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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » New government will recognize Israel: Abbas

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: New government will recognize Israel: Abbas
Hunky_Monkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6081

posted 22 September 2006 12:31 AM      Profile for Hunky_Monkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
New government will recognize Israel: Abbas

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:29:15 EDT

The Associated Press

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the UN General Assembly Thursday that the planned national unity government will recognize Israel.

The Hamas-led Palestinian government that won elections in January has refused to recognize Israel, end violence, and honour past agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Abbas heads.

Abbas told the assembly's annual ministerial meeting that he has recently sought to establish a government of national unity "that is consistent with international and Arab legitimacy and that responds to the demands of the key parties promoting Mideast peace — recognition, ending violence and honouring past agreements.

"I would like to reaffirm that any future Palestinian government will commit to all the agreements that the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian National Authority have committed to," he said.

These include the letters of mutual recognition exchanged on Sept. 9, 1993, by the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat, whom Abbas called "the two great late leaders."

"These letters contain mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO, renunciation of violence, and commitment to negotiations as the path towards reaching a permanent solution that will lead to the establishment of the independent state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel," Abbas said.

Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel has led to international sanctions that have devastated the Palestinian economy. Israel and Western donors cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the Palestinians.


CBC


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

posted 22 September 2006 12:34 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not Again. We went throught this in 89 and 94. When will they ever learn.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 22 September 2006 01:53 AM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Not Again. We went throught this in 89 and 94. When will they ever learn.

The opposite is true.

For there to be peace, Palestinians will have to recognize and respect Israel's right to exist and Israel will have to recognize and respect Palestine's right to exist.

So far that hasn't happened.


The Geneva Accord

The Peoples' Voice


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 22 September 2006 04:03 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I love it when someone challenges Cueball on points of history. Popcorn?
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 22 September 2006 07:44 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hamas says no coalition if recognizing Israel a condition

GAZA CITY, GAZA STRIP — The Palestinians' ruling Hamas group will not enter into a coalition government if recognizing Israel is a condition, a top Hamas political adviser said Friday, raising new doubts about President Mahmoud Abbas' ability to bring a more moderate government to power.

At the United Nations on Thursday, Mr. Abbas indicated that the planned national unity government between Hamas and his Fatah Party would recognize the Jewish state.

But Mr. Haniyeh's political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, told The Associated Press on Friday that “there won't be a national unity government if Hamas is asked to recognize Israel.” Instead, he reiterated Hamas' offer of a long-term truce.

- snip -


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 September 2006 02:45 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:

The opposite is true.

For there to be peace, Palestinians will have to recognize and respect Israel's right to exist and Israel will have to recognize and respect Palestine's right to exist.

So far that hasn't happened.


The Geneva Accord

The Peoples' Voice


Actually they have.

1993 Yasser Arafat exchanged letter with Rabin. Arafat recognizes Israel's "right to exist" explicitly. Then In 1994 with the signing of the Oslo Accords, and the foundation of the Palestine Authority it became official.

In fact the very existance of the PA is predicated on recognition of Israel.

In anycase, it doesn't really matter what Arab leaders say or do, Israel just keeps pushing the goal posts further and further away, and the Palestinians just keep grabbing at whatever straws they can. First, Yasser must sign then PLO must sign, then now every Palestinian party has to sign (this time around Hamas.)

As long as there is even one person in the West Bank or Gaza that says they do not recognize Iserael's right to exist, Israel will demand that that person must agree to recognize Israel's right to exists, before any negotiation can go forward.

As Edward Said said Oslo was extremely biased against the Palestinians, and disaster was the obvious result.

What can you say about and agreement where on the one hand one party (the Palestinians) agree to recognize Israel's right to exist, but the other (the Israeli's) merely recodnize the PLO as the legal representative of the Palestinians.

Why not mutual "recognition?"

All they do is repeat the same old lie, over and over again, saying that the Paletinians have never recognized israel's right to exist often enough, and people assume that it is true because... well... I'll put it gently, they are naive.

[ 23 September 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 23 September 2006 02:47 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat

Chairman

The Palestine Liberation Organization


LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN

[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 24 September 2006 09:04 PM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

All they do is repeat the same old lie, over and over again, saying that the Paletinians have never recognized israel's right to exist often enough, and people assume that it is true because... well... I'll put it gently, they are naive.


Both Israelis and Palestinians are guilty of contributing greatly to their conflict. There is no innocent victim here. And if there is a primary villain here it is the US. US foreign policy itself has been the primary cause of the conflict.

There's a world of a difference between the Palestinian's recognizing Israel's right to exist and the Palestinian's actually respecting Israel's right to exist. Suicide bombings and the Intifada speak much louder to Israelis then any pronouncement that the state of Israel has become politically recognized.

For there to be a genuine peace a few things will be required:

- Israel has to give up soveregnty of the occupied territories.

- Palestinians have to give up using violent measures.

- The US will have to become an honest broker and mediate fairly between the Israelis and Palestinians.

"Land for Peace" is the solution. How to get their is the real question.

The only positive aspect of the problem is that unilateral action by either Israel or the Palestinians could go a long way to solving the conflict. Israel could unilaterally seed much sovereignty over the occupied territories and Palestinians and Arabs in the region could unilaterally halt attacking Israel.

But I'm not holding my breath....


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 24 September 2006 09:54 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And, those who support a binational solution need to accept that that means accepting that Jewish people would have a right to live in peace, security and equality within the binational state, and that that state would privilege no people or religion over any other.

So far, Hamas is clearly unwilling to do that. They will announce cease-fires from time to time but, unless I am greatly mistaken, Hamas has STILL not given up on the goal of an Islamist and Judenrein Palestine.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 September 2006 12:59 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:

There's a world of a difference between the Palestinian's recognizing Israel's right to exist and the Palestinian's actually respecting Israel's right to exist. Suicide bombings and the Intifada speak much louder to Israelis then any pronouncement that the state of Israel has become politically recognized.


Look, whatever you may think, or have been told about the evolution of the conflict, and the sincerity of Palestinian leadership in regards to "Israel's right to exist" such concepts as "recognition of right" exist in the abstract world of diplonatic protocols, and are just that "protocols."

So, when Israeli's or whomever makes demands in regards to thing like "recognition of rights" is making a demand for a statement in principle, it is irrelevant whether or people are sincere, or not, or whether or not all people comply with such a statement.

Israel has asked (demanded actually) an official statement of "recognition." It is a completely abstract demand, it has no value other than its status as an official protocol.

It got that. Now they are saying they have't. They are lying.

That in itself should tell you something in regards to Israeli sincerity. The very fact that they are pretending that the Palestinians never issued a statement recognizing Isreal's right to exist, when they have, and officially recieved such recognition and signed protocols to that effect is clearly evident.

Just like, say in Canada, were Quebec to demand that the federal government "recognize Quebec's right to self-determination." It is irrelevant whether all anglo Canadians support such a statement, and also irrelevant if some Anglo-Canadians take matters into their own hands and try and subvert the process, that has no bearing on the relationship betweeen governing bodies, or their existing treaties, agreements and protocols. Such agreement by their nature exist in the abstracted legal world of international realtions.

What is important is that an officially recognized bi-lateral protocol exist between to negotiating bodies. That is what it is for. That is what it is about. Nothing more.

If Israel makes a demand that such a protocol statement be issued, knowing full well that they are asking for an abstracted statement in of principle, and then continues to demand it again and again, saying that all Palestinians must act in accord with that statement, they are clearly loading the dice, as no such abstract statement diplomatic statement can fulfill that kind of demand.

Therefore it is clear that Israel is not interested in the statement itself but only looking for it as a device to undermine the process, because they know full well that some Palestinians are going to take matters into their own hands and try and subvert the process. Knowing such, means of course they can issue the demand for the statement forever, without actually paying any attention to it, no matter how many times Palestinian leaders issue such official statements.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 25 September 2006 02:38 AM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Therefore it is clear that Israel is not interested in the statement itself but only looking for it as a device to undermine the process, because they know full well that some Palestinians are going to take matters into their own hands and try and subvert the process. Knowing such, means of course they can issue the demand for the statement forever, without actually paying any attention to it, no matter how many times Palestinian leaders issue such official statements.


But Palestinian leaders themselves are currently stating that Israel does not have a right to exist. Members of Hamas are some of those who "take matters into their own hands and try and subvert the process." Like it or not, Hamas is the duly elected majority in the Palestinian paliament. Judging by their statements, they clearly want to destroy the state of Israel.

Knowing Hamas's clearly stated intentions, Israelis have every right to ask Hamas to state whether they recognize Israel's right to exist.

If Hamas does not clearly state that Israel has the right to exist, Israel has no obligation to negotiate with Hamas.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]


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

posted 25 September 2006 03:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No they do not have a right to ask Hamas to change its charter. They are not negotiating with Hamas, they are negotiating with the Palestine Authority.

Hamas is a politcal party. The Palestine Authority is the government and representative of the Palestinians people, Hamas at this time is the governing party, however their views do not become law until such a time as they pass laws.

At this time the Palestine Authority recognizes Israel's right to exist, not only that but the Palestine Authorities very existance is predicated on the "recognition" legally, this can not be changed just because some Palestinian representatives, and even the Prime Minister do not like it. Hamas has passed no laws recinding the recognition, therefore the recognition still stands.

In fact, Hamas, running in the elections for the PA is implicit recognition of the Palestine Authority, which in turn recognizes Israel. In fact Hamas for years rejected having anything to do with the PA expressly because such was recognition of the recognition.

Ask yourself: Does the Liberal SSM bill stop being in force simply because Stephen Harper and the CPC oppose SSM? No. That is not the way government works.

Israel is playing semantic games, that is all. And why should they not? It seems to work on people.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 25 September 2006 05:46 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only one playing semantic games is "Cueball". If Hamas is the government of the palestinian authority and they refuse to recognize Israel right to exist that means that no agreement that the authority enters into with Israel can stand because the Palestinian government is not committed to implementing it.

Whatever the CPC policy is on SSM, same sex marriages will still take place in Canada until they are ever disallowed, but if the governme nt of the Palestinian authority thinks its desirable that Israel be wiped off the map then they can take steps right off the bat to make sure that happens such as encouraging militias to launch terrorist attacks etc...


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 25 September 2006 07:34 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You have to hand it to Abbas who is always willing to give up something for nothing to please his Israeli and Yankee sponsors.

When has Israeli recognized the rights of Palestinians to very basic human rights as defined by the UN nevermind the right to a state and security?

Where is the quid pro quo? I read that yet more illegal settlements are being constructed in the Wset Bank. Abbas is a quisling and nothing more. History will regard him as another Pétain.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 25 September 2006 07:39 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel already offered the Palestinians EVERYTHING when Barak was in power and they rejected it so clearly there is no pleasing them.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 25 September 2006 08:02 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Amazing.

