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 Recognize Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hamas Will Recognize Israel
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 February 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights, then we are ready to recognize them," Haniyeh told The Washington Post in an interview posted on its Web site on Saturday.

Haniyeh did not say what form the recognition would take.

Haniyeh also said Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel's destruction, was ready to consider talks with Israel if the Jewish state withdrew from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and recognized the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees who fled in the 1948 war and their descendants.


Hamas leader lists terms for recognizing Israel


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 26 February 2006 04:52 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
That's not actually news--various Hamas members have been saying the same, pretty bluntly, for years--that any recognition of Israel will only come in the context of a comprehensive settlement. They're not falling for the trap Arafat fell in, of giving Israel the only thing it wants up front, and then discovering that negotiation ceases.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 February 2006 05:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some things are news to some and not others. I guess the incoming PM felt a need to repeat what had been said before.

I was a little suprised for instance that the other day you were arguing as if the Hamas charter really does call for the "killing of Jews everywhere," when it does not, and that it said such because they were "angry."

That fiction itself, let alone, the trope about Hamas being implacable, and vowing never to recognize Israel are very much the fiction on which the supression of Palestinians is justified.

What is News is that the incoming PM from Hamas is now restating it. So today what is news is that we are more or less back to 1987 it would seem, including the clear assertion of the "right of return."

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 26 February 2006 05:08 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I was a little suprised for instance that the other day you were arguing as if the Hamas charter really does call for the "killing of Jews everywhere," when it does not, and that it said such because they were "angry."

That's someone else's interpretation, and extraneous to my point, which is that the heated rhetoric on display is a sign of anger, not intention.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 26 February 2006 06:01 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reciprocity. Fancy that.

What's sad is that this was essentially the PLO's position all the way back in the 1970's and we see where that has lead. Israel's mouthpieces will be quick to paint this as "intransigence" and an inability to compromise. They'll focus on the right of return (not the illegal occupation, etc.) to hold things up further while they create "facts on the ground". Book it.

Edited for sticky 'n' key.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 26 February 2006 06:29 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Reciprocity. Fancy that.

What's sad is that this was essentially the PLO's position all the way back in the 1970's and we see where that has lead. Israel's mouthpieces will be quick to paint this as "intrasigence" and a inability to compromise. They'll focus on the right of return (not the illegal occupation, etc.) to hold things up further while they create "facts on the ground". Book it.


That strategy isn't working for Israel, either. Their economy is wholly sustained by foreign aid and their sugar-daddy's about to go broke.

They can't maintain the status quo, either.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bonner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12160

posted 26 February 2006 08:27 PM      Profile for Bonner        Edit/Delete Post
Incoming Palestinian PM: Hamas wants long truce with Israel

quote:
Haniyeh was quoted by The Washington Post in its Sunday edition as saying Hamas would establish "peace in stages" if Israel would withdraw to its 1967 boundaries — before it captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.

But Haniyeh told reporters that his comments had been misunderstood. He said he was not referring to a peace agreement, only a "political truce." Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told The Associated Press that Haniyeh's comments must have been mistranslated.


quote:
Israel has turned down the demands. While accepting the principle of an independent Palestinian state, Israel has said that it has no intention of returning to its prewar borders or accept return of refugees.

Israel says it will refuse to deal with a Hamas government unless the group recognizes the Jewish state, disarms and accepts past peace accords with Israel. Until Hamas meets these conditions, "everything else is empty words," said Cabinet Minister Roni Bar-On


There's really nothing new here. I would say a long truce is preferable to war.


From: Haven Hotel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 February 2006 04:20 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's because you aren't a politician of the Israeli Right, and thus don't depend on continued war to preserve your political career.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 February 2006 11:11 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Haniyeh also said Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel's destruction, was ready to consider talks with Israel if the Jewish state withdrew from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and recognized the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees who fled in the 1948 war and their descendants.


