damaging the peace process. Again, I’m talking about both sides of the conflict here.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 August 2005 11:38 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can see that you aren't proposing any solutions to the conflict, just jabbering about some preconceived notions about the conflict. Most interesting is how much of the recieved wisdom of ruling ideology you have witlessly consumed without thinking. For instance, in this phrase:

quote:
I’m not against the end of the occupation, but as I’ve mentioned before, the condition of total elimination of Israel is irrational and will lead to even more suffering.

Linking an "end to the occupation" to the "total elimination of Israel" is a Likud talking point that is about 38 years old.

What don't you get about the idea that Israel has no right to impose martial law, occupy and settle someone elses land?

Did you know that between 1967 and 1999, the average number of Israelis killed by Palestinian militants was 35 per year, less murders per year per population than the city of Toronto. In comparison, since Sharon decided to re-occupy de-occupied zones the West Bank in 2000, the number increased to roughly 300 a year.

In 1999, the last year of the Oslo process, angry Palestinians killed less than 9 Israelis. The number of Israelis killed in the last five years exceeds the number of those killed in the previous 33. Is there a corollary on the Israeli side? Yes there is during the Oslo period of relavtive quite, Palestinians were killed at a ratio of 10 Palestinians for every 1 Israeli killed, the ratio in the post Oslo period is 4 Palestinians for every 1 Israeli.

Please explain how it is that your theory that less violence will encourage Israel compliance, or end the "cycle of violence." Because what these statistics show is that Israel violence is not proportional to violent threat, or that it is proportional retaliation, but something entirely different.

The reality is that for the entire period between 1967 to 1999, Palestinians acted with incredible restraint, being far and away more passive than say the IRA, or Tamil militants, and killing far fewer people. In fact the general manner of resistance was one of organized boycotts, and passive public demonstrations, and legal challenges within the Israeli court system. This resulted in sweet fuck all good will from Israel, and was merely interpreted as a license to settle, and continue the occupation.

The "cycle of violence" theory is a cheap way out of confronting difficult politics and discomfitting moral dilemas.

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 30 August 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
Statistics are pretty dry. Why? Things change, and whatever bothered people 5 years ago is no more important. Situation today is different from that of 6-10 years ago.
I am not trying to protect Israel here. But again to insist on its complete annihilation is ludicrous. I don’t know who was in those lands first-history is pretty misty thing. I’m aware though that Israel (or Judea) is an ancient place, and that Jewish people have as much right to their homeland as anybody else.

And violence is not a theory. Innocent people are dying there still. For you it may mean nothing, like who cares. It does not matter whether it is a person in Toronto who got shot or Israeli civilian or Palestinian teenager or woman (who got used by militants to carry suicide attacks). For you it seems to be not relevant. Disrespect for human life is on the menu of the extremists and gangs.

Now you. You just criticize my views. What are yours? What is your positive solution, apart from spilling more dirt towards Israel that you seem to be doing here?

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 August 2005 12:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't be silly about the statistics. They show clearly that Palestinians were more or less passive from 1967 to 1999.

Why are you equating occupation with Israeli anhiliation? Arafat recongized Israel's "right to exist" in 1989, as part of a prliminary to the Oslo accord. He made the PLO swallow that principle, much to the chagrin of the more militant factions of the PLO. In so doing he gave up any claim to 78% of the land originally disputed after the ethnic cleansing of 1948. Israel agreed to abide by resolution 242, and return all of the land (subject to some land swaps) occupied after the 1967 war for use by the Palestinians as a state.

During the period Israel repeatedly broke provision of the accord by expanding use of local water resources, explicitly forbidden within the Oslo accord, and continued to bring in new settlers. As no point to did Israel cease building settlements of stop expanding old ones, not even for a minute. In fact during the Oslo period israeli settlement activity increased.

People building a house and living in it and then being evicted and then demolished or then occupied by someone else is not misty at all, it is very concrete. Did you know that in 1889, the population of the Palestine Mandate was 5% Jewish, and that almost all new Jews living there since then immigrated.

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 30 August 2005 12:58 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
To be peaceful doesn’t mean being passive. On contrary it means being as much pro-active as possible, that is without killing part.
Another example of militant interfirance in the peace process:
“Abbas says Jihad to build Palestinian homeland is starting, adds, 'We must explain to the world that he who continues with the security fence and settlements does not want peace’ “
Sounds good. Diplomacy and peacfull activism in action.
But then we have hammas once again:
"Hamas holds rally in Gaza's central square, says it will not stop attacks against Israel, despite withdrawal of troops and settlers from Gaza Strip."