Here the Palestians were offered a complete return of the occupied territories, removal of settlements, release of all political prisoners, full recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, return of Jerusalem, right of return for all refugees with payment of restitution, and a full apologie for its war crimes, and those ungrateful terrorists just refused it all...

Oh wait, Israel offered nothing of the sort. My bad. Heavens to betsy, I wouldn't want to make untrue statements which if repeated enough becomes the "truth". That would be dishonest, right stockholm?


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 25 September 2006 08:07 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, not EVRYTHING but about 99% of everything, but rather than take 99% of a loaf, they saiud "give us everything or we don't want anything at all" and the result has been 6 more years of violence and hardship.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 25 September 2006 09:18 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bullshit Stockholm. You insist on repeating the same old tired, and discredited Israeli lies.

And in any case it makes no difference. The Israelis need no agreement or negotiation to recognize the Palestinian people, their right to a state, their basic human rights and dignity, and to halt construction in the occupied territories. Your argument that it is all the Palestinians' fault that Israel keep abusing them is not ulike an abusive husband blaming his wife and children for making him beat them.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 25 September 2006 09:58 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
fM. You seem to be a life-long-no-metter-what supporter of armed fighters and suicide bombers of Hamas and others. Accusing people of lies, as if you know the truth, sounds like that useless anger-filled hamas rhetoric and grunge. Fight brothers, aimlessly, stupidly, hatefully, undiplomatically fight for nothing, for your continues misery, for the idea that is dead with Arafat, that was actually never really alive. Diplomacy and cooperation with the rest of the world is the only solution in modern crisis. You seem to support the conflict and not its resolution, because as long as conflict is alive there is someone to blame and to be angry on-Israel. Plus on a place of Israel I would never even care whether someone like Hamas would recognize or not Israel’s right to exist. And I am not such a huge supporter of Israel either.
From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 25 September 2006 11:31 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, venus_man, you will forgive me if I declare you a liar of the worst kind. Perhaps you would do us all a favour and demonstrate where I have provided "life-long-no-metter-what support(er) of armed fighters and suicide bombers of Hamas and others" at any time?

You also have not contradicted a single assertion I have made in this thread but rather engaged in the empty, angry, and stupid rhetoric of which you would accuse me.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 September 2006 12:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I think venus_man has been trolling this forum long enough. Here's the straw that broke the moderator's back:

quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
fM. You seem to be a life-long-no-metter-what supporter of armed fighters and suicide bombers of Hamas and others.

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 25 September 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
FM: he-he-he...i love it. Such reactions just making my day. I will forgive you of course, because it requires no wit to accuse others of lying.

I am not here to contradict your views or those of others, but to state that cooperation is the key to success, cooperation on both sides, as much as possible of it. Recognition, cease-fire, economic union with the rest of the world etc. etc. anything to make peace and prosperity. The nurturing of anger and hateful attitude towards Israel or vice versa should stop i believe. I therefore support current Palestinian government’s efforts towards peace. One of the first formal and rather symbolic steps towards that is recognition of Israel, that in turn already made a first and significant step by giving away land. Go for it Mr. Abbas!

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: venus_man ]


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

posted 25 September 2006 12:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Whatever the CPC policy is on SSM, same sex marriages will still take place in Canada until they are ever disallowed, but if the governme nt of the Palestinian authority thinks its desirable that Israel be wiped off the map then they can take steps right off the bat to make sure that happens such as encouraging militias to launch terrorist attacks etc...

Everything you say here is wrong Stockholm. Except for this principle: "Whatever the CPC policy is on SSM, same sex marriages will still take place in Canada until they are ever disallowed...." This is precisely my point the PA's recognition is still in place until it is recinded.

You finally got something right, however, your moral compass is entirely based of bias and prejudice, so you can not see that the legal principle is the same. Why?


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

posted 25 September 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who cares if the policy of the previous government of the Palestinian Authority recognized Isreal's right to exist, when the current governing party does not acknowledge that and is happily sending bombs and terrorists across the border to prove their point.

For Israel to negotiate with the PA there has to be someone to negotiate with. Fortunetly, it looks like there will soon be new elections in the PA and by all accounts those hamas freaks will be ejected from power like a mouthful of vomit. Then we can get the peace process back on track.


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

posted 25 September 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The policy of the previous government has not been changed by Hamas, therefore it persists as law, as far as the PA is concerned.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 25 September 2006 01:36 PM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
The Weimar Republic had policies that did not threathen Germany's neioghbors and Jews within Germany. That did not stop the subsequent government from changing its policies.

Many Jews in Israel understand all too well why you can not judge a government by looking at its predecesors and thinking that policies once established cannot change.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 September 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My question is this...

Why can't the Hamas leadership, who represent a people with deep and legitimate grievances, fight for justice for the Palestinian people without refusing to acknowledge the humanity of Israeli Jews?

Why do they hold on to this fixation with driving every Jew out of Palestine when they have to have realized, simply as human beings with functioning central nervous systems, that they will NEVER achieve that objective?

Israel does need to make a lot of changes. They need to get rid of all the settlements and make it clear that a Palestinian state means EVERY INCH of the West Bank and Gaza, and with no military incursions into either place ever again.
They need to get rid of the checkpoints now, get rid of the daily humiliations and repression now, and replant all the olive trees that they destroyed for no reason now. All of that needs to happen.

But, at the same time, the Palestinian leadership, whomever they may be, needs to accept that once this state is achieved, the armed struggle ends there and that they accept that Jews have the right to live in the pre-1967 Israeli boundaries with no fear of violent retribution.

Or, if they insist on pushing for binationalism, that the binational state they seek must be a democratic, secular state in which no religion and no ethnic tradition be privileged.

Why is it so difficult to get Hamas to accept, if not Israel, then at least reality?

Why do they insist on demanding the impossible?

Can't they see they aren't doing the Palestinian people a bit of good with maximalism?

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 September 2006 02:27 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My question is this...

Why can't the Hamas leadership, who represent a people with deep and legitimate grievances, fight for justice for the Palestinian people without having to meet your preconditions for what is "reality" or what is "possible"?

Why do the Israelis hold on to this fixation with driving every Arab out of Palestine when they have to have realized, simply as human beings with functioning central nervous systems, that they will NEVER achieve that objective?

Why don't you accept that the Jews have a right to a Jewish state somewhere within the borders of the United States of America? Probably for the same reasons the Palestinians don't accept the right of the Jews to have a state on their territory.

quote:
Or, if they insist on pushing for binationalism, that the binational state they seek must be a democratic, secular state in which no religion and no ethnic tradition be privileged.
Now who is dreaming in Technicolor?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 September 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Spector, what binational state that wasn't secular and democratic could possibly be worth establishing?

It couldn't do the Palestinians any good to have their own version of Iran, and a Palestinian version of the Iranian state is the only thing Hamas could ever create. You couldn't actually think that THAT would be The Liberation. That would be insane. There would be no social justice, no worker's rights, no rights for women or gays and lesbians in such a state. It would be worse than the Occupation, and there is no way a Left could emerge within such a place.

And it's not "my" preconceptions. Its reality. Reality is that Israel will never be disestablished. Reality is that both Jews AND Palestians have been world-historical victims of injustice.

(Reality is also that the majority is Israelis, the overwheming majority in fact, DON'T want to drive all Palestinians out of Palestine. Maybe a lot of them did in the old days, but they're moved past that view now.)

Is there something wrong with not wanting the previous injustices lead to more injustices?

What is wrong with wanting Palestinians to acknowledge that not all Israelis are imperialist monsters, and that the overwhelming majority of them have done nothing to deserve to be victims of suicide bombings?

What is wrong with wanting justice for all?

Is it a victory for anything if actually existing Zionism is replaced by actually existing Islamism?

That just gives the story another hopeless ending.

I don't see why I should check my values and my principles at the borders of Israel/Palestine.

I agree that the Palestinians should never have had to suffer for the sins of Nazi Germany. But Israel, in some form or other, is here to stay. It needs to be radically changed, just as a future Palestinian state needs to be radically changed. But it would be just as immoral to make every Jew leave Palestine as it was to make 750,000 Palestinians leave it in 1948. No More Shoah AND No More Nakhba.

There will never be a justification for another mass population transfer.

(And, actually, I could have accepted a Jewish state in the US. But we both know its too late for that. It was silly of you to bring that up.)

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 September 2006 02:58 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Spector, what binational state that wasn't secular and democratic could possibly be worth establishing?
I can't think of any.

But the point is, the Palestinians aren't exactly the only obstacle to a binational, secular, democratic state. There's no way in a million years the Israelis would agree to such an arrangement.

Yet you berate the Palestinians for being unrealistic and inflexible, telling them that if they want a binational state they'd better be prepared for it to be secular and democratic (whatever that may mean), without making the same demand of the Israelis.

quote:
It couldn't do the Palestinians any good to have their own version of Iran.
Isn't Iran just a "version" of Israel? Why can't the Palestinians decide for themselves what would do them good?
quote:
I don't see why I should check my values and my principles at the borders of Israel/Palestine.
Yet you insist on the Palestinians' embracing those values and principles as a precondition for their receiving the "justice" you seem to be championing.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 September 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
(And, actually, I could have accepted a Jewish state in the US. But we both know its too late for that. It was silly of you to bring that up.)
I'll try to type slowly so you may be able to understand:

I wasn't suggesting that Israel should be moved to North America.

I was pointing out that Palestinians have as much right to refuse to accept the establishment of Israel on their territory as you would have if it had been established on yours.

And for you to criticize them for not "accepting reality" is hypocritical in the extreme.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 September 2006 03:08 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't think you were actually suggesting it as an option for today.

I don't see what is hypocritical about expecting Hamas to work for what they could achieve(a two-state solution)or for an admirable dream(a progressive secular binationalism)rather than worth an unachieveable vision that could not do anyone any good(an Islamist and Judenrein Palestine).

We both know that Israel will never be totally removed, Spector. What's the point in encouraging Hamas to believe otherwise?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 25 September 2006 03:08 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find entirely hypocritical that people such as Ken Burch and others will demand from Hamas, or whatever palestinian entity, that which they do not demand from Israel. Israel engages in terror and brutality against Palestinians everyday and are engaged in an ongoing consumption of West Bank land -- the proposed site of a fading Palestinian state -- and has never recognized the right of Palestinians to exist as a people within a secure state. And Israeli policy within the West Bank is overtly racist. Yet is the Palestinians who are exhorted to give Israel, who has everything, something Palestinians do not have themselves and are not to be afforded.

Who proposes this? Certainly no one honest nor moral.