In other words, we want Israel to unconditionally surrender first and then we might MAYBE be willing to talk about a few little things.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2006 12:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Archie Bunker sez: "Give em and inch and they'll take a mile."
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 27 February 2006 12:57 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

In other words, we want Israel to unconditionally surrender first and then we might MAYBE be willing to talk about a few little things.


Strange construction of 'surrender'. I'm not sure how requiring an occupying power to renounce its occupation and permit the return of refugees of war constitutes 'unconditional surrender'. Colourful world you must live in.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2006 12:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually according to the mandate originally given for the foundation of the Israeli state the refugees are Israeli citizens.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 February 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For want of a better place to post this:

Explosion at Chemical weapon plant near Haifa

quote:
An explosion at a chemical weapon- manufacturing plan in northern Palestine Monday injured a number of people and caused alarm, Israeli police sources said.

The blast occurred at a chemical industrial plant run by the Israeli military-industrial firm (Rafael), at Kirya Bailik near Haifa in northern Palestine.


Gee, what's next, a meltdown at Dimona?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 27 February 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
For want of a better place to post this:

Explosion at Chemical weapon plant near Haifa

Gee, what's next, a meltdown at Dimona?


So that's where the WMDs are!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 27 February 2006 04:16 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

In other words, we want Israel to unconditionally surrender first and then we might MAYBE be willing to talk about a few little things.


No, the condition is that the existence of Israel within it's 67 borders is recognised.

Uncondional surrender would mean leaping into the sea like lemmings.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
TheStudent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11410

posted 27 February 2006 04:28 PM      Profile for TheStudent        Edit/Delete Post
I didn't see any evidence that the plant was actually a chemical weapons plant. For all we know, the plant was making propellant for tank shells or something and that was what exploded. It is unnecessarily inflamatory to assert that the plant was making chemical weapons on zilch evidence.

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: TheStudent ]


From: Re-instate Audra Now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 February 2006 05:10 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

In other words, we want Israel to unconditionally surrender first and then we might MAYBE be willing to talk about a few little things.


If Israelis could live in a long period of peace with Hamas and the other Palestinians as negotiations went on, why would it matter whether formal recognition of Israel was there or not?

Arafat recognized Israel first, and then got nothing but humiliation and Israeli stonewalling for his troubles. He died a discredited leader because of it.

Why is recognition so much more important than peace?

If you haven't demanded that Israel immediately accept and recognize a Palestinian state in all the West Bank and Gaz at the moment Palestine recognizes Israel, you have no right to demand anything of the Palestinians.

What matters is peace, and, finally, the willingness of Israelis to treat Palestinians as equals.

Recognition, as Oslo proved, is meaningless without peace and respect.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 27 February 2006 06:53 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheStudent:
I didn't see any evidence that the plant was actually a chemical weapons plant. For all we know, the plant was making propellant for tank shells or something and that was what exploded. It is unnecessarily inflamatory to assert that the plant was making chemical weapons on zilch evidence.
[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: TheStudent ]


Welcome to the ME forum at Babble!!!

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 February 2006 08:36 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Strange construction of 'surrender'. I'm not sure how requiring an occupying power to renounce its occupation and permit the return of refugees of war constitutes 'unconditional surrender'. Colourful world you must live in.


What if Germany demanded that Poland move out of Silesia and Pomerania in exchange for "recognizing Poland's right to exist". The so-called right of return is a total deal-breaker anyways because they don't mean that Palestinians can return to the West Bank and gaza, they mean that Palestinians should be free to "return" to pre-1967 Israel. In other words, there would soon be THREE Palestinian states: 1. Jordan (the eastern two thirds of the historic mandate of Palestine), 2. The "Palestine" to be composed of the West bank and Gaza and 3. The Palestine that would inevitably be created in a flash once a couple of million Palestinians claiming to be from pre-1967 Israel (however dubious their claims) flood into pre-1967 Israel become a majority and then strip the Jews of all political rights.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2006 08:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What if Likud rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state :

quote:
Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.


