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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Hamas Will Not Recognize Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hamas Will Not Recognize Israel
Zaklamont
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5106

posted 19 February 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for Zaklamont        Edit/Delete Post
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060213/israel_hamas_060214?hub=World&s_name=&no_ads=

Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said in Sudan that his group had no plans to recognize Israel.

"There will be no recognition of Israel and there will be no security for the occupation and colonization forces," Mashaal told a rally in Khartoum. "Resistance will remain our strategic option."


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

posted 19 February 2006 02:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
good.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 19 February 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not good, but not unexpected.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
good.

Why do you feel it's "good" that Hamas wants to destroy Israel?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why should they recognize Israel? Yasser Arafat recognized Israel in 1989, and the PA came into existance on the basis of that recognition. Hamas has been elected to run the PA, and as such I would think the previous recognition stands as the official position of the PA, up until such a time as the newly elected government recinds Arafats recognition.

It seems a bit much for Israel to insist on new guarantees everytime a new government is eleceted. I mean really, is the Conservative Party of Canada to write into its constitution that it recognized Israel's right to exist, when such recognition has been made by previous governments.

Israel's insistance that Hamas recognize "Israel's right to exist" is just brinksmanship designed to undermine negotiation so that it can continue the process of annexation.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 02:56 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yasser Arafat recognized Israel in 1989, and the PA came into existance on the basis of that recognition. Hamas has been elected to run the PA, and as such I would think the previous recognition stands as the official position of the PA, up until such a time as the newly elected government recinds Arafats recognition.

So, an explicit Hamas recognition of Israel is superfluous to the existing PA recognition of Isreal?

Fine.

If Hamas elects to reverse the PA recognition of Israel, would that, too, be "good"?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 02:58 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Israel's insistance that Hamas recognize "Israel's right to exist" is just brinksmanship designed to undermine negotiation so that it can continue the process of annexation.

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if there was an American political party whose avowed purpose was to eliminate the existence of Canada if that party came to power in America?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 02:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given the above, can you assess for me the possible purposes of insisting on re-opening the recognition issue, when Hamas has not suggested they will change the position of the PA?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if there was an American political party whose avowed purpose was to eliminate the existence of Canada if that party came to power in America?


I would certainly not say that it was an excuse for Canada to break its previous negotiated agreements, or to forcibly prevent memebers of congress from taking their seats in the House, until such as time as the government of the US officially acted upon the platform upon which they were elected.

Rene Levesque came to power in Quebec specifically on a promise to cede from Canada, such would not have been an adequate excuse to cut of federal transfer payments or otherwise recind Federal and Provincial agreements, until such a time as the Parti-Quebcois unilaterally enacted laws which were in line with its stated policies.

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 03:12 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Given the above, can you assess for me the possible purposes of insisting on re-opening the recognition issue, when Hamas has not suggested they will change the position of the PA?

Like I said,

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So, an explicit Hamas recognition of Israel is superfluous to the existing PA recognition of Isreal?

Fine.


That means I'm not challenging you on that point.

That being said, subsequently asked this hypothetical:

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
If Hamas elects to reverse the PA recognition of Israel, would that, too, be "good"?

I just want to understand what your position is with regard to the existence of Israel.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It exists.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It exists.

Let me rephrase my question:

(1) Should Israel continue to exist?

(2) Would a Hamas reversal of the PA's position be a "good" thing?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems very much that what is being threatened with non-existance here is the PA, not Israel. You don't seem to be that concerned that Israel has unilaterally cut of previously negotiated transfer payments to the PA, and also prevented elected officials from taking their seats in the Palestinian Assembly, even before a government has been formed to determine the future Palestinian position on anything, Israel existence or water allocation, or food distriution or anything.

What happend to your principles of Democracy. The Hamas members have been duly elected by their people, and now Israel will not let them govern, even though it was a process set up with Israel's complete assent and support.

Where are you "democratic" principles now. Where is your outrage at the democratic process being directly attacked by Israel and the US?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 19 February 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Considering that Hebrew presence in that region predates Muslim presence, I would say they don't need "recognition". They have as much right to be there as Palistinians.
From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It seems very much that what is being threatened with non-existance here is the PA, not Israel. You don't seem to be that concerned that Israel has unilaterally cut of previously negotiated transfer payments to the PA, and also prevented elected officials from taking their seats in the Palestinian Assembly, even before a government has been formed to determine the future Palestinian position on anything, Israel existence or water allocation, or food distriution or anything.

What happend to your principles of Democracy. The Hamas members have been duly elected by their people, and now Israel will not let them govern, even though it was a process set up with Israel's complete assent and support.

