Pickled Politics






  • Family

    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Sajini W
    • Sid's blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • Aqoul
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Catalyst magazine
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry's Place
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Liberal Review
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy's Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Tasneem Khalil
    • The Other India
    • Tim Worstall
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Desi Pundit
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man's fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown





  • Site Meter

    Technorati: graph / links

    Impossible discussions


    by Sunny on 15th July, 2006 at 2:20 am    

    I’ve deleted the Israel / Lebanon thread after some thought. My reasons are:

    1) It’s impossible to comprehensively cover what is going on and analyse the motivations of all the players involved. Plus, events are constantly changing on the ground making it difficult to provide a clear picture.

    2) I wasn’t able to add anything new to an already quite vociferous debate. It would simply have become one humongous slagging match and soured the atmosphere. Maybe I’ll come back to it in a few days.



    Print this page and comments   |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Uncategorized




    65 Comments below   |  

    1. Desi Italiana — on 15th July, 2006 at 2:30 am  

      Sunny-

      Since one of the issues is prisoners, here is an article from USA Today* citing how many Palestinian prisoners are languishing in Israeli prisons. I couldn’t find the number of Lebanese prisoners in Israel- indeed, Israel will not disclose how many it is holding:

      -”Israeli holds an estimated 9,000 Palestinian prisoners.”

      -”The Israeli army would not disclose how many Lebanese prisoners Israel holds.”

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-12-hezbollah_x.htm

      I may be wrong, so correct me if I am, but holding Lebanese prisoners- nationals of another country- in Israel violates international law. Imagine if Italy decided to invade England, and then took thousands of British citizens and put them in Italian prisons. British citizens would have no access to the British government.

      * I tried to provide a link from mainstream US media instead of, say, Al Jazeera, which has in depth coverage, so as to avoid being accused of having cited “Arab propagandistic sources”- though then the question that comes to mind is: mainstream US media and Israeli media are not questionable but Arab media is? But whatever.

    2. Desi Italiana — on 15th July, 2006 at 2:34 am  

      Sunny:

      E-mail me, I’ll forward you a couple of things re: this topic.

    3. Desi Italiana — on 15th July, 2006 at 2:35 am  

      Never mind, found your e-mail address.

      You can delete post #2 and this one as well :)

    4. sonia — on 15th July, 2006 at 3:03 am  

      It’s certainly difficult if one wants to comprehensively cover what’s going on as certainly no one really seems to know much about it all anyways. perhaps it might be an idea to highlight what other people are thinking - for me it’s always interesting to gain an insight into what the people on the ground think. the MSM are always rather dubious and as for politicians..

      i’ve visited this site a while back - Bitter Lemons - an Israeli-Palestinian collaboration - worth checking them out..

      http://www.bitterlemons.org/

    5. Tanvir — on 15th July, 2006 at 3:28 am  

      It is a good idea to highlight the plight of Arab prisoners which include women and children in Israeli jails, many held without charge since it was with the hope of their release that the soldiers were taken.

      Perhaps Iraqi Shias and Sunnis could take example of their brethren in Palestine and Lebanon and stop killing each other!

    6. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 15th July, 2006 at 5:09 am  

      Sunny,

      3) Because it is kinda boring, repetitive to talk about.

      4) It may give the impressions that those lives are more worthy of ponder than others.

    7. Chairwoman — on 15th July, 2006 at 8:19 am  

      Tanvir, first of all let me admit my bias by saying that I am Jewish. Secondly may I point out that the ‘children’ are of a similar age to the conscripted corporal who is 19, unless you can tell me that they are the children of female prisoners who elected to take them with them. As for women prisoners. Don’t be so sexist, women can commit all the same crimes as men, and suffer the same consequences.

      And yes, I can take all the stick I’m about to get despite my advanced years.

    8. lucklucky — on 15th July, 2006 at 8:37 am  

      So this is the start of a new discussion?!

      The Lebanese prisioners in Israel are Heezbollah members that infiltrated trought the border or when Israel had the buffer zone. Which they may reinstate since the magic wand of “land for peace” seems to not have worked. What a surprise for beaurocrats!

    9. leon — on 15th July, 2006 at 5:11 pm  

      Probably a wise move Sunny, as I said I wanted to write something but didn’t know where to begin.

      The subject is open to so much anger its hard to see how one person can cover it clearly…

    10. Leon — on 15th July, 2006 at 6:48 pm  

      If anyone is so inclined to continue this I did start a thread over at Urban75.com linking to the original piece here. There’s some very interesting background and contrasts on the coverage of what happened before the soldiers where taken (kidnapping of children etc by Israeli forces): http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=169808

    11. Opinionated Voice — on 16th July, 2006 at 2:42 am  

      i thought that disappeared suddenly. You should stil cover it. Any article an discussion would be valid.

    12. Refresh — on 16th July, 2006 at 3:40 am  

      Sunny - I thought you were giving the subject a wide berth. I hadn’t realised it had appeared and then got deleted.

      You should have it - lets face it, you don’t have to write much to allow us to share our views - for example it could have simply been

      “Israel opens a second front - Lebanon under attack. Is it the pre-cursor to the final push into Syria and then Iran?”.

    13. Roger — on 16th July, 2006 at 8:39 am  

      “The Lebanese prisioners in Israel are Heezbollah members that infiltrated trought the border or when Israel had the buffer zone.”
      This is probably true of most of them. Even so, the fact that their cases have not been tried or independently examined, the fact that there is no record of who is held and what for, that there is no independent arbiter to check on the conditions under which they are held and that they are held indefinitely all justifiably damage Israel’s reputation in the world.

    14. Refresh — on 16th July, 2006 at 10:35 am  

      The Israeli army would ‘turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years’.

      That seemed to be an Israeli objective, pushing one half of Lebanese society to turn on the other. Sabira & Chatila but on a grander scale perhaps?

      The danger Israel faces is that turning clocks back actually become fashionable and progressive. Turning it back 60 years might become the goal of world public opinion.

      I am beginning to think that the only way to exert pressure on Israel is roll-back its brutally achieved gains.

      Next step - de-recognition.

    15. Katy Newton — on 16th July, 2006 at 12:48 pm  

      Brilliant, Refresh. Yes, derecognition would solve the problem beautifully. Lend immediately legitimacy to the kidnap of soldiers by terrorist groups, back Israel into a corner and leave it with nothing to lose. That wouldn’t make an already impossible situation worse at all. If only you were in charge of sorting the Middle East out I’m sure things would be much much better.

    16. Refresh — on 16th July, 2006 at 1:05 pm  

      Katy, I think it would. Yes Israel will flail about as it always does. It’ll arm its nukes.

      With each step it will expose its underbelly - and its mastery of PR will count for nothing. Simply because it will be its own actions that will delegitimise it.

      The alternative of course is to join in with the nations in the region and build a middle east which is stable and prosperous. That requires withdrawing from all occupied lands - meet its obligations of past UN resolutions - and heavily compensate all Palestinians for crimes committed.

      Set up a truth and reconciliation body as in South Africa - and lets bury this problem once and for all.

      And by the way - Israelis should apologies to the Palestinians and thank them for their phenomenal generosity in recognising Israel.

      The situation has been impossible from the beginning thanks to Ben Gurion - and its been kept that way for a purpose.

    17. Sunny — on 16th July, 2006 at 2:23 pm  

      Refresh - open discussions on a partisan topic such as the Middle East don’t help either.

      As is obvious from the above exchange.

    18. Refresh — on 16th July, 2006 at 2:58 pm  

      Sunny, don’t help with what? I am a bit confused with what you’re trying to say.

      Should we not have an open discussion? And its only partisan if you allow someone to define it as such.

    19. Sunny — on 16th July, 2006 at 3:54 pm  

      Refresh - I see the point of PP as a way to have discussions on where we should stand on issues and find ways of moving forward. It is also a place to vent our feelings on world affairs of course.

      The problem with Middle East discussions are that there is very little discussion on reaching a middle ground when the situations become increasingly polarised.

      Then, as the situation is now, a discussion just turns into one big slagging match as it always does on CIF.

      For a start there is no way to actually be even-handed other than describe the facts. Any attempt to provide context is open to bias. So what do you do? What does a discussion actually achieve?

    20. Refresh — on 16th July, 2006 at 5:12 pm  

      Sunny, thanks for that.

      I was listening to Question Time the other day and Bob Marshall Andrews put it very well when it came to being even-handed. I will dig out the transcript.

      The biggest problem is that we have erred into even-handed territory which to me contributes disproportionately to the injustice.

      It is time to stand on side of right against might. Against mistruths and the Israeli ministry of jiggerypokery.

      Do we really mean even-handed in outcomes or just words to salve our conscience?

    21. Katy Newton — on 16th July, 2006 at 5:33 pm  

      “The biggest problem is that we have erred into even-handed territory which to me contributes disproportionately to the injustice.”

      That is an astonishing thing to say. How can you “err” into being even handed? How can being even-handed contribute to injustice at all, disproportionately or not? Where is the error in considering both sides of the story without prejudice?

    22. jonz — on 16th July, 2006 at 5:35 pm  

      If only you were in charge of sorting the Middle East out I’m sure things would be much much better. [regarding Refresh]

      Well thank fuck that’s not the case.

      And by the way - Israelis should apologies to the Palestinians and thank them for their phenomenal generosity in recognising Israel.

      God you’re fucking prick.

    23. Sunny — on 16th July, 2006 at 5:54 pm  

      we have erred into even-handed territory which to me contributes disproportionately to the injustice.

      I don’t buy that at all. If you expect me to buy into Hamas and Hizbullah’s murderous ways, you’re wasting your time.

    24. Refresh — on 16th July, 2006 at 5:57 pm  

      Katy,

      Being even-handed in a genuine way would be to solve the problem in context of what’s gone before. Specifically the lost lives, lost land, lost futures. Not well if such and such had not happened, then Israel would not decimate Lebanon for example. That is not even-handed. That is cover.

      j0nz - ok, but you don’t actually disagree?

    25. Refresh — on 16th July, 2006 at 6:00 pm  

      Sunny, no not askng you do that. I was careful in what I said as its so easy to be railroaded on these matters. [Perhaps why you thought it was worth deleting the original thread].

    26. El Cid — on 16th July, 2006 at 6:11 pm  

      How are we defining even-handed here?
      Let’s say we had a jury of 12 good (wo)men to judge the situation in Israel/Palestine, would it mean having 6 Arabs and 6 Jews? Aside from the likely deadlock, in the interests of justice would it not be better to have 12 atheists/christians/hindus/buddhists?

    27. Chairwoman — on 16th July, 2006 at 6:33 pm  

      Refresh, the State of Israel, which is 2 years younger than I am, has had nuclear capability for most of that time. Despite many provocations it has never armed its warheads and blasted its enemies to kingdom come.

      If I were not a mature lady I might call you a twat

    28. Roger — on 16th July, 2006 at 6:45 pm  

      The trouble is that there are different kinds of “rights” involved here: Israelis believe that they or their recent ancestors have returned to their own land- the one where they originated as a people and which- in the eyes of some- god gave to them. They may have had to throw out people who thought- mistakenly- that their right of possession outweighed the Israelis right of return. The Israelis are very kindly not even claiming the whole of their ancestral land this time. There’s the further complication that the oriental jews were expelled from their native lands and forced to go to Israel- does the right to live there differ in the case of those who went willingly and those who were forced? Do the jews expelled from arab countries have the right to claim compensation from the countries that threw tham out? Do they have a right of return to those countries and their confiscated property- or even an obligation of return, perhaps? Does the fact that present generations of israelis were born there change things?
      Equally, do third-generation exiles from Palestine have rights to return? It isn’t just a matter of the Palestinians in the area formerly known as Palestine- what about the ones in arab countries? They are locked up in refugee camps. They were born in countries they aren’t citizens of; either they need a new citizenship or they will have nothing but guns and fantasies of violent return.
      This is a general problem in the Middle East. Only ten per cent of the population of the UAE are citizens- what future can such a country have? what loyalty can it expect of the people who live there?

    29. El Cid — on 16th July, 2006 at 6:49 pm  

      Refresh, a prick AND a twat — that’s some achievement!
      Chairwoman Despite many provocations it has never armed its warheads and blasted its enemies to kingdom come Wow, ain’t dat nice. Is it coz dey is also in da proximity and going nuclear would, ultimately, serve to harden and broaden the opposition.
      I must say, despite the many provocations the UK has never armed its warheads and blasted France to kingdom come. They don’t know how lucky they are.

    30. Chairwoman — on 16th July, 2006 at 7:06 pm  

      El Cid, it’s a long time since we were at war with France.

      I don’t disagree with you that one of the reasons that the warheads have not been armed is Israel’s proximity to its enemies, but there are leaders all over the world that might press the button first and remember the consequences later.

    31. Sunny — on 16th July, 2006 at 7:20 pm  

      but there are leaders all over the world that might press the button first and remember the consequences later.

      I’m not sure how this adds to the discussion. India and Pak have at least declared their nuclear ambitions and plans, more than Israel has done, and they’ve come quite close to war so many times that the sub-continent would probably be the first place to go kaboom.

    32. Chairwoman — on 16th July, 2006 at 7:25 pm  

      I didn’t actually have any of the current nuclear powers in mind, Sunny. It was more the wannabees that bothered me.

    33. Sunny — on 16th July, 2006 at 7:35 pm  

      I see. Well, India, Pak and Israel were all wannabees at one point too, and were aided by other powers undercover (Soviet Union, N Korea/China, USA respectively).

      Given that none of the existing nuclear powers have really behaved ethically or really approached the nuclear problem with the enormity of what they are doing, it isn’t surprising we have a greater bunch of wannabees now.

    34. jonz — on 16th July, 2006 at 7:36 pm  

      Wot Roger said

    35. Katy Newton — on 16th July, 2006 at 8:42 pm  

      I liked what Roger said too.

    36. James G — on 16th July, 2006 at 8:53 pm  

      Boy,
      What an interesting discussion. Someone always seems to mention Sabra and Chatila which allegedly took place because of Israeli non-intervention, but they never tend to mention Sidon and Tyre. Sidon and Tyre had much higher body counts. Wonder why dat is? …Oh, yeah, that warm cuddly old man Arafat was behind those, that’s why.

      As far as Israel’s judicious use of force, if any or all of Israel’s enemies had the same capabilities that Israel had, Tel Aviv would be a smouldering pile of radioactive waste right now. Israel has the conventional capablities to concurrently destroy the complete infrastructures of every bordering country in less time than they have taken in the past five days or so.

    37. Desi Italiana — on 16th July, 2006 at 8:54 pm  

      Er….you guys know that Israel actuall is a nuclear power????

    38. Sunny — on 16th July, 2006 at 9:07 pm  

      To be honest Desi Italiana, I would rather Israel have nukes over its immediate neighbours. In fact I don’t even like the idea of India and Pak having them, though it has bought the region some stability.

      I think Refresh is trying to simplify things, though, as Roger points out, there are loads of conflicting questions.

    39. Leon — on 16th July, 2006 at 9:09 pm  

      Noam Chomsky interview posted at Znet here.

      What really caught my attention is his answer to the following question:

      AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Noam Chomsky, right now industrial world leaders gathered in St. Petersburg for the G8 meeting. What role does the U.S. have in this?

      NOAM CHOMSKY: In the G8 meeting?

      AMY GOODMAN: No. What role — they’re just gathered together — in this, certainly the issue of Lebanon, Gaza, the Middle East is going to dominate that discussion. But how significant is the U.S. in this?

      NOAM CHOMSKY: I think it will probably be very much like the UN resolution that you mentioned, which is — I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear what Mouin Rabbani was saying. But the UN resolution was — the veto of the UN resolution is standard. That goes back decades. The U.S. has virtually alone been blocking the possibility of diplomatic settlement, censure of Israeli crimes and atrocities. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the US vetoed several resolutions right away, calling for an end to the fighting and so on, and that was a hideous invasion. And this continues through every administration. So I presume it will continue at the G8 meetings.

      The United States regards Israel as virtually a militarized offshoot, and it protects it from criticism or actions and supports passively and, in fact, overtly supports its expansion, its attacks on Palestinians, its progressive takeover of what remains of Palestinian territory, and its acts to, well, actually realize a comment that Moshe Dayan made back in the early ’70s when he was responsible for the Occupied Territories. He said to his cabinet colleagues that we should tell the Palestinians that we have no solution for you, that you will live like dogs, and whoever will leave will leave, and we’ll see where that leads. That’s basically the policy. And I presume the U.S. will continue to advance that policy in one or another fashion.

    40. Desi Italiana — on 16th July, 2006 at 9:48 pm  

      Sunny:

      “To be honest Desi Italiana, I would rather Israel have nukes over its immediate neighbours. In fact I don’t even like the idea of India and Pak having them, though it has bought the region some stability.”

      What????????? To be honest, I wouldn’t. Anyway, the way things are now and the current situation, Israel doesn’t need to use them. Why would it?

      And to take it further, I don’t like the idea of seeing nukes in South Asia, and even the US having them. Yes, yes, I’m familiar witht the deterrance arguments and what not.

      Sunny- do you know how to get rid of the preview thing? And how do you quote something in italics and in red? That is pretty kickass.

      What’s the weather in the UK right now? Bet it is not as sweltering hot as it is here, where everybody moves in a sluggish, slow motion manner, too tired and exhausted to even go get something cold to drink. I prefer this ANYDAY to cold winters.

      And this is NOTHING compared to Bologna or India.

      Americans are such wimps.

      Please excuse me……..

    41. Katy Newton — on 16th July, 2006 at 9:57 pm  

      Actually I would quite like no one to have nukes at all.

    42. Refresh — on 16th July, 2006 at 10:00 pm  

      Chairwoman - the point about arming the nukes was in response to Katy’s “back Israel into a corner and leave it with nothing to lose.”

      And as I understand it Israel did threaten with nukes in 1973. Golda Meir used it to force Kissinger to fly in arms when they were on the verge of losing.

      And I am grateful you didn’t call me what you could have called me had you been a bit younger.

      El Cid - as you can see not quite the achievement you thought.

      As for being even-handed, I would prefer it be based on responding in a manner which delivers an even-handed and just outcome. Thus minimising longterm resentment, otherwise it would result in future generations taking up arms.

      Roger, the jewish right of return has not had much support on PP as a reasonable right, and I believe its not accepted across Judaic fellowship; and the fact that Eretz Israel no longer seems to be on the cards does not change the potential for that policy to re-emerge.

      As for the complications you eloquently point out - generally agree and accept. Hence the need to settle the matter now and not accept another decimation of Lebanon.

      My purpose was/is to bring clarity to the question in hand. How much longer does this madness go on? The more Israel gains the more it wants.

      And I thank Leon’s post regarding Moshe Dayan - that is precisely the starting point which informs how best to deal with Israel.

      Israel needs to see that it has something to lose - and right now what is there? Gestures only. A powerful one is surely how it values recognition - but once given it immediately loses its value. So a lateral approach is necessary - de-recognise.

      Nothing I’ve said is unreasonable. Unpalatable for some perhaps but not unreasonable.

      It covers all the complications that Roger pointed out. Except for one. The concept of jewish right of return; and the implicit ‘generosity’ that the state of Israel expresses by not pushing ahead with the Greater Israel project. That surely is the biggest twist in the history of mankind.

      Sunny, as for nuclear capability. The middle east should become nuclear-free. This is essential if we are to see a stable and prosperous Middle East.

    43. Refresh — on 16th July, 2006 at 10:05 pm  

      I agree with Katy and Desi - get rid of all nuclear weapons. End the hypocrisy.

    44. Nyrone — on 16th July, 2006 at 10:53 pm  

      Actually I would quite like no one to have nukes at all

      Ditto…..

    45. Leon — on 16th July, 2006 at 11:35 pm  

      There is a very interesting piece here about the possible wider strategy at work here:

      Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy

      Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.

      For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat — or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

      For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

    46. Sunny — on 17th July, 2006 at 1:48 am  

      I’m thinking Israel and America would like to destroy Hamas and Hizbullah first before they “make a step” towards peace. The danger is of course that neither get destroyed and the conflict widens as it has in Iraq. Hamas and Hizbullah were localised outfits and the wider Al-Qaeda network didn’t really get involved in the conflict with Israel directly. If they do now, the whole situation will get out of control. I really hope Iraq is not replicated across the Middle East.

    47. Desi Italiana — on 17th July, 2006 at 8:13 am  

      “And to take it further, I don’t like the idea of seeing nukes in South Asia, and even the US having them. Yes, yes, I’m familiar witht the deterrance arguments and what not.”

      I said this, but you know, deterrance works. Look at North Korea- no way in hell that the US would actually invade and attack N.Korea the way they did to Iraq.

      Lesson #1 in International Relations: if you don’t want the US messing with your country and don’t want to end up like Iraq, arm yourself with nukes!!

    48. Desi Italiana — on 17th July, 2006 at 8:15 am  

      So I’m against nukes, wish they would go away, wish that the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons — the US- would eliminate them and denuclearization is undertaken all over the globe.

      But the chances are slim. Fat chance that the US will get rid of its nukes.

    49. Chairwoman — on 17th July, 2006 at 11:51 am  

      Refresh the right of return is only not accepted by a small group of ultra orthodox fanatics who feel the biblical prophecy of the coming of the Messiah has to come to pass before the formation of the State of Israel. They also like to wear extremely warm clothing all the year round, so for me their judgement is impaired.

    50. Arif — on 17th July, 2006 at 12:14 pm  

      Just checking whether people still sign up to the four principles so far from the “Israel Wants War” discussion:

      1. No hostage taking (including “administrative detention”)
      2. No bombing in civilian areas
      3. No extra-judicial killing
      4. Willingness to talk about peaceful solutions with elected representatives, without preconditions, regardless of how much you condemn their policies.

      Any further principles people want to suggest that would be binding on both sides and acceptable to both sides of the debate here on PP?

      Has the Lebanon activity changed the acceptability of the four principles so far for any of you?

    51. sonia — on 17th July, 2006 at 12:54 pm  

      i think the Lebanon thing makes it more clear how important such principles are.

    52. sonia — on 17th July, 2006 at 1:02 pm  

      well technically Israel is classed as ‘ambiguous’.since they’ve refused to declare their position outright..heh heh i always thought that was funny. ‘ambiguous’

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

    53. Refresh — on 17th July, 2006 at 2:28 pm  

      Sunny, “I’m thinking Israel and America would like to destroy Hamas and Hizbullah first before they “make a step” towards peace.” - surely you cannot believe that?
      After decades of facts on the ground?

      Given even Iran had offered to settle all outstanding issues inc. Palestine (2003); and Arab league offer of recognition and rapid move to normalisation (2002) you not only want to beleive there is something at the end of that rainbow - but want nuclear weapons trained on those that make these offers. Because THEY can’t be trusted.

      No, something else is going on.

    54. Desi Italiana — on 17th July, 2006 at 7:54 pm  

      Chairwoman:

      “Refresh the right of return is only not accepted by a small group of ultra orthodox fanatics who feel the biblical prophecy of the coming of the Messiah has to come to pass before the formation of the State of Israel. They also like to wear extremely warm clothing all the year round, so for me their judgement is impaired.”

      -” If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us. But what does that matter to them?…there has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only know one thing: we have stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
      -Ben Gurion

      -Ehud Barak stated, “had he born Palestinian, he ‘would have joined a terrorist organization’” .

      -Yitzhak Rabin: “The red line for Arabs is 20% of the population, that must not be gone over…” and if there were to be a binational state, he replied, “I want to preserve the Jewish character of the state of Isreal not by name only, but also in action, values, language, and culture. This does not mean that one one lives in it except the Jews. But today there are 4.4 million Jews vs. 2.8 or 3 million Arabs and this cannot continue”
      -Rabin

      ” It was not as though there were a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist”

      -Golda Meir

      - We have to use the pretext of security needs and the authority of the military governor as there is no way of driving out the Arabs [note the designation of “Arab” rather than “Palestinian”, erasing the linkage of Palestinians to Palestine] from their land as long as they refuse to go and accept our compensation”
      -Dayan

      Are any of above “ultra orthodox fanatics”? And given the opinions and policies quoted above, does it logically follow that they would accept the “right of return”?

      As a sidenote, another quote regarding the Holocaust and Israel:

      -”If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second-because we face not only the reckoning of these children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people”
      -Ben Gurion

      I am sure there are similar quotes from contemporary leaders…but do not have time right now to dig up.

      BTW, there is a “Pro Israel Demonstration” in downtown Chicago today, which is being widely publicized on the radio all this morning.

    55. Leon — on 17th July, 2006 at 8:05 pm  

      Been looking for a timeline for all this to try and make sense of it. Found the following interesting:

      The IDF is Hungry for War - What Are They Fighting For?

      Whatever may be the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army’s war in Gaza is not about him. As senior security analyst Alex Fishman widely reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government. The army initiated an escalation on 8 June when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Governmental authorization for action on a larger scale was already given by 12 June, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force bombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch, and the operation began on 28 June with the destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance.

      (1) In Israeli discourse, Israel ended the occupation in Gaza when it evacuated its settlers from the Strip, and the Palestiniansí behavior therefore constitutes ingratitude. But there is nothing further from reality than this description. In fact, as was already stipulated in the Disengagement Plan, Gaza remained under complete Israeli military control, operating from outside. Israel prevented any possibility of economic independence for the Strip and from the very beginning, Israel did not implement a single one of the clauses of the agreement on border-crossings of November 2005.

      Israel simply substituted the expensive occupation of Gaza with a cheap occupation, one which in Israel’s view exempts it from the occupier’s responsibility to maintain the Strip, and from concern for the welfare and the lives of its million and a half residents, as determined in the fourth Geneva convention. Israel does not need this piece of land, one of the most densely populated in the world, and lacking any natural resources. The problem is that one cannot let Gaza free, if one wants to keep the West Bank. A third of the occupied Palestinians live in the Gaza strip. If they are given freedom, they would become the center of Palestinian struggle for liberation, with free access to the Western and Arab world.

      To control the West Bank, Israel needs full control of Gaza. The new form of control Israel has developed is turning the whole of the Strip into a prison camp completely sealed from the world. Besieged occupied people with nothing to hope for, and no alternative means of political struggle, will always seek ways to fight their oppressor.

    56. Chairwoman — on 18th July, 2006 at 8:24 am  

      Desi Italiana - I’ve read all your quotes and don’t find any of them against the right of return per se, they give reasons, however, why others should be against it.

      Thank you for the amount of research you have done in preparing your reply to me, kudos to you.

      I will give this more thought, and be back to you, probably tomorrow, as I have a hospital appointment today, and goodness knows how long that will take.

    57. Refresh — on 18th July, 2006 at 9:53 am  

      This could go on either this thread or ‘Isael wants War’:

      “The west must recognise that Israel’s agenda is in conflict with its own

      The Olmert government, Hizbullah and Hamas are tacitly united in rejection of any moves towards a compromise peace”

      David Clark on CiF

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1822145,00.html

    58. sonia — on 18th July, 2006 at 12:17 pm  

      Interesting quotes Desi Italiana

    59. jonz — on 18th July, 2006 at 1:44 pm  

      A heavily armed militia attacks your territory. What are you meant to do?

    60. Sid — on 18th July, 2006 at 1:59 pm  

      If Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours

    61. Refresh — on 18th July, 2006 at 5:56 pm  

      Excellent piece Sid. Best one for a long while.

      Worth reading some of the comments too.

    62. Desi Italiana — on 19th July, 2006 at 3:16 am  

      Chairwoman:

      “Desi Italiana - I’ve read all your quotes and don’t find any of them against the right of return per se, they give reasons, however, why others should be against it.”

      Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush, and I thought the quotes were self explanatory. My point was counteract your claim that only the ultra orthodox who wear warm clothing in the summer think this way. I wanted to illustrate that instead, this is mainstream opinion. These quotes are implicitly against the right of return, given the various desires that I’ve alluded to on the other thread “Israel Wants War’.

      As far as I know, no Israeli politician has ever proposed the right of return. One Israeli, who is a professor, Ilan Pappe, is one of the VERY, VERY few who actually states that the right of return must be given to Palestinian refugees.

      “Thank you for the amount of research you have done in preparing your reply to me, kudos to you.”

      No problem- getting the quotes was actually not that time consuming. I have been studying this for years, although you wouldn’t be able to tell because I know I often just post assertions here on PP.

      A question, not only to you, but to others as well. And I am not being snarky or condescending at all, I just sincerely want to know: have people actually read the history of Israel, the documents written by Zionist leaders, thinkers, and politicians and complemented it with historians of Palestine? Because the things we generally hear are in stark contrast to the facts on ground.

      Will try to dig up things about current leaders like Olmert.

    63. Lebanon and Gaza in Flames at pass the roti on the left hand side — on 19th July, 2006 at 8:37 am  

      […] * Sid over on Pickled Politics, provided this link on comment #60. […]

    64. Desi Italiana — on 19th July, 2006 at 7:29 pm  

      I blogged about Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza, trying to make sense of the situation, so come on over if you’d like!

      (PS. Sunny, I tried to do a “trackback” link, but it didn’t work, similar to how you linked to my Dubai blog.)

    65. George — on 25th July, 2006 at 12:00 pm  

      Dear colleagues & friends, PLEASE Spread the message for the whole world know how Israelis raise their children! Now you can tell who the terrorist is!

      Subject: Israeli kids send gifts to Lebanese kids,Lebanese kids receivethem!!!!!!!!!

      Sorry you won’t see the picture showing Israeli kids signing the heads of bombs to be fired at Lebanese.

      Shame on them!!

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.