I can understand, to a degree, Israel’s position. Being surrounded by the countries with far exceeding territorial advantages and populations it has to be concerned about its safety and security. Whatever one may say- most Israeli neighbors literally dislike the state of Israel (perhaps there are historical and statistical precedence to that, but who cares now) and openly talk about harming the country and it’s annihilation. And it looks like the Palestinians were and are used by some neighbor states as a mere tool to fight and harm Israel. Instead of financial and social aid geared towards strengthening the Palestinian economy and market, housing and infrastructure funds used to carry suicide attacks on Israel and to support militants. How about people, the Palestinians themselves, their jobs, food, stability, their human rights- did Arafat or Hammas ever cared about that? No. And my position is firm in this regards- take your faith in your hands and stop the blaming and whining game. Start planting trees, and soon hereafter many will join and the garden will bloom.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 August 2005 02:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You misunderstand. I am neither here nor there on your view of pacifist resistance. I agree with Martin Luther King, in that means of resistance must suit the circumstance, and that violent resistance, is the right of persons under attack.

He made a clear distinction between his pacifist movement in the US and the Vietnamese resistance to US invasion and occupation. He was not stupid enough to think that US intervention was the result of "Vietnamese violence," or suggested that the Vietnamese might use passive reisitance to subvert US occupation.

My problem with what you are saying is twofold:

1) You obviously no fuck all about the history of this conflict, and are speaking out of your ass.

2) That you insist on eradicating history. The fact is that the Palestinian leadership has consitantly let by-gones-be-by-gones, and said lets look at where we are today, and each time they have done this Israel has niggled and nagged on each negotiating point and then said (ten years later) oh but the facts on the ground have changed, so we have to start from a new premise.

What do you think Yasser Arafat did in 1989 when he recognized Israel's right to exist? He did exactly what you are suggesting. But now, 15 years later and 100,000 of thousands of settlers later, people such as yourself think you are being reasonable when you say, "oh gee, why can't we just forget about the past," and the bloackage to peace is Palestinians violence?

If the blockage to peace were Palestinian violence, Israel would have given up the West Bank in 80's, because there was hardly any Palestinians violence. The blockage of the peace process is Israel continually breaking the agreements they make with the Palestinian leadership.

What you don't undestand is that there is a very powerful lobby within the Israeli body-politic that wants to annex the West Bank or as much of it as they can, and that the reason Israel invaded the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip, and the Sinai dessert, was specifically to keep ithem just in the way that Germany intended to keep Poland in 1939.

Everything flows from that policy decision. The occupation is not a reaction to Arab violence, it is a military conquest.

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 30 August 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
Well, suite yourself. I haven’t heard anything reasonable from you but this shit this fuck and everything is basically screwed up plus harsh attacks on my views. Because of such people there is still no peace in the Middle East. I don’t intent to argue, because I know that you can argue ad infinitum. Therefore chao.
From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 August 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With all due respect, Venus_Man, you describe yourself in that last statement.

You are the one who views it as a one way street. Come on back when you are capable of looking in both directions.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 30 August 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
I didn't want to make it all personal here, but after all these attacks... I don’t mean to be sarcastic. As I said- I just expressed my view on the issue. And i spoke from the heart.

I haven’t heard anything from you either WingNut. No ideas, solutions, propositions…nothing. End the occupation. Hurrah! What a brilliant idea. No reason to go further.
Cueball, whom I asked to bring his views forward, seems true to his believes - fuck, shit, ass kicking bastards and all go to hell. Nothing else? Oh well.

With all due respect then- learn to lay out your TRUE views and then we’ll talk.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 August 2005 04:58 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I haven’t heard anything from you either WingNut. No ideas, solutions, propositions…nothing. End the occupation. Hurrah! What a brilliant idea. No reason to go further.

You have heard something from me. End the occupation as you so noted. Yes, it is as brilliant as it is simple. And once achieved, how much further the Israelis and Palestinians can go is up to them.

But tell me, Venus_Man, what have you offered? What even most basic concept or idea have you put forward? You attack Cueball but you are now being ignorant, aggressive and insulting. What is your idea? I have seen nothing from you.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 30 August 2005 05:25 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Linking an "end to the occupation" to the "total elimination of Israel" is a Likud talking point that is about 38 years old.

From what I read in the Globe, Hamas or many Hamas leaders are still saying that today. Fatah, of course, is saying no such thing.

Anyway I have a really basic, perhaps naive, question.

The USA is clearly on Israel's side. As a result, Islamists in many countries are fighting back against the "Zionists and Crusaders." As a result, American progressives have made it a priority to end America's support for Israel so long as the occupation continues.

Canada has, for a long time, been scrupulously neutral between the Palestinians and Israelis. Recently there have been some signs of deviation from that, but it is still, as far as I can see, the general policy.

Doesn't that mean that Canadian progressives are in a different position from American progressives? Why should we spend much time trying to change US policies in the middle east when we can't even get them to comply with NAFTA on softwood lumber? European countries focus on their own middle east policies. Shouldn't Canadian progressives focus on Canada's middle east policies?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 30 August 2005 06:40 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You make a good point Wilf, Canadian progressives have actually been leading the way in many areas now (think McQuaig and Saul and Hurtig and Stanford etc) yet we still have a bad habit of following the American line like we once followed the British, even if it happens to be Chomsky and his reactive America-centric world view.