An excellent example:

quote:
I don't see what is hypocritical about expecting Hamas to work for what they could achieve(a two-state solution)or for an admirable dream(a progressive secular binationalism)rather than worth an unachieveable vision that could not do anyone any good(an Islamist and Judenrein Palestine).

What two-state solution? Israel recognizes no other state. How is a two-state solution possible when the one state with the predominance of armed force, and no moral inhibition upon deploying violence, does not recognize in any form a two-state solution? How is it achievable by anyone? And where? In the lands not yet consumed by Israeli expansion? Are you suggesting Palestinians satisfy their ambitions of self-determination and independence within the confines of Bantus? If not, what is your proposal within the reality of the West Bank and Israel dominance, racism, and instrangience?

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 25 September 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:
[QB]

But Palestinian leaders themselves are currently stating that Israel does not have a right to exist.


How - pray tell - does one make a truce with an entity that doesn't exist?

There is a lot more contained in a "recognition" than meets the eye - and it is this substance that Hamas are in opposition to. By simply declaring a blanket "recognition" of Israel would they be recognising Israel as currently constituted - i.e. in occupation of lands still claimed by Palestinians for their own state? You see, in international law, the principle of recognition is usually phrased as the right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries. Israel has failed to set it's boundaries. What Israel is Hamas recognising? Moreover, in the international system, recognition is almost always (except in the case of Israel, apparently) considered a part of a quid pro quo - you recognise me, I recognise you. Why should Hamas recognise Israel without Israel recognising Palestine?

Also, would Hamas be recognising Israel's right to control the borders with Jordan and Egypt, as it does now?

And taking a hint from your own arguments vis a vis Hamas' ability to implement policy: would a Hamas recognition of the current regime running Israel be acceptance of racist laws like the Law of Return, and/or other legal principles which discriminate against Palestinians? Would it be recognising the right of patently racist political actors who do not accept the Palestinians "right to exist" to participate in the Knesset as they do now? What - specifically - is Hamas recognising?

quote:
Judging by their statements, they clearly want to destroy the state of Israel.

Which statements?

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 September 2006 04:24 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel has steadfastly refused to define its own borders.

How can anyone be required to "recognize" a state that has no borders?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 25 September 2006 04:24 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:
The Weimar Republic had policies that did not threathen Germany's neioghbors and Jews within Germany. That did not stop the subsequent government from changing its policies.

Many Jews in Israel understand all too well why you can not judge a government by looking at its predecesors and thinking that policies once established cannot change.


That didn't take long.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 September 2006 05:32 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Everything I ask of Hamas I also ask of Israel, Frustrated Mess. Do not assume otherwise.

And the two state process can be used to MAKE Israel define its borders.

Hamas would lose nothing, for example, in recognizing Israel's right to exist WITHIN THE PRE-1967 borders. Such a recognition would put the Israeli hard-liners on the defensive and destroy the rationale for scorched-earth tactics.


An unrelenting campaign to wipe Israel off the map, a campaign everyone on the planet knows could never possibly succeed, cannot cause such a definition. Why continue an exercise in futility?

Hamas should focus on redressing the grievances. Those grievances can't be resolved through a campaign based, as Hamas' campaign is still based, on not only seeking a Palestinian state but on driving out the entire Jewish population of the region. It's time to admit that the "Death to the Jews" rhetoric and the suicide bombing and all the rest JUST DON'T FRIGGIN' WORK.

Does anyone actually disagree with the above rhetoric.

Fight for your rights, but don't give up your humanity and your morality in doing so.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 25 September 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
For there to be peace at least one side will have to take a leap of faith.

Israel will have to unilaterally scede soveregnty to Palestine

and/or

Palestine will have to unilaterally end using rocket attacks and suicide bombings.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 25 September 2006 07:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Hamas would lose nothing, for example, in recognizing Israel's right to exist WITHIN THE PRE-1967 borders. Such a recognition would put the Israeli hard-liners on the defensive and destroy the rationale for scorched-earth tactics.

And you base that on what? Why would the Israeli hardliners be on the defensive? Were they on the defensive when Arafat recognized Israel? No. They said Arafat must say so in Arab. Were they on the defensive when Arafat said so in Arab? No. They said Arafat was not a partner for peace, increased attacks on Palestinians and turned the screws tighter all the while consuming more of the West Bank.

Even the so-called Israeli moderates are not moved to recognize a Palestinian right to a state.

The Israeli Labour Party platform:
"1. Jerusalem: United Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty. The Palestinian residents of the city will enjoy municipal rights in the quarters in which they reside, and special arrangements will be established for the sites sacred to Christianity and Islam. 2. Self-Determination for the Palestinians: The Labor Party recognizes the Palestinians' right to self-determination, and does not rule out in this connection the establishment of a Palestinian state with limited sovereignty. 3. Security: The Jordan river will be Israel's eastern security border and there will be no other army stationed to the west of it. 4. Borders and Settlements: Israel extends its sovereignty over areas that are major Jewish settlement blocs. 5. The Right of Return: Israel does not recognize the right of return of Palestinians to areas under Israeli sovereignty. Israel will negotiate with the Palestinians on allowing the return to areas under Palestinian control."

Limited sovereignty? The Jordan River will be Israel's eastern secuirty border? Israel extends its sovereignty over the major Jewish settlement blocks? What kind of state is this for Palestinians were the Israeli army remains to brutalize and torment them while maintaining Jewish only roads and other amenities? And these are the moderates.

You argue that Palestinians should renounce violence. How do they renounce something that permeates every waking moment of their lives? They live the violence that is inflicted upon them by a racist occupation every single day. You may as well demand that your nose renounce scents.


"Fight for your rights, but don't give up your humanity and your morality in doing so."

The humanity, dignity, and morality of Palestinians has been stripped away by a regime that says their lives are less valuable and their presence is unwanted by virtue of the mistake of not being born Jewish in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

Today, malnutrition, disease, and hunger are running rampant through Gaza and the world you believe would suddenly embrace Palestinians if they just did what they have already done so many times before, just doesn't care. It isn't even news.

Wake up already.

Edited to add:

quote:
The Israeli siege of the Palestinian enclave is so tight that its people are on the edge of starvation. Here on the shores of the Mediterranean a great tragedy is taking place that is being ignored because the world's attention has been diverted by wars in Lebanon and Iraq. A whole society is being destroyed. There are 1.5 million Palestinians imprisoned in the most heavily populated area in the world. Israel has stopped all trade. It has even forbidden fishermen to go far from the shore so they wade into the surf to
try vainly to catch fish with hand-thrown nets.

...

Fuad al-Tuba, the 61-year-old farmer who owned a farm here, said: "They even destroyed 22 of my bee-hives and killed four sheep. He pointed sadly to a field, its brown sandy earth churned up by tracks of bulldozers, where the stumps of trees and broken branches with wilting leaves lay in heaps. Nearby a yellow car was standing on its nose in the middle of a heap of concrete blocks that had once been a small house.

His son Baher al-Tuba described how for five days Israeli soldiers confined him and his relatives to one room in his house where they survived by drinking water from a fish pond. "Snipers took up positions in the windows and shot at anybody who came near," he said. "They killed one of my neighbours called Fathi Abu Gumbuz who was 56-years-old and just went out to get water."

http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_31010.shtml


That is what is happening in Gaza today. The UN reports people are on the brink of starving. Where is your world opinion?

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 September 2006 08:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:
The Weimar Republic had policies that did not threathen Germany's neioghbors and Jews within Germany. That did not stop the subsequent government from changing its policies.

Many Jews in Israel understand all too well why you can not judge a government by looking at its predecesors and thinking that policies once established cannot change.


But the the government has not changed the policy. That is the point.

For Israel to complain on the one hand that Palestinians do not "recognize Israel's right to exist" (really just a bunch of words,) and then to insist that, when they do officially recognize Israel that such commitements are really just a bunch of meaningless words because the Palestinians are insinscere in that expression, creates the logical cundrum that undermines the peace.

If they recognize Israel, Israel says that it is insincere, if they don't they are accused of seeking to wipe Israel out. The Palestinians are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

If they really believe the words to be insincere, why ask for them?

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 September 2006 08:04 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The humanity, dignity, and morality of Palestinians has been stripped away by a regime that says their lives are less valuable and their presence is unwanted by virtue of the mistake of not being born Jewish in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

Today, malnutrition, disease, and hunger are running rampant through Gaza and the world you believe would suddenly embrace Palestinians if they just did what they have already done so many times before, just doesn't care. It isn't even news.


And the armed struggle is changing this HOW, exactly?

Shouting "death to the Jews" is changing this how, exactly?

And the times that the Palestinians have had the greatest international support have been the times when they used the least psychotic and bloodthirsty tactics.

You still haven't got any rationale for defending the use of tactics that haven't worked, and, if they haven't worked by now, can never work.

You have offered no case for the suicide bombings or the refusal to settle for anything less than having every acre of Palestine(including pre-1967 Israel) be made Judenrein(which is STILL what Hamas is fighting for).

What is needed is, for once, a genuine liberation movement. Hamas has shown that it can't lead such a movement. History has shown that armed struggle as Hamas wages it can never succeed.

And I'm not even calling for renounciation of all violence. But it would be enough to use it against troops of the IDF. Things like the bombing of Sbarro's can never be justified again.

I'm not calling on the Palestinians to surrender. I'm calling on the to stop doing what they know doesn't work.

Refusing to make a distinction between "Zionists" and "Jews" doesn't work.

Blowing up innocent Israeli civilians doesn't work.

Can't you see that all Hamas' tactics do is strengthen the Sharons and the Olmerts and those who will follow in their mold?

Why are you so loyal to an exercise in futility?

Why not admit that new tactics are needed?

Hamas is just giving the Israelis excuses to be hard-line. Hamas isn't leading the Palestinians even an inch closer to independence.

The Occupation must end. All the settlements must be dismantled. The checkpoints must be dismantled and the strip-searches and ritual humiliation of innocent Palestinians must be ended. This has always been my position.

You seem to have this notion that I've asked nothing of the Israelis. That's absolute bullshit.


[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 September 2006 08:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:

And the times that the Palestinians have had the greatest international support have been the times when they used the least psychotic and bloodthirsty tactics.

That is actually in error. In fact between 1967, and 1999, Palestinians killed on average less than 35 Israelis a year. On a per capita basis that is a murder rate less than that of New York city.

Mostly other than some high profile hijackings conducted by PLO linked organizations, Palestinians confined themselves to public demonstrations, petitions and tax boycotts. Not very newsworthy stuff I am sorry to say.

But during that 30 year period nothing changed for the Palestinians, and even the stunning calm of the Oslo years were totally fruitless. In fact Israel increased settlement and occupation, killing Palestinians at a rate of 10 to 1, and adding a record 400,000 new Israelis to the West Bank.