What if they demanded that the Jordan river be part of Israel:

quote:
The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.


Would you call that intransigent, and a call for total surrender?

Likud PArty Platform 1999

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 27 February 2006 09:09 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheStudent:
I didn't see any evidence that the plant was actually a chemical weapons plant. For all we know, the plant was making propellant for tank shells or something and that was what exploded. It is unnecessarily inflamatory to assert that the plant was making chemical weapons on zilch evidence.

You mean like that plant in the Sudan that the USA launched a couple rockets at just on Clinton's say-so?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 February 2006 09:43 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Welcome to the ME forum at Babble!!!


I thought I'd check up that story elsewhere, and so Googled "haifa rafael chemical plant explosion"

I didn't find any other mention of the explosion (which isn't unusual - there's a reason for the "Another Day of Quiet in Palestine" thread), but did find other information of interest.


According to some sources the Rafael Armament Development in Haifa is the location of a nuclear weapons design laboratory, a missile design development laboratory and a weapons assembly plant.

Bomb components made of plutonium, lithium-6 deuteride, and beryllium are fabricated in level 5 of Machon 2. They are transported by convoys of unmarked cars to the warhead assembly facility, operated by Rafael north of Haifa.

Israel, not Iraq, holds that distinction of being the first country in the region to use weapons of mass destruction with genocidal intent

quote:
In the wake of Haifa's occupation on 23 April 1948 by the Zionists, under the nose of the British Mandate forces commended by General Stockwell, a man still historically discredited for this failure, thousands converged on Acre, a nearby city, which was still Arab under the "protection" of the British forces.

Acre was to be the next Zionist target. The Zionists besieged the city from the land side, and started showering the population with a hail of mortar bombs day and night. Famous for its historical walls, Acre could stand the siege for a long time. The city water supply comes from a nearby village, Kabri, about 10kms to the north, through an aqueduct. The Zionists injected typhoid in the aqueduct at some intermediate point which passes through Zionist settlements.

The story can now be told, thanks to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) files which have now become available, 50 years after the event. A series of reports, under the reference G59/1/GC, G3/82, sent by ICRC delegate de Meuron from 6 May to about 19 May 1948 describe the conditions of the city population, struck by a sudden typhoid epidemic, and the efforts to combat it.



From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2006 10:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is very sad. The port of Acre gained notoriety at one time in the late 18th century as being the high water mark for Napoleon's Revolutionary army. It was also Napoleon's first major military defeat.

Interestingly this campaign is also an example of the relative distain placed on Muslim lives by Europeans, for it is also one of the few instances where it can be verified that Napoleon ordered the massacre of enemy prisoners, (2500) treatement rare among Europeans, most prisoners bein intered, cashiered with guarantees.

The Ottoman governor (I can't remember his name) managed to leverage this success against the French into considerable personal power, and prestige. Acre became a vital center of trade and the center of adminstration for the region, managed with consierable independence from Constantinople and the city prospered well into the middle of the 19th century.

That said its hard to pin a sudden outbreak fo typhus in a city under siege in the Middle East on one of the billigerets, without more substantiation than ICRC reports noting that there was an outbreak.

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 27 February 2006 10:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok. I read the whole text, there are multiple corroorations, and even non-Arab sources, so I'll say it sounds likely.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 February 2006 11:44 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Interestingly this campaign is also an example of the relative distain placed on Muslim lives by Europeans,

In contrast to the relative distain placed on Muslim lives by Muslims... (ie: Saddam Hussein, Hafez Al-Assad, the Shah of Iran, Taliban etc..." I don't think any of them were big on taking any prisoners.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 February 2006 12:08 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As also exampled by the complete disdain for Palestinians as people as exampled by that wonderful Likud document outlining annexation of the entire territory up to the border of Lebanon.

You double standards are apocalyptic in the magnitude of their boldness. Whine about Hamas intransigence, and then ignore Likuds stated intentions.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 28 February 2006 12:38 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

In other words, we want Israel to unconditionally surrender first and then we might MAYBE be willing to talk about a few little things.