Canada could still have a profound impact on the world's trading structure just by challenging NAFTA on our own (or strengthen ties with Japan and the EU. Or Venezuela) and no reason we couldn't become leaders in pressuring Israel to do the right thing too. American liberals can be told to jump in the same Republican lake if they don't like it. The Americans can't easily be stopped perhaps, but they can't force others to *join* them, as the Iraq debacle has shown and Vietnam before it.

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 30 August 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WN: "As an aside, I find it interesting that you don't seem to dispute the Palestinian need to resist but rather you only take exception to the method of their resistance. Do you not find that ironic?"

I don't find it ironic at all. It's one thing to say that violent Israel (or American) tactics lead to more violence, practically everyone on the left would agree, it's something else to say that it justifies any kind of violence in retaliation. That doesn't mean siding with Israel either, though, as their bulldozing of Arab neighbourhoods or firing on angry children isn't justified by the Hamas or Jihad either. What I find ironic is that this board is filled with anti-Israel material everyday, yet if anyone demures in the slightest, or points out a few remaining grey areas, they're immediately accused of being being one-sided themselves. Like the whole issue has been settled already.

IMO, trying to deny the inevitable contradictions and excesses in any violent conflict, or showing unqualified support for any one side, and we just end up with bigger ethical inconsistencies, ones which count in the political arena. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo weren't justified by the war either, as neither could be said to be strategically necessary or limited to tactically important targets, yet they didn't make the Allies whole campaign wrong either. At best, the Hamas could be seen as another unfortunate symptom of a greater disease, at least until they show some willingness to accept some political realities themselves.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 August 2005 06:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
Well, suite yourself. I haven’t heard anything reasonable from you but this shit this fuck and everything is basically screwed up plus harsh attacks on my views. Because of such people there is still no peace in the Middle East. I don’t intent to argue, because I know that you can argue ad infinitum. Therefore chao.

I didn't attack you until it became obvious that you were completely oblivious, and also willingly onbuse. And I became frstrated. You postulated an arguement, based on a pscifist resistance ala MLK. I pointed out that MLK supported Vietnamese reistance. You ignored my point.

I used statstics to show that Palestinian resistance to the occupation for the most part has been remarkably passive for most of the period of the occupation. You dismissed them as irrelevant.

I asked you a simple question: Why is it that you associate ending the occupation with the anihilation of the Isrrali state. You didn't bother to respond on point.

In other words, I consistently, politely and directly discussed the issue that you raised and you evaded discussion. You just don't listen to people that is all, and that is why you know sweet fuck all about this issue.


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

posted 31 August 2005 06:49 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

From what I read in the Globe, Hamas or many Hamas leaders are still saying that today. Fatah, of course, is saying no such thing.


Its an interesting question. Some one else may answer it.

I was talking about the construction of the discourse. As you point out, some factions call for replacing the Israeli state with a nified state. These break down into two groups, those that call for the creation of an Islamic state (Hamas,) while others call for a single secular state. Both of these views are deemed by Zionist to amount to the destruction of Israel, and imply these means an ethnic cleansing, when in fact neither do.

Then you have the groups aligned with Feteh who support the two state solution.

So there you have three distinct views, all of which include ending the occupation as part of their program, yet not all of them amount to the anihilaition of Israel and none call for the Jews to be ethnically cleansed.

Therefore I do not understand why there is this automatic association between ending the occupation and the anihilaition of Israel, and the stark images of ethnic cleansing that are portaged along as baggage, when it is clear that one of those positions clearly recognizes Israel more or less as it is today, and even the other two, which call for substantial political modification, don't even come close to calling for the expulsion of the Jews.

I just don't see why they end up in the same sentence, as if support for one means rejection of the other.


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

posted 31 August 2005 01:29 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't find it ironic at all. It's one thing to say that violent Israel (or American) tactics lead to more violence, practically everyone on the left would agree, it's something else to say that it justifies any kind of violence in retaliation.

I must have missed that. Who said any kind of violence is justified?

quote:
What I find ironic is that this board is filled with anti-Israel material everyday


Anti-Israel? Really, like what? Is calling for an end to occupation anti-Israel? So is supporting Israeli policy anti-Palestinian?
quote:

yet if anyone demures in the slightest, or points out a few remaining grey areas, they're immediately accused of being being one-sided themselves. Like the whole issue has been settled already.

What gray area did VM point out, excatly? I seemed to have missed that also. As far as I could tell, he seemed to be excusing Israeli violence as caused by Palestinians whom he would deny using Israeli violence as a similar excuse for their violence. You don't think that is one sided? You think that is fair and a two-way street?

And despite efforts to discuss, which I think my efforts were genuine, he accused me of not putting forward any ideas. Perhaps as you see fit to defend him, perhaps you can point out for me his ideas for possible resolution as I seem to have missed that too.


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

posted 01 September 2005 05:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, I've been kind of AWOL for the past few days.

venus_man, could you please not do this sort of thing here:

quote:
Are you seeking even more hatred towards those Israeli ‘bastards’? [/QB]

quote:
Really, I don’t care about Palestinians and Israelis-they deserve each other in a way.

quote:
Now you. You just criticize my views. What are yours? What is your positive solution, apart from spilling more dirt towards Israel that you seem to be doing here?

quote:
I haven’t heard anything reasonable from you but this shit this fuck and everything is basically screwed up plus harsh attacks on my views.

quote:
I didn't want to make it all personal here, but after all these attacks...