In 1999, Palestinians enthralled with the promises of the Oslo accords, killed less than 9 Israeli's and the worlds response was a deafening silence to their plight. That year, they held peacful demonstrations, and boycotts, and Arafat trotted around the globe trying to get sympathy.

No one paid attention until they started killing people, again, in response to the targetted assassinations of Palestinian leaders and the re-occupation of the West Bank by Ariel Sharon.

Most people whom are unaware of the background, have no idea that actually more Israelis have been killed since security crack down by the IDF in the last six years, than in the entire previous 35 years of occupation.

And what did Israel give the Palestinians for being the good occupied people for 35 yearts; NOTHING.

Decreases in Palestinian violence in no way alter Israel intention of occupying and annexing as much of the West Bank as they can.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 September 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And have INCREASES in Palestinian violence worked any better by comparison?

I didn't hear of the IDF tanks pulling out of the West Bank after the first suicide bombing.

The armed struggle isn't working, at least in terms of indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

Again, why defend failed tactics?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 25 September 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Maybe Israeli violence has set a standard. Who has the most violent tools and largest prison population, not to mention the largest concetration camps? And more walls to hide the atrocities?

Bees will commit suicide defending their hive from a raiding bear. It is probably a lousy analogy but it conveys the idea.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 25 September 2006 10:02 PM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


Decreases in Palestinian violence in no way alter Israel intention of occupying and annexing as much of the West Bank as they can.



Maybe Palestinians would get somewhere if they tried non-violent resistance? Maybe they should look away from Bin Laden and toward Gandhi?

Maybe it would be more productive to figure out how to bring about peace then to continue to find excuses as to why the Israelis/Palestinians have every right to maintain the conflict?

Palestinians have every right to feel indignant about being dispossessed and Israelis have every right to feel indignant about living under constant threat by their neighbors. But at some point Israelis and Palestinians have to get beyond their self-indignation.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 September 2006 10:22 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remind us all again when the last time was that non-violent resistance brought about major social change for an oppressed people?
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 September 2006 11:06 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The US in the 60's with the Civil Rights movement.
India under Gandhi.
The Philippines in the 80's.

And I'm not arguing for Gandhianism here. I'm arguing for limiting violence, if it must be committed, to IDF troops. They are fair game. Israeli civilians aren't(neither are Palestinian civilians, before you throw that back at me.)

And it's also about objectives. Time to admit that Israel CAN'T be dismantled and that it would be just as wrong to make all Jews in Israel leave as it was to make 750,000 Palestinians leave in 1948.

And time, for those who favor binationalism, to make it clear that binationalism would MEAN binationalism.

A specifically Arab Muslim state would not be binationalist, could never have progressive policies(as Iran will never have a progressive government as long as the fascist mullahs stay in power)and will be just as much of an injustice as the Occupation.

I've never been for letting the Israelis off the hook for the injustices they've committed. But injustice doesn't justify further injustice. I would have said that to the Haganah and the Irgun in 1948 just as often as I say it here and now to Hamas.

There is no reason to think that the tactics that Hamas is using are the best tactics that could be used for the Palestinian cause.
In fact, they do it far more harm than good.
Just as the tactics of the IDF do Israelis more harm than good.

I guarantee you, Spector, that you aren't helping Palestinians by unquestioningly defending Hamas.

They need to try something else. This is not working. Can't you see that?

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2006 05:37 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And have INCREASES in Palestinian violence worked any better by comparison?

I didn't hear of the IDF tanks pulling out of the West Bank after the first suicide bombing.

The armed struggle isn't working, at least in terms of indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

Again, why defend failed tactics?


But that was not your point, your point was that international support for the Palestinian cause is higher when they are not violent. In fact the opposite is true. The fact is that news crews only show up on the scene when Palestinians are killing Israeli's and rarely when Israeli's are killing Palestinians. In fact, the reaction of the west to Palestinian non-violence is to make them a non-story.

[ 26 September 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 26 September 2006 05:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:

Maybe Palestinians would get somewhere if they tried non-violent resistance? Maybe they should look away from Bin Laden and toward Gandhi?


Bin Laden? Bin Laden has nothing to do with the Palestinians, he isn't even from the same ethnic group, let alone a mentor for them. He is a gulf Arab they are Syrian Arabs. If anything, bin Laden's schemes are decended from the Palestinian struggle, not the other way around. Just so you know.

Sheik Ahmed Yassin is the name you are looking for.

They tried more or less non-violent resistance for about 35 years. Israel isn't biting:

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.


And Ken, I agree with HaCohen: "the question whether violence or nonviolence serves their cause better is for the Palestinians to decide," or to quote Malcolm X they have a right to use "any means necessary," it is not for arm chair warriros to sit here and stroke our wise chins and say "tut tut tut," like so many patronizing liberals, sermonizing about MLK and Gandhi. Our positions must reflect our own personal responsibilities to undermine injustice from where we stand, and that means opposing measurs such as the Canadian governments unjust halting of funds to the Palestinian Authority, and presenting a vocal and just analysis of the shape of Israeli apartheid.

As for violence the Palestinians have a right to use violence, whether it is an effective strategy or not. Such is the standard of international law.

quote:
On Thursday, April 28, about 1,000 Palestinians and some 200 Israeli guests, invited by the people of Bil'in, participated in a demonstration against the wall. All the participants undertook in advance to avoid all violence, no matter whether they had seen the Gandhi film or not. But even before the demo could reach the site of the fence, it was savagely attacked by the Israeli security forces, which bombarded it with tear-gas bombs without the slightest provocation. Among the demonstrators were the Palestinian minister Fares Kadduri, presidential candidate Mustafa Barghouti, Uri Avnery, and Israeli Knesset member Muhammad Barakeh, who was wounded during the attack. The peaceful demonstration was a welcome occasion for Israeli special units to wound several demonstrators with the latest innovation, introduced here for the first time: especially painful plastic bullets covered with salt. Indeed, the so-called Jewish Genius is never exhausted.

Quotes from:


Ran Hacohen

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 September 2006 05:53 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am really tired of shit like this:

quote:

You still haven't got any rationale for defending the use of tactics that haven't worked, and, if they haven't worked by now, can never work.

You have offered no case for the suicide bombings or the refusal to settle for anything less than having every acre of Palestine(including pre-1967 Israel) be made Judenrein(which is STILL what Hamas is fighting for).



I have not defended any tactics and the reason I have not offered any support for suicide bombings is because I do not support suicide bombings.

Why do you defend the racist, brutal tactics of an Israeli occupation army that has killed hundreds of children and is starving Palestinians in a giant concentration camp called Gaza? Is that a fair question to you? I assume it must be.

The problem with any argument you espouse is history proves it has no basis. You suggest I should differentiate between Jews and Zionists. Mostly I would agree with you, but in terms of the occupation Palestinians are not being brutalized because they are not Zionists.

What you fail to appreciate is that the problem is the occupation. Would you tell an abused spouse that maybe she could improve her situation if she maybe did a better job of keeping the house clean, made a nicer dinner, and only resisted mildly to beatings and forced intimacy maybe by saying "no,no" and never raising a hand?

Because in essence you are suggesting the abuse of Palestinians might be reduced if only they resisted less.

Experience suggests otherwise.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2006 06:01 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ken, where in the Hamas charter does it call for the removal of all the Jews... Judenrein?

Where do you get this stuff, the National Post?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 September 2006 06:57 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Mostly other than some high profile hijackings conducted by PLO linked organizations, Palestinians confined themselves to public demonstrations, petitions and tax boycotts. Not very newsworthy stuff I am sorry to say.
[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

It probably wasn't newsworthy because they were overshadowed by those high-profile events that outraged much of the world, such as the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, the 1976 Entebbe hijacking and others. Citing numbers is misleading, it was the impact that counted from the point of view of the perpetrators.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2006 07:02 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Complete sophistry. In fact what you are saying is that groups of hot headed radicals, some of whom have about as much legitimacy among Palestinians as the Red Brigades do for Italians, can somehow be used to justify the repression of the civilian population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The "impression" is in fact media hype. The reality is that those occupied by Israel were more or less a completely passive population up until 2001, and only after the IDF started killing Palestinian leaders and reneaged on its Oslo commitments, that the population as whole took and militant stand.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 September 2006 07:08 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Complete sophistry. In fact what you are saying is that groups of hot headed radicals, some of whom have about as much legitimacy among Palestinians as the Red Brigades do for Italians, can somehow be used to justify the repression of the civilian population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The "impression" is in fact media hype. The reality is that those occupied by Israel were more or less a completely passive population up until 2001, and only after the IDF started killing Palestinian leaders and reneaged on its Oslo commitments, that the population as whole took and militant stand.


Re; Paragraph 1: You're putting words in my mouth. I'm just focusing on your use of the term 'newsworthy" — what the media chooses to cover. if it's the case that group #1 of a people is engaged in peaceful efforts, but group #2, small and hotheaded as they may be, is engaged in highly visible attacks guaranteed to have a global impact, where do you think the TV networks will aim their cameras?

Re: Paragraph #2: I seem to remember a lot of suicide attacks taking place between 1993 and 1995, part of what fueled some enmity against the Rabin government.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 September 2006 07:22 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This debate is like asking is it correct for the victim to scratch the eyes of her attacker or should she restrict herself to only thumping on his chest and, meanwhile, the actions of the attacker are ignored as though the assault itself is legitimate.

You are all insane.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 26 September 2006 07:51 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I presume, F M, that you're not lumping in Cueball with your blanket statement. I, and undoubtedly many other lurkers as well, appreciate his comments and sometimes the most ridiculous remarks are the most difficult to reply to. It's much easier to make a mess than to clean it up.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 September 2006 08:13 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
This debate is like asking is it correct for the victim to scratch the eyes of her attacker or should she restrict herself to only thumping on his chest and, meanwhile, the actions of the attacker are ignored as though the assault itself is legitimate.

You are all insane.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


I hope you're not comparing the actions of what Cueball refers to as "groups of hot headed radicals, some of whom have about as much legitimacy among Palestinians as the Red Brigades do for Italians" to victims of attempted rape and/or murder.
That would be sad.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 September 2006 08:13 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, N.Beltov, I am referring to those who would analyze and critique how a victim resists an assault from a much more powerful attacker while ignoring the assualt itself. There is no acceptable level of resistance to the attacker who demands total submission.

The belief that submission will end the violence is equally insane.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 September 2006 08:18 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I hope you're not comparing the actions of what Cueball refers to as "groups of hot headed radicals, some of whom have about as much legitimacy among Palestinians as the Red Brigades do for Italians" to victims of attempted rape and/or murder.