Hmmm...Comply with international law = unconditionally surrender. I suppose they aren't mutually exclusive. But if the shoe fits...


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Zaklamont
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5106

posted 28 February 2006 12:38 AM      Profile for Zaklamont        Edit/Delete Post
This is good news, as a starting point.

HOWEVER, we need to monitor whether Haniyeh is another Arafat, in the sense of saying one thing to the Arab world and another to the West.

Another problematic item is the return of the refugees to the State of Israel. The population of said refugees is so great that it would endanger the very existence of a Jewish State. Consequently, this is simply not an acceptable condition to the State of Israel.


From: Ottawa Ontario | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 28 February 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Gee, what's next, a meltdown at Dimona?


Can I get fries with that?


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 February 2006 01:12 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The population of said refugees is so great that it would endanger the very existence of a Jewish State. Consequently, this is simply not an acceptable condition to the State of Israel.

The choice seems to be between peace and the vanity of a "Jewish" state.

Most other European states allow for a population of people of Asian origin, why can't the Israelis, especially since the Asians in question won't have to immigrate?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 February 2006 01:28 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know of any country in Europe that throws open its doors to allow unlimited numbers of immigrants to come in. You can immigrate to Germany if you can prove German bloodlines - but not just because you think you can make better money in Germany than you can in Somalia.

There are something like 20-odd countries in the wordl that are overwhelmingly Muslim and one Jewish state - but i guess to some people the existence of a single solitary Jewish country just can't be tolerated. After all if the Jews have a country - it might make it more difficult to launch more pogroms and Holocausts and we can't have that can we???


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 February 2006 02:13 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are something like 20-odd countries in the wordl that are overwhelmingly Muslim and one Jewish state - but i guess to some people the existence of a single solitary Jewish country just can't be tolerated.

Sure it can be tolerated, as long as it lets the refugees it drove out at its inception come home, and gives every single person living within its borders equal rights.

We shouldn't expect any more from an enlightened, democratic state, should we?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 February 2006 04:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I don't know of any country in Europe that throws open its doors to allow unlimited numbers of immigrants to come in. You can immigrate to Germany if you can prove German bloodlines - but not just because you think you can make better money in Germany than you can in Somalia.


They aren't immigrants.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 28 February 2006 04:54 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I don't know of any country in Europe that throws open its doors to allow unlimited numbers of immigrants to come in. You can immigrate to Germany if you can prove German bloodlines - but not just because you think you can make better money in Germany than you can in Somalia.

There are something like 20-odd countries in the wordl that are overwhelmingly Muslim and one Jewish state - but i guess to some people the existence of a single solitary Jewish country just can't be tolerated. After all if the Jews have a country - it might make it more difficult to launch more pogroms and Holocausts and we can't have that can we???


Holy Obfuscation, Batman! How MANY Jewish states happen to be in the world is IRRELEVANT. Done properly, if world Jewry saw fit I am sure they could have a hundred states; the problem arises from the location of the existing one, which coincides with a couple of million non-Jewish persons whose claims to residency are based on, er, living there. For the past two thousand years.

Who gives a damn if it's a 'Jewish' state, a Patagonian one or exclusively dedicated to ornithology? Its about the LAND its on. You seem quite comfortable surrendering other people's land and culture, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and evacuate the house YOU live in? Some nice people from far away can come and live in it, or the army can blow it up, and you can go and live with your family in a tent in a refugee camp for the next fifty years.

I appreciate that the right of return is difficult. But right is right is right, and not wrong, right? Several hundred thousand indigenous people WERE displaced from their lands and livelihoods some fifty years ago and are still living in refugee camps in the area. There can be no solution till their problem is addressed.

And do I really need to point out just how Neanderthal, how offensively DUMB the comment about Germany, immigration and making more money than in Somalia is? I suppose a politician would use the term 'unhelpful'.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 February 2006 05:11 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
There are something like 20-odd countries in the wordl that are overwhelmingly Muslim and one Jewish state - but i guess to some people the existence of a single solitary Jewish country just can't be tolerated. After all if the Jews have a country - it might make it more difficult to launch more pogroms and Holocausts and we can't have that can we???

Do you enjoy being this stupidly inflammatory?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 February 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who gives a damn if it's a 'Jewish' state, a Patagonian one or exclusively dedicated to ornithology? Its about the LAND its on. You seem quite comfortable surrendering other people's land and culture, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and evacuate the house YOU live in? Some nice people from far away can come and live in it, or the army can blow it up, and you can go and live with your family in a tent in a refugee camp for the next fifty years.


All they had to do was accept the very generous UN partitition plan of 1947 and the Palestinians would have had even more territory than they would if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 boundaries, but no no no, they weren't willing to take three-quarters of a loaf, it had to be the whole loaf and they were left with no loaf at all (well actually still 2/3 of a loaf since Palestine East (aka as Jordan is still over 2/3 of the land mass of Palestine).

There are many cases in history where two people get into disputes over a piece oif land. It isn't pretty but usually some sort of partition results and there are population transfers. This happened between India and Pakistan and between Germany and Poland etc...and more recently in Bosnia.

In an ideal world, everyone would just get along - but it doesn't always work that way.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 February 2006 10:40 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh yeah, that 1947 plan was very generous:

People who argue that the Palestinians were stubborn and should have given up their land should watch "Ma'loul Celebrates its Destruction," by Michel Khleifi.

It's a documentary in which an old dispossessed Arab farmer tells of how the Jews attacked him and drove him off his land with machine guns, hand grenades and armoured cars. Nobody asked his opinion on partition.

He was sympathetic towards Jews, though. He said they had suffered great crimes in Europe; but he and his people had nothing to do with that.

And he didn't so much as whisper anything about driving Jews into the sea; all he wants is Justice.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 February 2006 11:16 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You conveniently neglect to include the eastern two-thirds of palestine (aka Jordan)
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 February 2006 11:28 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
You conveniently neglect to include the eastern two-thirds of palestine (aka Jordan)

Do you work for the British Foreign Office? Check the memos over the last few decades. Even they don't spout this kind of stuff any more.

When my late mother was a teenager, she belonged briefly to Betar (in 1930s Poland) -- an ultra-right Jewish Zionist group, which was the youth wing of the so-called Revisionist Party, precursor of the likes of Begin and Shamir. When I used to ask her how she could have mixed with such a crowd (given our socialist/democratic upbringing), she abashedly confessed that she wasn't really political in her youth, and Betar ran the best dances. They had good tunes, too, and here were two she used to hum:

Shtei gadot ha'Yarden,
Zu shelanu, zu gam ken!

(The Jordan has two sides,
This one is ours, and so is that!)

And (in Yiddish):

Betar, Betar, hurrah!
Der eyver ha'Yarden muz zein,
Die Araber meygen shiessen, dos blut meyg zich giessen,
Der eyver ha'Yarden muz zein!

(Last two lines: Let the Arabs shoot, let blood be spilled, but the other side of the Jordan must be [ours]!)

In the 50s and 60s, there was hope that Israel, despite its ugly origins, could be an enlightened, socialist, secular, outward-looking and peaceful state. That ended with the 1967 war and subsequent occupation. Now the old tunes are wafting back.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 February 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why bother?

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 February 2006 11:48 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the 50s and 60s, there was hope that Israel, despite its ugly origins, could be an enlightened, socialist, secular, outward-looking and peaceful state. That ended with the 1967 war and subsequent occupation.

I agree. If only the Arab countries had been willing to sign a peace treaty at any point from 1948 to 1967, today 100% of the occupied territories would be in Arab control and the rightwing forces in Israel would be much weaker. But there were domestic political considerations that prevents people like Nasser etc...from doing that and the world has paid the price ever since.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 February 2006 12:17 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, the occupation is Egypt's fault.

Bloody unbelievable!


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 February 2006 12:32 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Yes, the occupation is Egypt's fault.

Bloody unbelievable!


Had the U.S. and Israel (and Britain and France) lifted a finger to support secular nationalists like Nasser (with all their flaws) to see a way clear to realizing Arab national and democratic aspirations -- instead of seeing him solely as a menace to their colonial interests/aspirations -- the Middle East might well have been a far different place today. To blame Nasser for how that turned out is really turning truth on its head.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 28 February 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
But there were domestic political considerations that prevents people like Nasser etc...from doing that and the world has paid the price ever since.

Similarly, Hamas is the price Israel is going to pay for it's treatment of Arafat over the past decade.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 28 February 2006 01:51 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
You conveniently neglect to include the eastern two-thirds of palestine (aka Jordan)

While you conveniently rewrite history. As early as 1922 the British did not consider the lands east of the Jordan to fall under the Balfour Declaration.

Moreover, you conveniently reinforce the imperialist notion that the colonial policy of Britain (heck, Europeans in general) should have primary importance in determining the national aspirations of Jews and Arabs. Of course, while Israel certainly does owe its statehood to Western imperialism, there are a lot of Arabs who would beg to differ. Jewish nationalism was and still is firmly entrenched in Western imperial aspirations in the "Middle East". Not only are our dialogues about Jewish emancipation primarily derived from the history of European antisemitism and - ultimately - the Holocaust, but the position of Israel as the United States' primary ally in the region simply continues the reliance of Israel on Western power.

The current fashion of painting any and all violent resistance to Western/Israeli violence as "terrorism" is a sickening failure on our part to take responsibility for the results of our actions. We get to be violent, but those darned brown-skinned people need to renounce violence in order for us to toss them a few scraps from our table.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


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

posted 28 February 2006 03:23 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

I agree. If only the Arab countries had been willing to sign a peace treaty at any point from 1948 to 1967...


So, it's Jordan's fault that Israel has continued a brutal occupation and expansion of it's territory for the last forty years? Boy, that Jordan sure is a powerful country - I mean, being able to manipulate both Israel AND their imperial patron, the United States for 40 years. Maybe the Brits were on to something when they handed the Hashemites that throne - they really are true kings....

Geneva Conventions, human rights, who cares!?! Jordan didn't sign a peace treaty with us so it doesn't apply! Hey, can I blame Jordan for stuff that I do, too? Next time I eat the last cookie and leave the bag in the cupboard, "Jordan made me do it"....

Cool.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 February 2006 03:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

While you conveniently rewrite history. As early as 1922 the British did not consider the lands east of the Jordan to fall under the Balfour Declaration.


I thought I had nothing to add, but then there is also this:

Even the Ottoman provincial (for lack of a better word) divisions did not include the entirety of the Transjordan.

What is today Israel stands on the what was called the Sanjak of Nablus, the Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarriflik of Jerusalem, which divide the territory on a north-south axis extending south from the Golan Heights and along the West Bank of the Jordan river. These combined with Sanjak's to the north (Beiriut, Tripoli, etc.) to form the Eyalet of Beriut, a larger adminstrative region. Its southern most border more or less conforms with Israel' present border with Egypt.

The region to the east of the Jordan river, running north parralel to Eyalet of Beriut was the Eyalet of Damascus.

These divisions are very old, and not entirely arbitrary, reflecting traditional cultural and economic realities.

One can go back thousands of years and find "Palestine" as an identifiable and distinct division conforming, more or less, to the region as we know it today, and the territory of what is today called Jordan is a distinct adminstrative zone, seperate from it.

In fact Israel's claim to the region it now holds is based on this very same traditional divisions, the very same ones which the British used to devide what was for a very short time, Trans-Jordan, which was a British imperial fiction out of step with the realities on the ground and the local traditions of adminstration.