Where are you "democratic" principles now. Where is your outrage at the democratic process being directly attacked by Israel and the US?


Thank you for the non-answer. I’ll answer this question as soon as you answer mine.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me ask you this: Does a country which deliberately inteferes with the democratic processes of another country have a "right to exist?"
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Listen Sven, I support the PA position on Israel.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 19 February 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Let me ask you this: Does a country which deliberately inteferes with the democratic processes of another country have a "right to exist?"

Yes.

But clearly some issues need to be resolved.


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

posted 19 February 2006 03:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Considering that Hebrew presence in that region predates Muslim presence, I would say they don't need "recognition". They have as much right to be there as Palistinians.

Mohammed's position, actually.

But no, there is a difference bewteen Sephardim whose ancestors have lived in the region for centuries and Ashkenazi Jews whom were imported to Israel after the European attempt to exterminate them in 1938-45.

Did you know that 1890, the Jewish population of what is now called Israel was 5% of the population?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 03:32 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Listen Sven, I support the PA position on Israel.

Thank you.

Okay. I'll (attempt) to answer your question:

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
What happend to your principles of Democracy. The Hamas members have been duly elected by their people, and now Israel will not let them govern, even though it was a process set up with Israel's complete assent and support.

Where are you "democratic" principles now. Where is your outrage at the democratic process being directly attacked by Israel and the US?


Hitler was elected, too.

If the USA democratically elected a party whose avowed purpose was to extinguish the separate existence of Canada and if that party formally revoked any treaties with Canada, of course you wouldn’t support the result of that democratic process, now would you? Why? Not because you’re antidemocratic but because you would, presumably, disagree with the foreign policy of that new government.

The Iranians, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, etc., etc. should all have the right to free and fair elections. And, the people should have the right to be governed by whatever government they choose. That’s democracy. But, another country does not need to actively support that government in the matter of foreign policy. That’s a separate matter diplomatic relationship.

In the case of the Nazi election in 1933, I can support the German people’s right to vote for whomever they want. But, I don’t have to accept the foreign policy of the new government simply because the government was democratically elected.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

Yes.

But clearly some issues need to be resolved.



But the "right to exist issue" has been resolved as far as the PA is concerned. So, why is Israel reopening the issue, when that position has not changed?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 19 February 2006 03:34 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Mohammed's position, actually.

But no, there is a difference bewteen Sephardim whose ancestors have lived in the region for centuries and Ashkenazi Jews whom were imported to Israel after the European attempt to exterminate them in 1938-45.

Did you know that 1890, the Jewish population of what is now called Israel was 5% of the population?



Natives now make up less than 5% of Canada's population.

By your contention, we can deny them their status as nations then.

Might makes right eh?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 03:39 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, truth be told, I’m really uneasy about a “Jewish state”. I really don’t like the idea of a country being racially or religiously based.

It’s the same reason I have concerns about separate FN governments. They are, essentially, racially based (or will be as long as Jane Blow can’t become a “citizen” of a FN without any Indian ancestry). The day I could emigrate to a FN and become a citizen in the same way I could become a citizen of any other country in the world will be the day that separate FN may make sense. But, in the mean time, having a race-based “nation” sounds pretty fascist to me.

I have the very same concerns about Israel, although I could become a citizen of Israel being the atheist (or at least agnostic) that I am.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Hitler was elected, too.

If the USA democratically elected a party whose avowed purpose was to extinguish the separate existence of Canada and if that party formally revoked any treaties with Canada, of course you wouldn’t support the result of that democratic process, now would you? Why? Not because you’re antidemocratic but because you would, presumably, disagree with the foreign policy of that new government.

The Iranians, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, etc., etc. should all have the right to free and fair elections. And, the people should have the right to be governed by whatever government they choose. That’s democracy. But, another country does not need to actively support that government in the matter of foreign policy. That’s a separate matter diplomatic relationship.

In the case of the Nazi election in 1933, I can support the German people’s right to vote for whomever they want. But, I don’t have to accept the foreign policy of the new government simply because the government was democratically elected.



Irrelevant.

Is it the case that because the party led by Stephen Harper has a stated policy against SSM, that fact does not change the LAW by which Canada is governed. It only becomes relevant when and if the LAW is changed.

Hitler's stated intention to break the treaty of Versaille and reoccupy the Rhineland. Certainly anyone has a right to openly state their opposition to those policies, but France did not have the right to unilaterally take punative measures against Germany until such a time as Hitler acts upon his party platform.