You are engaging in an old and tired debating trick to try and shift the focus to an irrelevant and unrelated track. That is sad. The issue is whether Palestinians can escape a brutal and racist occupation by submitting, yet again, to demands made without reciprocation of any kind.

But since you are here, tell me, is the occupation, in your mind, moral?

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 26 September 2006 08:30 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yea, maybe all those who think satyagraha would be appropriate and effective in all circumstances could elaborate how it would have worked against the Third Reich. The context of the anti-colonial struggle in India was a certain tradition ... and an overwhelming majority over the colonial population, among other factors - not just the outstanding example of "Mahatma" Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 September 2006 08:39 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

You are engaging in an old and tired debating trick to try and shift the focus to an irrelevant and unrelated track. That is sad.[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


Those who shifted my part of the debate (the attention media pays to low profile non-violence as opposed to high-profile violence) are guilty of the sin you refer to above.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 September 2006 09:01 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The debate as a whole is about whether a new PA government will recognize Israel. And, you are to be congratulated at your continuing attempt to shift the subject. This time to what the discussion is actualy about. Quite novel. So let's shift the subject back to my question: do you think the occupation is moral?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 September 2006 09:08 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Before 1967 there was no "occupation" and yet even at that time the Arabs refused to recognize Israel. Now they say that all Israel has to do is go back to the pre-1967 borders and all will be well. If that is the case, why was there no peace prior to 1967?? There is no reason to believe that a return to the status quo ante bellum (ie: pre 1967) would not lead to the old patterns of the West Bank and Gaza being used as bases to launch more terrorist attacks.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 September 2006 09:18 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course there was an occupation. Palestinians once lived on the lands now occupied by expatriate Americans, Russians, Europeans, and others who can claim full rights and citizens in a land in which they have never resided by virtue of an accident of birth while those born in that land are denied the right to return by virtue of the opposite accident of birth.

And since 1948 the Israeli entity continues to expand consuming more land, and displacing more people, not so priveleged by accident of birth, while destroying their ability to sustain themselves.

To argue there was no occupation is to deny the history. But we are not debating prior to 2006. We are debating today. So, Stockholm, if not the other fellow, perhaps you. Is the occupation moral?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 September 2006 09:25 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
The debate as a whole is about whether a new PA government will recognize Israel. And, you are to be congratulated at your continuing attempt to shift the subject. This time to what the discussion is actualy about. Quite novel. So let's shift the subject back to my question: do you think the occupation is moral?

I chose to deal with Cueball's item about "newsworthiness", owing to the fact I work in the media, and that's the only issue I choose to deal with today.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 September 2006 09:44 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
chicken.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 September 2006 09:51 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
chicken.

Haven't heard that since high school... Ah, the memories.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 September 2006 09:57 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Really? I'm surprised.

Okay, enough. I'm just teasing you at this point. My apologies.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 September 2006 10:02 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Really? I'm surprised.

Okay, enough. I'm just teasing you at this point. My apologies.


No problem...


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 26 September 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If that is the case, why was there no peace prior to 1967??

Ethnic cleansing anyone?


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

posted 26 September 2006 02:14 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Several statements like the following have been made in this thread:

quote:
...every acre of Palestine(including pre-1967 Israel) be made Judenrein(which is STILL what Hamas is fighting for)...

Ken Burch prattles on about how Palestinians should change their tactics because they allow Israel to paint them all as bloodthirsty terrorists. With the above assertion, it would seem that dear Ken is doing the work of the Israeli propagandists.

We have also heard tale of Hamas' expressed intentions to destroy Israel and presumably "drive the Jews into the sea". So beyond the Nazi aspersion (which I thought was out of bounds here: it certainly is when anyone compares Israel's activities to Nazi Germany) we have a question of fact. Yet, not one ounce of evidence has been provided for any of these lynchpin points.

So, Kenny-boy, you gots some evidence er what?

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 26 September 2006 04:11 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The fact is that news crews only show up on the scene when Palestinians are killing Israeli's and rarely when Israeli's are killing Palestinians. In fact, the reaction of the west to Palestinian non-violence is to make them a non-story.

Yes the news crew shows up. But it isn't ever positive coverage. It isn't useful attention.

And, in response to several posts above, I agree that the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government has been an abomination.

But most of what Hamas has done has been just about as useful to the Palestinian cause as the Omagh bombing was to the Irish Republican cause.

As to Hamas proposals, they have called for the abolition of the State of Israel. Not just the legitimate goal of a Palestinian state comprising every acre of the West Bank and Gaza, but the goal of ending the state of Israel. They have also stated that the Palestinian state THEY seek must be "Islamic". together these thigs would mean there was no place for any Jewish people in this state. They could mean nothing else. They still give speeches about "driving the Jews into the sea", btw.
If they don't want the lands of the old Mandate to be Judenrein, they aren't exactly advertising the fact.


Palestinians have every right to resist by any means members of the IDF. But not civilians. It is wrong to hold every Israeli responsible for what has been done in their name

The African National Congress didn't punish every Afrikaner for apartheid, and collective punishment would have been much more justified in that case.

Ordinary Israelie bear far less guilt about the treatment of Palestinians than ordinary South African whites did. The posters in this thread
don't even seem to acknowledge that there was a large Palestinian solidarity movement WITHIN ISRAEL in the Eighties and Nineties, a movement the actions of the Al-Aksa Martyrs brigade and Hamas eventually destroyed by the unjustified resort to indiscriminate violence. It was incredibly stupid to take Sharon's bait.

Finally, I have to say this about where I come from on this issue:

I want a Palestinian state. But I believe that as a gentile I have no right to support the dismantlement of Israel. I feel that to do so, in spite of everything, would make me morally indistinguishable from a Nazi. It would mean forgetting history.

I believe that Jews have the right to be anti-Zionist, but not gentiles. We have too much blood and shame on our hands.

A greatly reformed Israel, yes. A state that is no longer aggressive and militarist, yes.

A state that SETS its borders once and for all.

A state within which all are equal, yes.

Really, in fact, a state that would be effectively binational.

Not an Islamic Palestine that would be permanently reactionary and where time would stop, where there would be no possibility for justice or hope.

I feel that both sides have to chance radically and that neither are moving in positive directions at the moment. Is there something wrong with believing that?

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2006 05:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:

As to Hamas proposals, they have called for the abolition of the State of Israel. Not just the legitimate goal of a Palestinian state comprising every acre of the West Bank and Gaza, but the goal of ending the state of Israel. They have also stated that the Palestinian state THEY seek must be "Islamic". together these thigs would mean there was no place for any Jewish people in this state. They could mean nothing else. They still give speeches about "driving the Jews into the sea", btw.
If they don't want the lands of the old Mandate to be Judenrein, they aren't exactly advertising the fact.


Which speeches about driving Jews into the sea? In fact Ken, can you provide a source of the original first quote about driving the "Jews into the sea." This quote has been attributed to the Grandi Mufti of Jerusalem, Gemael Nasser, and even the Syrian president. The only actual sourced speech that I have read it in is one by Ben Gurion, talking in hind sight about the 48 Nakba, and in that speech he does not attribute it a a quote of any specific Arab leader.

In fact close inspecetion of any of the documents on line from Arabs such as the PLO charter, and the Hamas charter included specifically accord jews rights in the states they envision. From the Hamas Charter:

quote:
Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect.

Hamas Charter: Article 31

I can find other sources of Hamas people expounding these ideas, none calling for driving the Jews into the sea.

The charter quite clearly states that Hamas envisions and Islamic state in which Jews are also citizens protected "in the Shadow of Islam," as it were. There is no statements about driving the Jews anywhere in it. This is a misconception and a distortion fed largely by common ignorance.

I have much respect for your opinions Ken, but I do not understand why you are presenting unsourced disinformation.

Now Ken, what is the concrete difference in an ideology like that of Hamas that insists that Jews should live in an Islamic state, (under the shadow of Islam,) and the Zinoist one that holds that muslims should live in a Jewish state, as many Arab muslims do?

Is there any?

[ 26 September 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 26 September 2006 05:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:

Re: Paragraph #2: I seem to remember a lot of suicide attacks taking place between 1993 and 1995, part of what fueled some enmity against the Rabin government.

I forgive you, as someone who works in the media, I don't expect accuracy in reporting, it isn't in vogue these days. The first Palestinian suicide bombing took place in 1994, as a reaction to the massacre of 29 unarmed Muslims by a trigger happy New York Jew who thought he could bridge the gap between being an American pop culture anti-hero mass murderer and an honest sole pursuing his faith:

quote:
On February 25, 1994, that year's Purim day, Goldstein entered a room in the Cave of the Patriarchs serving as a mosque, wearing "his army uniform with the insignia of rank, creating the image of a reserve officer on active duty" (Shamgar report). He then opened fire at Muslims, killing 29 and wounding 125. Mosque guard Mohammad Suleiman Abu Saleh said he thought that Goldstein was trying to kill as many people as possible and described how there were bodies and blood everywhere. After being subdued with a fire extinguisher, Goldstein was beaten to death by Muslim worshippers, after his rifle had been taken from him[5].

His official death certificate issued by the Ministry of the Interior of the State of Israel lists the cause of his death as "murder"[6]. Although the Israeli authorities know (via an Arab collaborator who was present that morning) the names of the Arabs who killed Goldstein, they were never brought to trial[7].

Rioting immediately followed the shooting, leading in the following week to the deaths of another 25 Palestinians and 5 Israelis.[8]


Cave of the Patriarchs massacre

Interesting that the State of Israel lists Goldsteins death as "murder," when it was quite clearly justifiable self defence. Odd too that the IDF force nearby failed to intervene.

Despite those questions let us at least keep our facts straight while we are here on Babble, whatever the present mythologies being bandied about amongst the "media cogniscenti" of the Zionasphere: The first suicide attask was a direct attack in revenge for the "cave of the Patriarchs massacre, it had little to do with Rabin or Oslo, except for Mr. Goldstein motivations apparently:

quote:
Mike Guzofsky, spokesman for Kahane Chai in New York and a close friend of Goldstein said, "He wanted to stop the peace process dead. He couldn't have picked a better day – Purim, when Jews fight back."

Cave of the Patriarchs massacre

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 26 September 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And responding to Goldstein's attack with a suicide bombing was an incredibly ineffective and stupid tactic.

A dignified series of protests would have had a much greater positive impact.

The Palestinians had world opinion and the world's conscience on their side after Goldstein's insane attack. Israel was on the defensive.

The decision, by whoever made it, to launch a suicide attack against people who had nothing to do with Goldstein's act accomplished nothing and allowed Israel to play the "terrorist card". People from the Israeli left and the peace movement were killed in suicide bombing attacks. I assume even B L Zeebub LLD would agree that those people never deserved to be harmed.