See, here's the thing. After your first couple of digs, Cueball and a couple of others were admirably resisting answering you in kind. Then you kept going with it (and I didn't notice it happening), and that's when they started getting a little more pointed in their responses to you. You didn't get "all these attacks" - you were the one who set the tone. You can only slap people in the face for so long while talking about such a volatile issue before they start getting peeved.

So knock it off. If you want to debate in this forum, do it respectfully or find some other place to talk about this issue. First warning.

The rest of you - sorry for not stepping in earlier. I know that's why it started getting ugly. Let it end now.

Erik The Red, don't start up with the anti-Israel accusations or you'll find yourself with a warning too.


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

posted 01 September 2005 11:27 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Dozens of ultra-Orthodox Jews attack Druze man in upper Galilee village

By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent

Dozens of ultra-Orthodox Jews from central Israel attacked a Druze man near the upper Galilee village of Beit Jan early on Thursday evening.

The man, Najib Kais, was evacuated to a hospital in Nahariya in light condition.

Mona, Kais' 14-year-old daughter, said her father was working with his wife and other daughter in their private vineyard located in Zabud, just north of Beit Jan, when a group of some 70 ultra-Orthodox Jews who had been hiking in the Mount Meron nature reserve arrived at the orchard and ordered the man to leave.

Mona said that when he told them the land belonged to him, they began to attack him with stones.




http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/620102.html

From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 02 September 2005 07:55 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Erik The Red, don't start up with the anti-Israel accusations or you'll find yourself with a warning too.

I wasn't starting anything, I was just trying to explain for the nth where this line of thinking can and does lead, but that's ok too, I said I'd leave this ghetto to itself and I will.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 02 September 2005 08:59 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
Pardon, but I had to protect myself with nothing more then paraphrasing and innocent sarcasm. However if I’ve offended anyone here-I didn’t mean to do so.

This was aimed towards me in this thread-
"You obviously no fuck all about the history of this conflict, and are speaking out of your ass."

And this you find respectable?
What’s the measure, so we know?


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 September 2005 11:22 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Arab Boy Prevented from Registering at Jewish School

In Weekly Press Review No. 233 a story was featured about a mother in Lid (Lod), a mixed city close to Tel Aviv, who was seeking to have her son, Tamir Hasanin, registered at a Jewish school and was prevented by the Lid Municipality and the Ministry of Education from doing so.

A petition was filed by Adalah—The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel after the Lid Municipality and the Ministry of Education wrote that among the reasons for denying the child’s registration at the Jewish school were: protecting the child's interests, since the school is “'located in a Jewish area, all of its students are Jewish, and the educational program at his current school is suitable for Arab students'…and the fear that the child will not be able to "acclimatize to the new environment and fit in with the other school students."


http://arabhra.org/publications/wrap/2005/wrap236.pdf


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

posted 02 September 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Arab Employee Dismissed for Speaking in Arabic

The directors of Hof HaTmarim Hotel dismissed Ziad Hathout, an Arab chef at the hotel, who spoke with a new Arab co-worker in Arabic. Hathout and his co-worker were approached by the head of the food and beverages department who asked them to stop speaking in Arabic. When Hathout refused was sent to the human resources department and handed a letter of dismissal. The human resources manager claimed that the reason for Hathout's dismissal was due to cutbacks in labour and not because he was speaking in Arabic. However, other employees who were hired at the same time as Hathout were not dismissed and according to Hathout's testimony, the other Arab employee with whom he spoke in Arabic was also fired. The hotel management says that they forbid their Arab employees to speak in Arabic in order to create a 'homogeneous workplace' for their employees.


Arabic, along with Hebrew, is one of the official languages of the state of Israel.

http://arabhra.org/publications/wrap/2005/wrap236.pdf


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

posted 03 September 2005 07:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:

I wasn't starting anything, I was just trying to explain for the nth where this line of thinking can and does lead, but that's ok too, I said I'd leave this ghetto to itself and I will.


a) What kind of thinking?

b) Where does it lead?


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

posted 03 September 2005 07:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
Pardon, but I had to protect myself with nothing more then paraphrasing and innocent sarcasm. However if I’ve offended anyone here-I didn’t mean to do so.

This was aimed towards me in this thread-
"You obviously no fuck all about the history of this conflict, and are speaking out of your ass."

And this you find respectable?
What’s the measure, so we know?


Well its true.

So you feel you needed to defend yourself. Interesting. So you felt people were being rude to you, so you were rude back. Very interesting.

Perhaps you will think about the kinds of gut reactions that you have to mere rudeness, the next time you start preaching about how people who have had their home demolished by a d-9 bulldozer should turn the other cheek, and foresake violence.

Perhaos you will be a little more understanding.

And now you want to talk about history too. I mean can't we let by-gones-be bygones, hmmm. Why you getting so upset about things that happened days and days ago, after all you pointed out that "things change, and whatever bothered people 5 years [or days] ago is no more important. Situation today is different from that of 6-10 years [days] ago."


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

posted 03 September 2005 08:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
Pardon, but I had to protect myself with nothing more then paraphrasing and innocent sarcasm. However if I’ve offended anyone here-I didn’t mean to do so.

This was aimed towards me in this thread-
"You obviously no fuck all about the history of this conflict, and are speaking out of your ass."

And this you find respectable?
What’s the measure, so we know?


You were not protecting yourself. Almost all of those quotes were written BEFORE Cueball wrote what you quoted above. People kept trying to be reasonable until you wrote one offensive thing too many.

No, they shouldn't have done that. That's where I blame myself for not having stepped in earlier. That's why the rules are strict on this forum - because when you start writing stuff like,

quote:
Are you seeking even more hatred towards those Israeli ‘bastards’? [/QB]

quote:
Really, I don’t care about Palestinians and Israelis-they deserve each other in a way.

quote:
Now you. You just criticize my views. What are yours? What is your positive solution, apart from spilling more dirt towards Israel that you seem to be doing here?

all of which you said BEFORE Cueball responded with what you quoted above, then it pisses people off and eventually they start responding in kind. That's why I'm telling you to stop it. No, Cueball shouldn't have responded the way he did. But you're pushing people, and they were reasonable with you for a long time before they started to get impatient. So cut it out.

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 03 September 2005 01:43 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
I kinda understand your point of maintaining order, but why would I cut it, or shut up? It’s rather undemocratic and not very progressive.
At least I admitted, unlike some others here, that if I did offended anyone- it was not my intent at all.

I said this-"Now you. You just criticize my views. What are yours? What is your positive solution, apart from spilling more dirt towards Israel that you seem to be doing here?"
Basically I didn’t hear much good about Israel or Jews here, and, it seems, that once anyone starts to turn the ship other way-they got condemned. And warned. And I’m not the first one to point that out. Like when Macabee said-“…However all the crime it reported on had people of colour as the perpatrators and whites as victims. This thread, although Im sure the author did not do so intentionally, reminds me of that digest.” What was so BAD about this. Basically he said-let’s look at the problem from both ways. That’s it.
Moderation needs to be moderate isn’t it? Here though it looks rather bias.

Anyway, the above phrase was mainly in response to this by rsfarrell, that was supported by Cueball:
“there is no law that the rapist and murderers, land-theives and pogrom organizers..etc“- that’s jews, you don’t find this offending?

And this-“but I implore everyone interested in the problem to look it, because it represents one of the hundreds of ways, large and small, that Zionism uses to push non-Jews to the margins of society and someday, they hope, into oblivion.” Terrible!
This apparently is OK and very respectful? No warning for this.

I also said this: But isn’t it just adds oil to the fire. I don’t think we need more of that right now. Are you seeking even more hatred towards those Israeli ‘bastards’? (and Israelis are not monsters as some portrays them. There are plenty of people in this country who also want peace, justice and a place call home).
I used ward ‘bastard’ in a deferent context, referring to how Israel is treated in the thread. Basically just defended Israel and Jews from obvious anti-Semitic remarks, that are also illegal in this country, because sound provocative. And also my intent was to shift the conversation into two way street.

Then I said this-“Really, I don’t care about Palestinians and Israelis-they deserve each other in a way”

When I said that I expressed my opinion. Or may be I’m not allowed to? "Deserve each other to a degree". Let me be more clear. I was referring to the conflict that is tens of thousands years old, and even in modern days it’s rather silly to see neighbors fighting and killing each other. Don’t you usually say in this case that they deserve each other, in a way?

I do believe that it’s our responsibility to play by rules without offending each other or promoting certain views as a basis for discussion. That could lead to hostility of other members, who are sincere in their views and interpretations.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 September 2005 02:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is not ten thousand years old. It is not even 2000 years old. It is not even 200 years old. It is a century old.

It begins with the British Empire deciding that it would like to resolve the "Jewish Problem" by giving them someone elses land, people incidentally whom very likely are more closely related to the Jewish inhabitant of 2000 years ago than the Ashkenazi of Europe. Those people, known today as the Palestinians are as likely as not decended from Jews whom remained, and later converted to Islam.

Islam is not even 2000 years old.

Aside from that Jews were far better treated under Islam, within the millet system, than European Jews who were subjected to periodic pogroms and forced evacuations. In fact it was the a Sultan of the Ottoman Turks who invited the Jews of Spain to settle in Turkey saying: "We will treat their property as we treat our own."

It is these kinds of bizarre fabrications, which are essentially of mythological Zionist stripe, which pointed to the fact that you have (I'll be more kind this time} limited knowedge of the history of the conflict, and it is one heavily dependent on particular ideas that have been put out into the world as part of the Zionist idea, just like when you immediatly equate "ending the occupation" with the "destruction of Israel," which is a common right wing Zionist idea of a likudnik stripe, and also this idea that the "conflict is burried in the mysts of time and the torah.