Clearly Sven, your professed defence of democratic principles are a bunch of hot air, otherwise you would have clearly state that you oppose Israel preventing Hamas elected memeber of assembly sitting in assembly.

You are full of hot air.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally, I don't think Israel, in a 100 years, will continue to exist as a "Jewish state". The Jews will be demographically overrun by non-Jews, unless Israel was to decide to bar entry of non-Jews and to kick out all of the non-Jews now living there, which I don't see happening.

And, that doesn't bother me.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:


Natives now make up less than 5% of Canada's population.

By your contention, we can deny them their status as nations then.

Might makes right eh?


We do deny them their status as a nation. The Indian act allows them a certain level of autonomy but Native persons are citizens of Canada.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 19 February 2006 03:45 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

We do deny them their status as a nation. The Indian act allows them a certain level of autonomy but Native persons are citizens of Canada.



They are claiming status as nations.

Do you deny them that?


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

posted 19 February 2006 03:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Personally, I don't think Israel, in a 100 years, will continue to exist as a "Jewish state". The Jews will be demographically overrun by non-Jews, unless Israel was to decide to bar entry of non-Jews and to kick out all of the non-Jews now living there, which I don't see happening.

And, that doesn't bother me.


This is precisely what they are doing, and in fact have been doing, and the reason that european Jews became the majority in Israel is because they booted out 700,000 Arabs in 1948.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 03:47 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Hitler's stated intention to break the treaty of Versaille and reoccupy the Rhineland. Certainly anyone has a right to openly state their opposition to those policies, but France did not have the right to unilaterally take punative measures against Germany until such a time as Hitler acts upon his party platform.

And, of course, France did jack shit after the Germans did reoccupy the Rhineland.

Instead, they waited until it was too late to stop the Germans and 50 million people died because the French sat around with their thumbs up their arse when pre-emptive military action could have prevented that killing machine back in 1936.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:


They are claiming status as nations.

Do you deny them that?



No. But I do deny them the right to use force of arms to radically change the demographic of Canada in order to make themselves the majority population and to found a state predicated denying people whom are not Native the right of citizenship and equality under the law.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 03:49 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

This is precisely what they are doing, and in fact have been doing, and the reason that european Jews became the majority in Israel is because they booted out 700,000 Arabs in 1948.


That's absolutely correct. But, on a long-term basis, it's not going to be sustainable. It's just a matter of time.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

And, of course, France did jack shit after the Germans did reoccupy the Rhineland.

Instead, they waited until it was too late to stop the Germans and 50 million people died because the French sat around with their thumbs up their arse when pre-emptive military action could have prevented that killing machine back in 1936.



Ok Sven, I answered you question. Now you answer mine, as you promised. Is it right for Israel to prevent Hamas member of the Palestinian Assembly from sitting in assembly or not?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Ok Sven, I answered you question. Now you answer mine, as you promised. Is it right for Israel to prevent Hamas member of the Palestinian Assembly from sitting in assembly or not?

Fair enough. No.

ETA: And for that, you win this:

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 03:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would you say that such is conducive to a negotiated settlement, or is it an act willfully designed to increse tension or not?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 19 February 2006 03:57 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


No. But I do deny them the right to use force of arms to radically change the demographic of Canada in order to make themselves the majority population and to found a state predicated denying people whom are not Native the right of citizenship and equality under the law.


What happened to the rights of the non-natives who got caught living on the newly created Nisga'a lands?

Seems to me they lost the option of who they could sell their land to (not that it was worth anything after the settlement anyway) they lost the right to vote and participate in local government as well.

You would deny the natives that settlement?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 04:01 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Would you say that such is conducive to a negotiated settlement, or is it an act willfully designed to increse tension or not?

What, giving you the banana?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 19 February 2006 04:07 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Let me rephrase my question:

(1) Should Israel continue to exist?


No, not as presently configured. An explicitly racist, colonialist state is an abomination, and should be seen that way by all progressives.

The racism in Israeli law and society isn't the accidental by-product of some nobler purpose: the racism is the purpose.

And as such, it's toxic. There's no way to sanitize it.

~~

I'd support the establishment of a pluralistic state, home to jews and palestinians, as long as all parties had identical legal and social rights, and racist laws like the 'right of return' were either abolished or broadened to include all (not merely jews) with a historical claim to the region.

~~

If the Israelis are concerned about the birth rates of the non-jews living among them, there's an easy solution: raise the education and standard of living of the subject population to Israeli levels, and the birth rates will approach parity--this is a phenomenon so well established across cultures, world wide, as to approach the status of a law. Education--particularly female education--has a direct, inverse relationship to birth rate.