As to the differences and similarities of Zionism and Islamism...

There are a lot of similarities.
As the years go by these have tended to increase.

Zionism has at least, whatever else can be said about it, allowed a significant secular presence in Israeli society.

Had there been an acceptance of Israel in some form, even along the pre-1967 lines, I suspect that the secular character of Israel would be far more prominent than it is now. Had the Palestinians even said they wouldn't accept a "Jewish state" but that they would accept a democratic state in which Jewish people, among others, could come and fine refuge, the Jewish component of the population would likely be nowhere near as militarist and there would be far less sympathy for the ultrareligious.

As has been the case within Palestinian society, living in a continual state of war has increased the religious and militarist components within Israeli society.

If Hamas actually isn't calling for all Jews to leave the land of the Mandate, this is a great relief. I can safely say I was misinformed on that. They do need to make this more rhetorically clear. A permanent moratorium on bombing non-military targets would help. A moratorium Israel should impose on itself as well.

And, really, I'm NOT an apologist for Israeli policies towards Palestinians. I think they've been wrong about 90% of the time. They should have made it clear that they'd settle for the pre-1967 lands, they should, in fact, have made it an article of the Israeli constitution that they wouldn't seek an inch more land than they had before the Six Day War.

But the idea of dismantling Israel, and the advocacy of such an idea, is pointless. It can't happen, it's never going to happen, so why encourage Palestinians to keep fighting for it?

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 26 September 2006 09:49 PM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

To argue there was no occupation is to deny the history. But we are not debating prior to 2006. We are debating today. So, Stockholm, if not the other fellow, perhaps you. Is the occupation moral?

Talking about "history", it seems the Palestinians are the only nation in the world that have lost three consecutive wars but still want to dictate the terms of the peace! If we Persians had that attitude in 19th century, we probably could still claim Azarbayejan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan as part of Iran! How about Kurds who are still being denied their rightful country? or the Armenian lands in Turkey?

If "History" is the basis of your argument, a greater historical fact is that lands have changed hands and ruled by different nations and people throughout history. I am sympathetic that the Arab people of Palestine were unfairly denied the chance to get the country they wanted, but that puts them in the same group of countless other ethnic groups who have never got the chance either. Many of those groups are far more deserving of support.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: ghlobe ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 26 September 2006 10:02 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Spector, B.L. Zeebub, he's all yours...
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 26 September 2006 10:14 PM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
The reason Paslestinian leaders are considering recognizing Israel is to further the peace process. People who are against Palestinian recognition of Israel should provide an alternative way in which Palestinian leaders can further the peace process.

Recent history shows that suicide bombings and rocket attacks are not going to help bring peace.

What should Palestine leaders do instead of trading peace for land?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 26 September 2006 10:29 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Indeed.

And what has the violence, justified as the rage towards injustices committed by the Israeli state is, ever actually achieved?

Has it served any purpose other than allowing some hotheads to feel macho?

(which, of course, could be asked of most Israeli military policy during the occupation as well.)


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2006 12:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And responding to Goldstein's attack with a suicide bombing was an incredibly ineffective and stupid tactic.

A dignified series of protests would have had a much greater positive impact.


A) It was not a "tactic." It was revenge.

B) It's hard to have a dignified protest when you are being tear gassed. Again, you have failed to see the point: By the time Hamas began violent operations, Palestinians had been doing dignified protests for years, AND NO ONE GAVE FLYING FUCK.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 September 2006 12:31 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, people ALL OVER THE WORLD gave a fuck, Cueball. And people IN ISRAEL gave a fuck too. There was huge support for creating a Palestinian state.

If that has declined, it is all the fault of Hamas and Al-AKSA, who, in going back to the "physical force party", let the hard-liners within Israeli politics regain control of the debate.

There is no excuse for anything the Israelis have done. But Hamas' insistence, for example, on launching repeated suicide bombings during Israeli election campaigns hurt every Palestinian. Every time they did that, they drove up support for the most reactionary and violent elements in Israeli politics. If Hamas had just laid off during the elections, Netanyahu and Sharon would never have won, and in all likelihood there WOULD be a Palestinian state by now. You know this is true.

As did Fatah when it allowed the textbooks that denied the Holocaust to be used in Palestinian schools. Progressive pro-Palestinian people in Europe and the UK and Canada would have gladly provided decent textbooks that didn't have those slurs in them. Why not try to get those?

What you can't point to, and you know you can't point to, is any evidence that the suicide bombings and the attacks on Israeli civilians HELPED the Palestinian cause in any meaningful way. Why stay with what we know doesn't work?

I want justice for the Palestinians as much as you do, Cueball. But Hamas won't lead them to it and you know it.

Why assume that the only tool Hamas or anyone else in their community has at their disposal is the capacity to kill?

Why not even consider the possibility of carrying on the struggle by strictly political means, by appealing to the solidarity of progressives around the world, by proposing something positive and decent to struggle for?

Why should the whole thing be reduced to "revenge, revenge, revenge"?
And does the need for "revenge" justify everything?
Is it good that, in most situations in the Israel/Palestine dispute, more people get killed in "revenge attacks" than in the original killings?

It's time to face the fact that violence, in this day in age, is no longer progressive or revolutionary. Violence will never again give us anything but death following death.

And the statement that "they did it first" no longer justifies doing it next. Because then it never fucking STOPS being done.

As the great Northern Irish singer Tommy Sands put it in one of his lyrics "an eye for an eye is all that's in their mind. And another eye for another eye 'til everyone is blind".

There will never again be a violent revolutionary who, after the revolution, will become a humane leader. It's too late for people to make that kind of transformation anymore, if they ever really could.

Sharon couldn't do it. Arafat couldn't do it.
Sure as shit nobody in Iran's managed to do it either.

There needs to be progressive and democratic parties in Palestine AND Israel. Hamas and Fatah have both shown they can't be that party.
And when Amir Peretz joined the coalition and led the slaughter campaign in Lebanon, he prevented the Labor part from every becoming that party in Israeli politics.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In fact: Israel only relented on its policy of not recognizing the PLO, in 1987, the period which conicides with the first Intifada.

In fact since the second Intifada began, not only has Israel decamped from Gaza Strip, but settelment in the West Bank has decreased considerably since the point when Palestinians were playing ball during the Oslo period.

No explanation for that Ken, eh? Why the most significant period of Israeli migration into the West Bank happened to co-incide with the period of the least Palestinian violence?

But no to you the cause of the killing is the Palestinian violence, not the overt importation of 400,000 people into the disputed areas, while their was supposed to be a peace process going on. You don't think that a sincere Israeli peace effort would also include a moratorium on settlement expansion?

And yet you seem to find time to dump on Palestinian "violence" as the cause of their opression, but fail to see that it is the occupation that is causual and violent in itself.

Interesting fact: during the Oslo period Israeli killed Palestinians at a rate of 10 to 1, during the period of Intifada Israelis are killing Palestinians at a rate of 3 to 1. More people are dying but the ration has changed.

Care to explain that Ken? It seem to me to indicate that the Palestinians pretty much get nocked off whether they are violent or not.

Just as the Israelis continued to kill Palestinians since the election in which Hamas won. And all througout that period there were no suicide bombings for 18 months, but the Israelis went on killing and killing sometimes, 10, 20 Palestinians a week.

And you didn't hear about it. And so you think you care but you don't. As is apparent by the lames brained shit you are making up.

Like I have never heard of Holocaust denial in Palestinian texts books. I have heard they had maps which did not have Israel on them, and that kind of thing, but I think I would have heard this Holocaust denial stuff.

Gotta link, or do you just talk out of your ass?

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 September 2006 12:58 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you've been reading my posts at all carefully, you'll see I HAVE been condemning all that Israel has done. You'll see that I do want the settlements dismantled and a Palestinian state comprising all of the West Bank and Gaza to be recognized.

I've never been an apologist for the Israelis.

I'm not calling for Palestinians to give up. I'm calling for them to stop doing things that only work to the benefit of the Israeli propaganda machine.

And as to what has and hasn't happened since the second Intifada began, you'll notice that what Hamas has done hasn't stopped the construction of a single settlement. It hasn't led to the checkpoints being lifted. It hasn't prevented Israel from reentering the Gaza militarily.

So again, the suicide bombings haven't worked.
Killing innocent Israeli civilians hasn't worked.
These methods aren't going to lead to a Palestinian state. And you know it. Why pretend otherwise?

And if Palestinians are going to be killed no matter what, that that makes yet another arguement against the armed struggle as carried out by Hamas. It would only be justified if it were actually making life better for Palestinians.

Finally, its time to give up revenge. History has proven that in Palestine all revenge will ever lead to is more revenge. I don't want the next ten generations of Palestine's youth and Israel's youth to die on battlefields. Or be killed in their homes. I want the insanity to end. Don't you?

And don't you dare claim I don't care. If I didn't care I'd be a defender of the Israeli status quo, which I'm not.

And as far as that goes, why should I assume that YOU care other than the fact that you are an unquestioning defender of pointless and useless violence?

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2006 01:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But you keep talking about the Palestinian violence as casual. You neve say, "hey maybe the Peace process would be moved forward if Israel stopped settlement construction and entering Palestinian regions and killing them."

No. Its the stinking Arabs fault once again, for losing their cool.

And that is what is so very important about noting the "revenge" thing, because the Baruch Goldstein issue is a clear example of how Israeli violence predicated the Palestinian reaction. But hey, to you that is a stupid tactic.

But do you even bother to say something like, hey hiring racist bastards and giving them officer rank in the IDF and a gun is a stupid policy.

No.

Anf then the recent kidnapping. When did that happen? That happened when Hamas cancelled its ceasefire, after the Israeli killed those people on the beech. But do you say: "killing people on the Beech" is a stuipid "tactic" and doesn't move the "peace process" forward.

No.

Again it the dirty Arabs fault for losing their cool.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 September 2006 01:09 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that that is a stupid tactic.

I hate what the IDF has done.

There was no fucking excuse for the killings on the beach. I should have said that specifically in this thread. I never defended those killings.

And the IDF should never made anti-Arab racists into officers. No arguement there.

I support those in the IDF who have refused to serve in the Territories.

I want those troops out. I've said that before. I'll say it again in this thread:

The Occupation Needs to End. Now.

And I wish that Goldstein had never done what he did. I've never defended Goldstein's actions. But were the people killed in the "revenge" attacks in any way connected to Goldstein or what he did? You aren't really going to say that every Israeli was a legitimate target for retaliation against Goldstein's crime, are you?

Hamas has used those tactics intentionally. They did intentionally disrupt Israeli election campaigns with repeated suicide bombings. All this did was throw those elections to the hard-line figures. Can you defend Hamas' decision to use violence to intentionally force Israeli politics to the right?