As far as the Arabs are concerned the a powerful stranger (the British) came along promised them freedom from the the Turks, and then settled in a bunch of strangers on their land, and that happened in the last 100 years. Your narrative is the Zionist narrative, one that explicitly excludes the Arab narrative, and the way thing are percieved by Arabs.

Your view of history is one entirely based in the Jewish mythological context, the one that is as the motivating ideology of Zionism. Exclusion of the indiginous narrative is one of the primary tools of exploitation, imperialism and racist genocide.


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

posted 03 September 2005 04:12 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Exclusion of the indiginous narrative is one of the primary tools of exploitation, imperialism and racist genocide.

Absolutely: it is not unlike imposing seperate and unequal education systems, or the surpression of the language of the oppressed.


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

posted 03 September 2005 04:14 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
I kinda understand your point of maintaining order, but why would I cut it, or shut up? It’s rather undemocratic and not very progressive.

Tough. There are rules on this forum for a reason, and if you don't want to follow them, you can find some other board to post on. I don't care if it's "your opinion" that the posts in this thread are anti-semitic. You were putting words in people's mouths and implying that they think all Israelis are "bastards".

And if you do it again, you'll keep getting warnings until you're suspended. If you have a problem with my moderating call, complain to Audra. I'm not going to spend 20 posts debating this with you.

People are allowed to criticize the actions of certain Israelis without being accused of anti-semitism. If they'd said all Jews do this sort of thing, I would have been all over it, but they're not saying that. If you continue throwing around baseless accusations of antisemitism, you will be gone.

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 September 2005 11:14 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Absolutely: it is not unlike imposing seperate and unequal education systems,

This double standard in education must stop. And since we have this very thing happening today in Ontario with Catholics getting government funded education to the expense of Jews, Muslems, Hindus and others I think we should fight the battle for education freedom here in Canada. RSFarrel I am really glad to see that you will assist in leading the charge to correct this wrong here in Ontario.

as an aside I have read a lot recently in the press about all of the UN Human Right violations that Israel has been found guilty of by the UN Human Rights court. But I find nothing on Babble
about Canada also being in violation of UN Human Rights Rulings. Ie. the Waldman case against the Canada for Ontario discriminating in funding one religion school system fully at the expense of others

edited to add:
is a government agency requiring a document for proof of registration that is not available to all citizens equally discrimination? if so then the catholic boards of ed do the very same in Ontario by requiring baptismal certificates for students to register

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 September 2005 11:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We have had lots of discussions about that. It just doesn't happen in the Middle East forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 September 2005 11:32 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle I understand and agree I am simply pointing out that Israel is not the only nation that does this. that it also happens in Canada as well.

Yet IMHO it is a sexier story when it is in the middle east than here because we can see the "sides" in the middle east. In Ontario it is harder to judge the 2 sides

and since this thread title is tales from the Israeli race war it is important to recognize that one aspect of this race war occurs in democratic and lovable Ontario

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


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

posted 03 September 2005 11:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is a little different than putting a wall through someones farm, but the point is well taken. I agree, all funding to non-state schools should end. You could start a thread on that.

PS: Portland is not a suburb of Toronto yet.

Interestingly the Human Rights Code of Oregon is fairly sophisticated. I believe the acting police chief of Portland refused to co-operate (send out flat foots to do interviews etc.) with the FBI in the post-9/11 shake down of the Arab community because racial profiling is strictly a no-no in Oregon.

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 03 September 2005 11:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My point is, you don't need to exhort rsfarrell to "lead the charge" about what's happening in Ontario and Canada. There are lots of other threads on that subject. That's not the topic of this thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 04 September 2005 12:32 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Michelle I understand and agree I am simply pointing out that Israel is not the only nation that does this. that it also happens in Canada as well....[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]

Oh Christ on a Crutch, it's the "everything has to be said all at once" bunch again.

All lists must include all things. No discussion of discrete or specific items is possible without immediate and full disclosure of all other items otherwise we are being exclusive, or being hypocritical or worse, "biased"...

Maybe it's just an inability to concentrate...

[ 04 September 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


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

posted 04 September 2005 11:12 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Oh Christ on a Crutch, it's the "everything has to be said all at once" bunch again.

...

[ 04 September 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


WTF BL? "all at once bunch"? If you had taken the time to read the posts you would see that I was commenting only on the fact that it is not just Israel the discriminates when it comes to government funded schooling.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 September 2005 11:18 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See, this is what happens when we start going down the road of deflecting from the subject of the thread, and telling people what they need to "lead the charge on" in other, unrelated situations.

B.L.Zeebub, as you know, I'm trying not to let this forum devolve into personal attacks. Please don't fall into that trap or I'm going to have to give you a warning.

johnpauljones, save your Ontario public school stuff for another thread. There are lots of them on that subject. Drop it now, and get back to the subject at hand.

[ 04 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 September 2005 12:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just to make myself a little clearer - I don't have a problem with comparisons being made between Ontario and Israel. People make comparisons all the time and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is this whole pious exhortation that people must "lead the charge" on some other issue if they want to post about something in this forum. I thought I had made that clear, but apparently I had not.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 04 September 2005 08:06 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[QB]B.L.Zeebub, as you know, I'm trying not to let this forum devolve into personal attacks. Please don't fall into that trap or I'm going to have to give you a warning.

Good enough.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 05 September 2005 12:11 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
There is a direct comparision here and we should at least acknowlegde that while Israel has a way to go and much to fix at least it is working on it.

Ontario in the meantime just engagees in straight out discrimination against all non-Catholic school children.

Secondly I do wish I can be here more often I miss too much but for the record I see that Macabee has been banned . I will not argue at all with the reasons , I respect the mods period. I do want to say however that imho there are those as pointed out by venus-man and otthers that seem to get away with much more than Macabee including direct attacks. It is more and more uncomfortable posting on this one thread due to the fact that some get away with things others dont. Just a cautionary thing for me of course.


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

posted 05 September 2005 12:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again, as I have told you once or twice when you've brought up the same complaint in other threads, I gave Macabee lots of non-warning nudges before the warnings started coming. Venus_man and B.L.Zeebub have never gotten out of line before this in this forum, and they're entitled to a nudge or two before the "real" warnings start.

Maybe you could bookmark this post and refer to it the next time you want to complain about exactly the same thing yet one more time.


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

posted 05 September 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Fair enough.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 05 September 2005 12:35 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Paul Fromm use to have an online digest that purported to report on crime. However all the crime it reported on had people of colour as the perpatrators and whites as victims. This thread, although Im sure the author di not do so intentionally, reminds me of that digest.

Macabee, I see various campaigns from the CJC and Bnai Brith decrying "Arab terrorism" in Israel that never mention terrorism and and violence by settlers. By your logic, does this mean the CJC and B'nai Brith should remind you of Paul Fromm as well?

That's not a comparison I would make. Shame on you for making it in regards to reportage on settler violence in the West Bank. Violence which none other than Ariel Sharon has described and decried as "Jewish terrorism".

[ 05 September 2005: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 05 September 2005 02:48 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Its a good question Mycroft. However Macabee has been banned so it does not look like we will ever get the answer to it.

Ihave looked on both sites you mention akaMycroft and I see no such news digest on either the Jewish Congress website or that of BNei Brith. I have seen the BNei Brith newspaper however and it has run what I think could be described as racist anti-Muslim cartoons and articles. Has this ever come up here?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2005 02:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Its a good question Mycroft. However Macabee has been banned so it does not look like we will ever get the answer to it.


Huh? Mycroft's question was about the CJC and Bnai Brith. What does Macabee's presence or absence have to do with that?


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

posted 05 September 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: Oh, I see, ohara. You were referring to the fact that Mycroft directed a question at Macabee.

Sorry. I misread.


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

posted 05 September 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
There is a direct comparision here and we should at least acknowlegde that while Israel has a way to go and much to fix at least it is working on it.


I don't see that at all. Have you been reading the thread? Under military and diplomatic pressure they withdrew a small number of settlements from the most densely populated Palestinian territory. Immediately then seized more land in the West Bank and promised that no withdrawls on this (very small) scale would ever happen again.

They are not trying. There are struggling to maintain their dominence and the Palestinians' subservience.


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

posted 05 September 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post

Pig's head wrapped in kuffiya thrown into mosque courtyard in Tel Aviv

www.ynet.co.il , August 20, 2005


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 06 September 2005 10:37 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Your view of history is one entirely based in the Jewish mythological context, the one that is as the motivating ideology of Zionism. Exclusion of the indiginous narrative is one of the primary tools of exploitation, imperialism and racist genocide.

I don’t quite know what you mean here. I have no affiliation or desire to support or somehow protect some Zionists or others. I’m not as involved in this conflict as you seem to be. And my history is not based on that. It based upon encyclopedia Britannica and Wickipedia, unless they are Zionists? Therefore I’m not saying who’s right or wrong here. Many tried and still do, but usually it leads to more accusations and irritations. We cannot judge any nation, for we are not judges.

My point was, from the start of this discussion, that there is no need for the militants to exist, and they DO exist. That there is no need for spreading more nationality or religion based hatred by the militants or extremist groups-it’s enough of it already for God’s sake. There cannot be two equally valued governments and authorities in one country. Perhaps Palestine needs to have a stronger army like all civilized nations do to protect its borders and interests. And right now they have all means necessary for that, including political and financial support of the EU, US, Russia and Israel to a degree.
I wasn’t trying to justify any actions by any side, but condemning violence form both sides, because, in my opinion it’s barbaric and irresponsible.
But root of any violence physically found in hate that usually comes from damaged or blocked emotional brain perceptions and as a result inflamed nervous system, based on fear:
“Hatred can be based on fear of its object, justified or unjustified, or past negative consequences of dealing with that object. Hatred is often described as the opposite of love or friendship.”
And more:
“Hate is often a precursor to violence. Before a war, it is often useful to train the populace to hate some nation or political regime. Hatred remains a major motive behind armed conflicts such as war and terrorism. It is not easy to know when hate is logical and when it has become counterproductive and self-perpetuating.”

Therefore each conflict or war stars from ideological assault (provocation) on the population in order to get it involve in a cruel cycle of fear, hatred and murder, usualy by those seeking power, but who are, like Stalin for instance are self-absorbed maniacs. That’s why I haven’t supported war in Iraq for it brings the worse in people.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 September 2005 04:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My point is that much of people's perceptions about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict are tainted by a specific ideological outlook that stems from our Eurocentric view of the world and its linked idea of Zionism, which is also a European "modernist" idea: this includes most of the press, what people write in Wikipedia and the Encylopedia Britanica.

The original Balfour declaration in favour of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the division of the Palestine mandate, was engineered over the heads of the Arabs who lived there despite the support of some well known "Arabists" such as T. E. Lawrence, who considered the Balfour Declaration a betrayal of the Arab allies of the British Empire during WW1. The Zinoist lobby and its allies within the British government (mostly racists whom thought creating Israel would be a good way to get the Jews out of Europe,) had considerable latent power in the capitals of Europe, as they were politically entrenched and spoke English, while the Arabs, were largely disorganized because of there status as colonial peoples, and for the most part non-english speaking, were considerably disadvantaged.

These basic conditions have informed a large body of popular opinion on the subject and persist today, with noted Zionists having considerable inroads in mainstream media and within powerful government agencies, while at the same time having a sustantial and effective body of Zionist supporters in the US and elsewhere, unlike Arab population whom are just now establishing a credible voice for their world view in the mainstream.

Futhermore, general sympathy for Jewish people was quite rightly increased by the Nazi attempt to Exterminate european Jewery in the Second World War, something Zionist idealogues have made no bones of manipulate to silence criticism of their colonial project, and justifying their ultimate goal.

As a result numerous "common sense" undestandings of the nature of the conflict are heavily influenced by an effective propoganda camaign which has sought to deligitimize the Palestinian Arab perspective on the conflict, in favour of one that implicitly supports the Zionist narrative. these ideas appear commonly as unquestioned "facts" about the conflict, when in they are not.

Three things in what you have said clearly fall into categoriy of commonly held beliefs about the conflcit:

1) The idea that the coflict is thousands of years old, when in fact from the Arab view it is less than a hundred years old, and one which has little to do with a religious competition, but more to do with specific secular conflicts over land and resource rights. Note that before Israel supported the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip, an organization that later morphed into Hamas, as a means of undermining the secular PLO, the conflict was between the Zionists (our book is right, your is not view) pitted against a secular PLO, the religious construction clearly benefits the Israeli Zionist view, because when it comes to religion we are really talking about metaphysical beliefs, not hard reality, and thus ownership of land becomes simply a matter of which religious view you believe in, not things like whose family has actually been living on a piece of land for generations.

2) The idea that the anti-occupation movement is necessarily conected with the Anihilation of Israel (and by implication: Jews) is not supported by the evidence of what Arabs actually say, but a view encouraged by the right wing of the Zionist movement and is an interpretation of what is meant by Arab leaders when they talk about ending the occupation. It is not even possible to find an original Arab source for the famous "drive the Jews into the sea" quote that is often bandied about, and the only known speech by a political leader of any of the factions involved who had ever used it was Ben Gurion, whom does not source it either.

3) Most recently above:

quote:
Perhaps Palestine needs to have a stronger army like all civilized nations do to protect its borders and interests.

The idea that Palestinians are not "civilized" is about as coloialist as it gets, and again counterfactual. This idea is often based on very stereotypical conceptions of Bedouin Arabs of a very romantic Victorian flavour, wherein the Arabs are percieved to be nomadic camel riding tribal traders not a mixture of urban and rural societies like most areas of the world that have been inhabited by people for centuries.

The Arabs of the Palestng mandate actually come mainly from three distinct ethnic groups, the highly cosmoplitan, multilingual Syrian Arabs, the Bedouin traders and the Druze nestorain Christians, and are not uniform or uncivilized in the least. In fact one of the great tragedies of the Israeli invasioin, has been the destruction of the highly cosomoplitan and multi-ethnic culture of Jerusalem and Gaza, whose ihabitants were known throughout the Arab world as some of the most highly educated groups. To give you an idea of the level of sophistication of the Arab peoples, consider the fact that Damascus was the first city in the world to install gas lanterns, at a time when Londoners were still bumbling around in the dark by torch light.

Gaza at one time, like Cairo, Alexandria and Beiriut was a favourite tourist destination for upwardly mobile Europeans, and not the destitute ruined slum you see today.

I think you would do well to read "Orientalism" by Edward Said (the son of an American-Palestinian Babtist father from Jerusalem and a Catholic mother from Beriut) whose fathers printing business was lost when his family was made refugee in 1948 by the Israeli attack upon the Arab people. His book "Orientalism" digs deep into the common place stereotyping that has been a staple of pro-Israeli and US anti-Arab propoganda for years, much of which you seem to be propounding here, not through ill will but as a result of lack of knowledge.


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

posted 06 September 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll let that be the last word for this thread - it's getting pretty long.
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