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 04:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

What happened to the rights of the non-natives who got caught living on the newly created Nisga'a lands?

Seems to me they lost the option of who they could sell their land to (not that it was worth anything after the settlement anyway) they lost the right to vote and participate in local government as well.

You would deny the natives that settlement?


There is no parrallel. First of all the non-native people whom are being forced out of the community, are having it done by their own government the government of Canada, whom presumably they help elect, and are thus legally enfranchised. Whereas, the partition of the Palestine mandate was authorized by a government, which in no way represented Arab interests or had Arab representatives, and was done via bureaucratic fiat, on behalf of the British parliment, elected by British people, and then confirmed by the UN, without even a plebicite to determine Arab feeling.

Nor is it the case that when the Zionist forcibly evicted 700,000 Palestinians in 1948 that they compensated them at all -- which means that they not only were not allowed to chose whom they sold their property too, they were not perimitted to sell it at all. Instead their land and houses were exproriated by the state without compensation and then sold or given to Jewish people from Europe.

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 19 February 2006 04:11 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

There is no parrallel. First of all the non-native people whom are being forced out of the community, are having it done by their own government the government of Canada, whom presumably they help elect, and are thus legally enfranchised. Whereas, the partition of the Palestine mandate was authorized by a government, which in no way represented Arab interests or had Arab representatives, and was done via bureaucratic fiat, on behalf of the British parliment, elected by British people.

Nor is it the case that when the Zionist forcibly evicted 700,000 Palestinians in 1948 that they compensated them at all -- which means that they not only were not allowed to chose whom they sold their property too, they were not perimitted to sell it at all. Instead their land and houses were exproriated by the state without compensation and then sold or given to Jewish people from Europe.

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Your selective morality is something else.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
There is no parrallel.

Do you think a race-based or religious-based "nation" (whether FN or Jews) is a good thing?

I don't like it.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How is it selective. Is it not the case that those non-Native persons in the N'isga lands had what was done to them done to them by there own government, which they are free to appeal to through the courts, as well as elect or not elect? Whereas the Palestinians had it done to them by forces which were completely beyond their control and whom they had no recourse to appeal?

Yes or no?

You do see the differenc between a government forced sale, and no compensation at all?

The difference between being booted out of your house at three O'clock in the morning by a foreign army, and a protracted legal proceeding which you are allowed to be part of, and speak to, do you not?

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 04:17 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
How is it selective. Is it not the case that those persons in the non-Native lands had what was done to them done to them by there own government, which they are free to appeal to through the courts, as well as elect or not elect? Whereas the Palestinians had it done to them by forces which were completely beyind their control and whom they had no recourse to appeal?

Yes or no?


I'm still pissed about the Norman invasion of 1066.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 04:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boring. Not informative. Nor apropos.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 February 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Boring. Not informative. Nor apropos.

So, under what circumstances, if any, would you support a race-based or religious-based nation?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 04:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 February 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven, you mean "state," not "nation."
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 19 February 2006 09:02 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
C.Morgan asked:


quote:
They are claiming status as nations. Do you deny them that?

Cueball answers:

quote:

No. But I do deny them the right to use force of arms to radically change the demographic of Canada in order to make themselves the majority population and to found a state predicated denying people whom are not Native the right of citizenship and equality under the law.

Woaw!! Old hand, this Cueball!


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 19 February 2006 09:26 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
And Israel has stopped funds transfer (about $50M per month, according to the article) to the PA.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/19/mideast/index.html

To quote ol' Cueball, "good". Israel should not be funding a terrorist state.


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 19 February 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:
To quote ol' Cueball, "good". Israel should not be funding a terrorist state.

Isael is not funding anything: that's money that belongs to the palestinians. Israel is stealing, yet again, from the palestinians.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 19 February 2006 09:39 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:
And Israel has stopped funds transfer (about $50M per month, according to the article) to the PA.
....
To quote ol' Cueball, "good". Israel should not be funding a terrorist state.

Not good, but again, not unexpected - though terribly, terribly wrong.

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

posted 19 February 2006 10:49 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:

To quote ol' Cueball, "good". Israel should not be funding a terrorist state.


So how long has Bibi been a babbler?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 19 February 2006 10:51 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Not good, but again, not unexpected - though terribly, terribly wrong.

As wrong as Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist? Payback's a bitch.


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 19 February 2006 10:51 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by lagnaf:

quote:
To quote ol' Cueball, "good". Israel should not be funding a terrorist state.