[ 28 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 28 February 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Say, Cue, where did you find that map?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 February 2006 04:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here somwhere I just googled for something similar to the maps I have seen in history books. It conforms more or less to those.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 February 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Say, Cue, where did you find that map?

Right-click on the map (or any image) and choose "Properties", and that will usually show you where to find it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 February 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I know; I tried that, but http://www.ntcsites.com wasn't of much use.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 28 February 2006 09:57 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Here's a thread about a controversy brewing in NYC regarding a play about the Middle East that was just censored...

It seems strange that political events in the Middle East have influenced the culrure houses of NYC.


From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 February 2006 10:15 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Yeah, I know; I tried that, but http://www.ntcsites.com wasn't of much use.

When you right-click on the map, you find this url:

http://www.ntcsites.com/palestine/nss-folder/maps/ottoman%20map.gif

Just knock off the last .gif file and click on what is left:

http://www.ntcsites.com/palestine/nss-folder/maps/

It works.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 March 2006 01:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Israel say no.
quote:
JERUSALEM - Israel said Monday it will not hold peace talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas because he is powerless to enforce agreements while the Islamic militant group Hamas controls his government, signaling a hardening of Israel's position and a growing rift with the United States.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 01 March 2006 12:42 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The 'political' wing of Hamas should totally rename itself Sinn Fein, and then sit back and watch the USians heads explode with cognitive dissonance..
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 01 March 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
JERUSALEM - Israel said Monday it will not hold peace talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas because he is powerless to enforce agreements while the Islamic militant group Hamas controls his government, signaling a hardening of Israel's position and a growing rift with the United States.

Israel wasn't holding peace talks with anyone anyway.


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

posted 01 March 2006 01:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee I posted the above, except with the link, two posts above.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 01 March 2006 01:32 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Gee I posted the above, except with the link, two posts above.

My comment is a response, with the context added so that people would understand what I'm talking about.


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

posted 01 March 2006 01:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahh I see... my apologies mon ami.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 01 March 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

Israel wasn't holding peace talks with anyone anyway.


And it really helps Abbas' credibility to essentially say, "You have no credibility." Makes one think that Israel wants Abbas isolated. That way, they don't have to bargain with anyone and can continue with "unilateral" measures.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 March 2006 03:16 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel's policy - described by a spokesman as putting "the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger" - has left London feeling squeamish. Tony Blair and Jack Straw will today undoubtedly show solidarity with Israel, saying Britain is not in the business of funding terrorists. But in private there is anguish that the policy will bring malnutrition to innocent Palestinians and punish them for taking part in a democratic election. The Palestinians are completely dependent on foreign aid for their survival and Israel's campaign to put 3.6 million people on starvation rations is foreboding.

[SNIP]

Ms Livni, 47, has made a considerable political journey from her early support for a Greater Israel to realisation that the country cannot remain a democracy while occupying Palestinian lands and ruling over a population that despises it. A teenager born to a nationalist family, she was nearly arrested for violently protesting against Henry Kissinger's ill-fated shuttle diplomacy. Despite her closely held dream of a Greater Israel, she maintains that she has long been a centrist on the national question. Raised in a hardline Likud household, Ms Livni has an ideological pedigree that is hard to top.
"My family is part of the founding history of Israel," she has said. Her father's gravestone bears the inscription, "Here lies the head of operations of the Irgun" - refering to a pre-independence military organisation set up to fight the British and the Arabs. The stone also bears a carved map of Greater Israel extending to the opposite side of the Jordan river.

A former Mossad officer, Ms Livni is the daughter of Zionists - classified as terrorists by the British authorities. Her father, Eitan, was the Irgun's head of operations when it blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and five others. The subsequent wave of terror attacks he led outraged British public opinion, leading the government to abandon the Palestinian Mandate and turn the problem over to the UN, with disastrous consequences for the Palestinians.



Irgun/Mossad in charge of Israeli FP

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