If I've spoken more in this thread about Hamas than about Israel it is not out of an anti-Palestinian bias. It is because the topic of this thread was Hamas and the policies it employs and might employ. That is why I focused on Hamas here. OK? I wasn't carrying the can for the Mossad.

Stop trying to paint me as an apologist for Israeli intransigence when you know perfectly well I'm not.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2006 01:16 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And Hamas followed a concilatory patern, first agreeing to run in the elections, and maintaining and 18 month ceasefire, without a sinlge major attack.

THEY DID WHAT YOU ARE ASKING THEM TO DO, AND WHAT DID ISRAEL DO?

1) They cancelled trasfer of money owed to the PA from Palestinian taxes.

2) Organized an international boycott of the Palestinian Authority.

3) Continued raids and killings of Palestinian leaders.

That is what they got for following your advice.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 September 2006 01:48 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again, switching back to the tactics YOU defend hasn't given them anything better.

Clearly, the armed struggle has outlived its usefulness. It's not a question or morality or of my squeamishness. It's a question of what works and what doesn't work.

It would help if Hamas could show, as a certainty, that if they were to get some kind of an agreement, that Hamas in government could make sure that there would be no more attacks.

One of the things that badly undermined Fatah when in government is that they couldn't stop the continued attacks. Israel took them to the cleaners in international opinion over that.

Hamas needs to be able to say "When it stops, it stops, and it never starts again".

As long as they don't say that, they give the pro-intransigence forces on the Israeli side political ammunition.

(And before you comeback with your inevitable retort, yes, that does go both ways.)

Like they did when they launched, with no justification whatsoever, coordinated bombings DURING Israeli election campaigns.

You've accused me of not denouncing Israel for a lot things.

Things I had denounced Israel for in other forums and other situations, btw.

Did YOU ever denounce Hamas for giving aid and comfort to the Israeli right wing with bombings during the election?

Are you really going to argue that Palestinians BENEFITED from Netanyahu and Sharon being elected due to Hamas' intervention?

Did Palestinians benefit from the Meretz party forever losing the support of tens of thousands of Israelis due to those bombings?

Did Palestinians benefit from it becoming virtually impossible to be a peace activist within Israel, due to what Hamas and Al-Aksa had done at the worst possible moments?

It wasn't all the Palestinians's fault. It wasn't all Hamas fault. A lot of it, most of it was and is Israel's fault. My point is that Hamas has done a hell of a lot to help the anti-peace and pro-settlement forces within Israeli politics by its actions.

I can't believe you can sit here and defend them for being so deeply self-destructive.

The best thing Hamas could do now would be to ratchet back the armed struggle, pour the money dedicated to that into vastly improving Palestinian schools and social services, and developing a new approach to the conflict that might actually work. It would certainly weaken the most reactionary forces within Israeli politics. And those forces need to be weakened, rather than provoked and supported by the continued use of the existing tactics and strategies, if the State of Palestine is to be born.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2006 05:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"White man pokes out the black mans eyes and then condemns him for being blind."

Malcolm X


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 27 September 2006 05:23 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
As posted by Cueball:
"I forgive you, as someone who works in the media, I don't expect accuracy in reporting, it isn't in vogue these days. The first Palestinian suicide bombing took place in 1994, as a reaction to the massacre of 29 unarmed Muslims by a trigger happy New York Jew who thought he could bridge the gap between being an American pop culture anti-hero mass murderer and an honest sole pursuing his faith:"

Hey, I said "between" 1993 and 1995, not from 1993 to 1995, but whatever. OK, the first Palestinian suicide bombing took place more than a month after Goldstein's rampage. But here's some attacks that took place after Oslo's signing and before Goldstein's act. And I will just include what appears to be attacks on civilians.

Sep 24 93 Yigal Vaknin was stabbed to death in an orchard near the trailer home where he lived near the village of Basra. A squad of the HAMAS' Iz a-Din al Kassam claimed responsibility for the attack.

Oct 9 93 Dror Forer and Aran Bachar were murdered by terrorists in Wadi Kelt in the Judean Desert. The Popular Front and the Islamic Jihad 'Al-Aqsa Squads' each publicly claimed responsibility.

Oct 29 93 Chaim Mizrahi, resident of Beit-El, was kidnapped by three terrorists from a poultry farm near Ramallah. He was murdered and his body burned. Three Fatah members were convicted of the murder on July 27, 1994.

Nov 7 93 Efraim Ayubi of Kfar Darom, Rabbi Chaim Druckman's personal driver, was shot to death by terrorists near Hebron. HAMAS publicly claimed responsibility for the murder.

Nov 9 93 Salman 'Id el-Hawashla, age 38, an Israeli Bedouin of the Abu Rekaik tribe who was driving a car with Israeli plates, was killed by three armed men driving a truck hijacked from the Gaza municipality, in a deliberate head-on collision.

Dec 1 93 Shalva Ozana, age 23, and Yitzhak Weinstock, age 19, were shot to death by terrorists from a moving vehicle, while parked on the side of the road to Ramallah because of engine trouble. Weinstock died of his wounds the following morning. Iz a-Din al Kassam claimed responbility for the attack, stating that it was carried out in retaliation for the killing by Israeli forces of Imad Akel, a wanted HAMAS leader in Gaza.

Dec 6 93 Mordechai Lapid and his son Shalom Lapid, age 19, were shot to death by terrorists near Hebron. HAMAS publicly claimed responsibility for the attack. (I believe this specific attack has been cited as part of Goldstein's motivation for his own act)

Dec 22 93 Eliahu Levin and Meir Mendelovitch were killed by shots fired at their car from a passing vehicle in the Ramallah area. HAMAS claimed responsibility.

Dec 23 93 Anatoly Kolisnikov, an Ashdod resident employed as a relief watchman at a construction site there, was stabbed to death while on duty.

Dec 31 93 Chaim Weizman and David Bizi were found murdered in a Ramle apartment. ID cards of two Gaza residents were found in the apartment, together with a leaflet of the Popular Front 'Red Eagle' group, claiming responsibility for the murder.

Jan 12 94 Moshe Becker of Rishon Le-Zion was stabbed to death by three Palestinian employees while working in his orchard. The Popular Front claimed responsibility for the murder.

Jan 14 94 Grigory Ivanov was stabbed to death by a terrorist in the industrial zone at the Erez junction, near the Gaza Strip. HAMAS claimed responsibility for the attack.

Feb 9 94 Ilan Sudri, a taxi driver, was kidnapped and murdered while returning home from work. The Islamic Jihad Shekaki group sent a message to the news agencies claiming responsibility for the murder.

Feb 10 94 Naftali Sahar, a citrus grower, was murdered by blows to his head. His body was found in his orchard near Kibbutz Na'an.

Feb 17 94 Yuval Golan, stabbed on December 29, 1993 by a terrorist near Adarim in the Hebron area, died of his wounds.

Feb 19 94 Zipora Sasson, resident of Ariel and five months pregnant, was killed on the trans-Samaria highway in an ambush by shots fired at her car. The terrorists were members of HAMAS.

Post-Oslo, pre-Goldstein attacks


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2006 08:58 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You said "suicide attacks" from 93-95.

quote:
Re: Paragraph #2: I seem to remember a lot of suicide attacks taking place between 1993 and 1995, part of what fueled some enmity against the Rabin government.


There were none until 94, as your list demonstrates, until after the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre.

In fact examples my original point, which was that Palestinian violence was generally random, un-cordinated, probably the result of individual intiative and fueld by personal frustrations and anger and bear absolutely no resembelance to the co-ordinated and quite generalized militancy of Palestinians post 2001, and the start of targetted assassinations, and the re-occupation of Palestinian lands.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 27 September 2006 10:03 AM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
"White man pokes out the black mans eyes and then condemns him for being blind."

Malcolm X


There is no white and black in this case. Both groups are semitic.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 27 September 2006 10:51 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
One of the things that badly undermined Fatah when in government is that they couldn't stop the continued attacks. Israel took them to the cleaners in international opinion over that.

You are a sucker for lies and propaganda aren't you?

The Sharon regime systematically destroyed the PAs infrastructure, police stations, and killed PA security people, and then sat back and said, "you can't control violence, therefore we are going to inflict more violence upon you" and did.

Why don't we turn this around? Why don't you provide evidence that if Palestinians submitted to Israeli violence as you would apparently wish them to, that Israeli violence would stop? You make outrageous moral claims you can't support. So, I challenge you: Prove the tiger will change its stripes if only the Palestinian resistance to violence ceased?

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 27 September 2006 10:55 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You said "suicide attacks" from 93-95."[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]There were none until 94, as your list demonstrates, until after the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre.

In fact examples my original point, which was that Palestinian violence was generally random, un-cordinated, probably the result of individual intiative and fueld by personal frustrations and anger and bear absolutely no resembelance to the co-ordinated and quite generalized militancy of Palestinians post 2001, and the start of targetted assassinations, and the re-occupation of Palestinian lands.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


a) I didn't write "from", I wrote "between" as in the space of time between.

b)If the Sept. 1993 to Feb. 1994 attacks were uncoordinated and the result of individual initiative, why did Hamas and other groups take credit for them?

c) Any thoughts what those personal frustrations may have been, especially as a peace accord had just been signed?

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]


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

posted 27 September 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ghlobe:

There is no white and black in this case. Both groups are semitic.


This is the most idiotic thing I've read in a while. I guess there was no racism between the Japanese and Chinese during WWII, since both groups are Asian.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Briguy ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 September 2006 11:29 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look Cueball, you seem to have this notion that it somehow helps Palestinians when the killing increases, that it defends them and protects them.

This is beyond bullshit.

You also seem to think that I'm calling for Palestinians to do something that will hurt them. I'm not. We both know what Hamas is doing and what individual Palestinians have been doing in the "armed struggle" ISN'T ADVANCING THE PALESTINIAN CAUSE.

Nobody can win this thing militarily. It's time to try some other way.

How about having Hamas actually submit a real proposal for settling the whole thing?

Not dismantling Israel(which we both know will never happen anyway).

Not an "Islamic" Palestine.

Something democratic and progressive. Something that leads to a chance for breaking this destructive cycle.

And I find it deeply instructive that you bring in Malcolm X here. While I admire a lot of what Malcolm stood for as an individual, it must be noted that, once the African American struggle switched from Dr. King's approach to Malcolm's and the Black Power/Black Panther type of romanticised armed resistance, it basically died. African Americans didn't make any more significant advances after about 1965. White racism, on the other hand, strengthened and grew and, arguably, still holds sway.

There was a real chance to get a Palestinian state in the '90's. Israel sabotauged a lot of it, but some Palestinian leaders helped sabotauge it as well by imposing demands they knew would never be accepted(right of return to pre-1967 lands)and by not preventing further violence while the negotiations were in place.

If Arafat had even made a counter-proposal at Camp David rather than just walking away from the talks, everything would be a lot better for all concerned now.

These things are certain:

1)There will always be Arabs in these lands.
2)There will always be Jews in these lands.

There needs to be some way of breaking the existing patterns and eventually leading to some form of reconciliation. Hamas' approach and the approach of the Palestinian rejectionists just cause more misery, and just give the worst in Israeli politics more excuses to cause more misery.

Again, I ask, why do you defend what we both know doesn't work? We're not talking morality, we're talking sanity.

It's time to admit the armed struggle can't lead to anything positive.

And as to Frustrated Mess, I can't guarantee what you ask me to guarantee. But I can say that there will be a much greater chance of a decent life for Palestinians. They almost got a state in the 90's when they were showing some restraint(Sharon wasn't in power until several years after the peace process, btw)and there was massive international support and support WITHIN Israel for a viable Palestinian state.

The reason the Sharons and the Netanyahus were able to win those elections was because, everytime it got close to a settlement, everytime a state was on the verge of being created, the crazies started attacking innocent Israelis. When they did that, they gave aid and comfort to the Sharons of Israeli politics.

Every time you make Israelis fear for their lives, you make a Palestinian state less likely. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Israel was not and is not a monolith in its view of Palestinians. A lot of Israelis were willing to back a Palestinian state. But Hamas kept jumping in and helping the ones who didn't want that to happen.

Can you really defend those tactics, given what they've produced?

Can you really say that Palestinians are safer because of the suicide bombings?

Yes, the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis has been abominable. Yes the group has been punished for the acts of the few and this shouldn't have happened. But arguably, Hamas wanted this to happen because it didn't want peace on somebody else's terms.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 September 2006 11:48 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Again it the dirty Arabs fault for losing their cool.


Actually its not totally their fault. I read an interesting article that helps to explain why there seems to be such an addiction to violence and suicide bombings in the Arab world and in much of the rest of the Muslim world. Apparently it all stems from a culture where violence against women is not only tolerated but encouraged. Anytime you have a culture where women are treated with total derision and where their lives are devalued, sure as day follows night, young men grow up to worship violence. Apparently, it is very common in traditional Muslim cultures for women to be savagely beaten and sometimes even raped by male members of their families in full view of their children. Witnessing this goes a long way towards creating generations of you ng men who feel that it is "masculine" to be violent and to die for the "culture" whereas anything that smacks of peace is viewed as femine and therefor worthy of contempt.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 27 September 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually its not totally their fault. I read an interesting article that helps to explain why there seems to be such an addiction to violence and suicide bombings in the Arab world and in much of the rest of the Muslim world. Apparently it all stems from a culture where violence against women is not only tolerated but encouraged

This is plain bigotry and you know it, Stockholm!

What if someone comes up with such trash as the Jewish culture is one of conspiring, back-stabbing and selling one's own mother for a buck ?

Wouldn't that be plain bigotry ? What is the difference then ?

Get off the frigging potty, Stockholm !


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 27 September 2006 12:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It stands as an excellent example of the racism faced by Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza and from Israel. As witnessed elsewhere such bigotry is just a short step from violence, "because, you know, they are not the same as you and me. Violence is all they understand."

Ken Burch still has not explained how Israeli violence and brutality will stop just because Palestinians stop resisting violence, brutality, and the racism that underlies all of it.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 September 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would it be "racist" to say that American culture has a problem with how it treats racial minorities?

Violence against women is a scourge around the globe and has been linked to a coarsening of society and a tolerance of all forms of violence whereever it rears its ugly head.

What we need is a peace movement that crosses the sectarian divide in the Middle East. Israel has Peace Now, but it would be nice if in the Arab world a peace movement that totally rejects violence could start up as well and then people from both sides could join hands against their warmongering political leaders.

We saw something like that happen in Northern Ireland when women from the Catholic and Protestant sides formed a non-sectarian peace movement (depsite the IRA constantly trying to murder any Catholic who took part in it).

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 27 September 2006 01:25 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm,

You have yet to answer for your bigotry.


quoting Stockholm:

quote:
Actually its not totally their fault. I read an interesting article that helps to explain why there seems to be such an addiction to violence and suicide bombings in the Arab world and in much of the rest of the Muslim world. Apparently it all stems from a culture where violence against women is not only tolerated but encouraged

sidra replied

quote:
This is plain bigotry and you know it, Stockholm!

What if someone comes up with such trash as the Jewish culture is one of conspiring, back-stabbing and selling one's own mother for a buck ?

Wouldn't that be plain bigotry ? What is the difference then ?

Get off the frigging potty, Stockholm !


[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 September 2006 01:26 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ken Burch still has not explained how Israeli violence and brutality will stop just because Palestinians stop resisting violence, brutality, and the racism that underlies all of it.
.

I didn't say "Stop resisting". There are other ways to resist besides suicide bombings and getting your allies to launch missile attacks on innocent civilians.

I said present a real alternative, fight for a progressive vision, use violence, if it must be used, only against those in uniform.

There is at least the chance that, if the world can see a Palestinian leadership that is willing now to work through diplomacy and suspend violence during diplomatic processes, this can lead to a state. Your way can't, Mess.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 27 September 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm,

Do the right thing and apologize for your bigotry.
The alternative is that I will call on the moderator to intervene.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 September 2006 01:42 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I apologize for singling out mysogynism in Muslim society - since it obviously exists elsewhere.

But, you know Heinrich Heine once wrote "where books are burned someday people will be burned as well". I believe that where woman and sexual minorities are beaten oppressed and humiliated, all members of that society get coarsened and violence gets accepted and encouraged.

We know that children who get beaten by their parents and who witness spousal abuse typically become abusers themselves. This is why we need a concerted effort to put an end to violence against women. We have made great strides in the western world, but primitive societies lag far far behind. There will never be peace in the Middle East or in Kashmir or in Sri Lanka (for example) etc...and many other places as long as there is a culture that tolerates and celebrates men beating up women.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 27 September 2006 01:53 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I said present a real alternative, fight for a progressive vision, use violence, if it must be used, only against those in uniform.

That is quite interesting given the latest violence against Palestinians, which has yet to raise the international condemnation you claim it will, began with the capture of a man in uniform.

Some recent headlines (none North American, of course):

"Human rights group B'Tselem determines bombing of power plant in Gaza constitutes war crime and was carried out as 'vengeance'"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3308615,00.html

"Israel has turned the Gaza Strip into a prison for Palestinians where life is intolerable, a human rights envoy has told the United Nations Human Rights Council."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E34809EA-4840-4444-A5B2-F9A3C5E6AA01.htm

""IDF troops currently stationed in Lebanon have permission to open fire on stone-throwing Hizbullah supporters," IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.- Gen. Dan Halutz said at Wednesday's cabinet meeting."

Jerusalem Post

Maybe you can answer a hypothetical question for me: a man is being beaten by skinheads just because he is black. What form of resistance would you deem appropriate for him?

Also, please note Stockholm's most recent comments. I will summarize parts of them for you:

"I read an interesting article that helps to explain why there seems to be such an addiction to violence and suicide bombings in the Arab world and in much of the rest of the Muslim world. Apparently it all stems from a culture where violence against women is not only tolerated but encouraged."

"I apologize for singling out mysogynism in Muslim society "

See, for bigots like Stockholm all Arabs are muslim and in the language of Zionists all muslims are terrorists, but I understand it is Palestinian attitudes you are concerned with which is why I assume you are concerned with attitude of the hypothetical black man above.

"where books are burned someday people will be burned as well"

Yes, we've seen that in Lebanon and Gaza. But you support the racist state responsible.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 27 September 2006 02:22 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm: Nice 10,000th post. Your analysis of violence in that part of the world is shallow, the bigotry in your statement (you obviously support the sentiments in the arcticle you read) is egregious, and your apology is lame.

quote:
Actually its not totally their fault. I read an interesting article that helps to explain why there seems to be such an addiction to violence and suicide bombings in the Arab world and in much of the rest of the Muslim world. Apparently it all stems from a culture where violence against women is not only tolerated but encouraged. Anytime you have a culture where women are treated with total derision and where their lives are devalued, sure as day follows night, young men grow up to worship violence. Apparently, it is very common in traditional Muslim cultures for women to be savagely beaten and sometimes even raped by male members of their families in full view of their children. Witnessing this goes a long way towards creating generations of you ng men who feel that it is "masculine" to be violent and to die for the "culture" whereas anything that smacks of peace is viewed as femine and therefor worthy of contempt.


If any newbie posted this sort of garbage about Arabs or Islam in general, they'd be history as soon as Michelle or I saw it.

Given your years here, I'm probably guilty of unforgivable favouritism in not banning you entirely, but you're out of here for a week. Any more crap like that and you're gone for good.

BTW, this thread is too long.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 27 September 2006 02:24 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Actually its not totally their fault. I read an interesting article that helps to explain why there seems to be such an addiction to violence and suicide bombings in the Arab world and in much of the rest of the Muslim world. Apparently it all stems from a culture where violence against women is not only tolerated but encouraged. Anytime you have a culture where women are treated with total derision and where their lives are devalued, sure as day follows night, young men grow up to worship violence. Apparently, it is very common in traditional Muslim cultures for women to be savagely beaten and sometimes even raped by male members of their families in full view of their children. Witnessing this goes a long way towards creating generations of you ng men who feel that it is "masculine" to be violent and to die for the "culture" whereas anything that smacks of peace is viewed as femine and therefor worthy of contempt.


How do you explain the incidence of violent crime in the United States, and the obsessive fetishization of same in the dominant media? Beyond your competence I suspect.

In my experience in many ways Arab cultures, for all their practice of the traditional gender roles that only waned in our own culture in the post war period, are more in touch with their feminine aspect than our own expansionist/colonialist western cultures.

No other culture can trump the two WESTERN world wars of the past century; what does that tell us about our own culture of violence?

Whatever article you read belongs on the shelf beside the Protocols of Zion and Mein Kampf, methinks.

And finally, as far as I can tell, in the 'Arab world' a good deal of the 'violence' of which you speak appears to be visited upon them by us superior peacelovin' whiteys, and in the case of Iraq, has been instrumental in unleashing a Pandora's box of it. Look how things fell apart in New Orleans after the hurricane. Add in a massive foreign military presence. You think the locals would be so different, for 'cultural' reasons?

Pffft.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 27 September 2006 02:24 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[QB] People from the Israeli left and the peace movement were killed in suicide bombing attacks. I assume even B L Zeebub LLD would agree that those people never deserved to be harmed.

What?!? Even I would agree? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 27 September 2006 02:30 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, I thought I closed this! Oh well...
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
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