Who blames Israel! No one likes a competitor, let alone to "fund it".

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Zaklamont
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5106

posted 19 February 2006 11:50 PM      Profile for Zaklamont        Edit/Delete Post
cueball, are you actually being serious????

Now, all things are coming together. Now I finally understand you , cueball.


From: Ottawa Ontario | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Joe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2905

posted 20 February 2006 12:06 AM      Profile for Joe        Edit/Delete Post
The Palestinian Police claim they haven't been paid in 2 months yet Israel has only just cut off the excise tax transfers today - and Arafat's been dead for 2 years. Who was put in charge of diverting foreign aid away from the Palestinian people after Arafat died? How many hundreds of millions do the Palestinian leadership now have socked away in their private Swiss bank accounts?
From: City | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 20 February 2006 12:15 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why do you assume it ever reached Palestine?
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 February 2006 02:47 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Zaklamont:
cueball, are you actually being serious????

Now, all things are coming together. Now I finally understand you , cueball.


Your the guy running around making sprurious and unfounded statements such as:

quote:
And if 40 years of having their children and their brothers and sisters and parents blown up in municipal buses and marketplaces hasn't made them FEEL for joining in a bi-national state, will some dogmatic idea of it succeed?


Zaklamont goes off!

When the fact is that the first Palestinian suicide bomber blew themselves up in 1994 in retalitation for Baruch Goldsteins attack on a Mosque in Hebron, in which 20 unarmed worhipers were killed. That was 12 years ago, 1994, not 40 years ago, which would be 1966, 1 year before Israel occupied the West Bank.

The reason you don't actually understand me Zaklamont, is because nothing inside your head is in the slightest bit attached to reality.

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 February 2006 02:37 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Hamas Must Renounce Violence, So Should Israel

quote:
"We are stumped by the failure of our democratic concepts to gain a foothold in the Arab world," wrote Michael Bell, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel, in the Globe and Mail last week.

Boot to the head.

quote:
Obviously the Palestinians failed to understand the subtle nuances of Western "democratic concepts." Just because the West urges them to elect a government doesn't mean they're free to elect a government the West considers unacceptable.

The New York Times reported last week that the "United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again."

If only the Palestinians would get it right the first time, it wouldn't be necessary for the West to intervene in their democratic process.

Ottawa also made clear last week that Canada would withdraw financial support — unless Hamas renounced violence, recognized Israel and accepted previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.

At first glance, this seems reasonable. But why are these demands placed only on Palestinians? Shouldn't Israel also have to renounce violence? As the World Council of Churches recently argued: "If violence is incompatible with democracy and with peace, it is incompatible for both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities."


Ya've got it all wring, McQuaig. Israel is occupying the territories through the strength of its ideals, its goodwill, its charm and the persuasiveness of its fine European cuisine.

quote:
As for recognizing Israel, Hamas has implicitly indicated a willingness do this — if Israel ends its occupation. Hamas official Khaled Mishaal told a Russian journal last week that Hamas would halt its armed struggle if Israel withdrew from Palestinian land it has occupied since 1967.

He's an Arab, though, so you can't trust him.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 20 February 2006 06:55 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Considering that Hebrew presence in that region

What, the language? Or are you saying that Jews are a race? Or what?
I'd certainly agree that people in the region of Palestine should have the right to practice the Jewish religion and not be discriminated against on that basis.

But that's not what you have in mind, is it? And I find myself doubting that you'd concede the converse--i.e. that people in that region should have the right to practice other religions and not be discriminated against on that basis either.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 February 2006 10:00 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, the Soviet Union used to bully the Eastern European nations all the time in order to make them kowtow to the official CPSU party line.

The West justifiably raised hell about this, so why the hell are we now siding with Israel's bullying of the Palestinian Authority?


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

posted 24 February 2006 09:12 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

What, the language? Or are you saying that Jews are a race? Or what?
I'd certainly agree that people in the region of Palestine should have the right to practice the Jewish religion and not be discriminated against on that basis.

But that's not what you have in mind, is it? And I find myself doubting that you'd concede the converse--i.e. that people in that region should have the right to practice other religions and not be discriminated against on that basis either.


Problem of course is that under Jordanian rule jews were never allowed to practice their religion. In Arab regimes Jews were so discriminated against that they had to leave in mass numbers with no compensation EVER to this very day in order to live their lives as Jews.

Only in a Jewish state will Jews ever be permitted to live as Jews freely in the Middle East.


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

posted 24 February 2006 09:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is so much bullshit in this paragraph that you can no longer even see the sacred cow.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca