babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
If the UN declared Jerusalem to be an "international city" (whatever that means - does that mean that if the bus schedule is off - I shoudl complain to Ban-Ki-Moon??) - then it also means that Palestinians have no right to it cannot make it their capital either.
Oh really, Stockholm? You think the U.N. has jurisdiction over sovereign peoples and states? All I said was that the claim by the Israeli racists and war criminals to any part of Jerusalem enjoys NO support anywhere in this world. The people of the region will decide what to do with Al-Quds - not you, not the U.N., not I.
ETA on second thought
Ken Burch, if you're still watching, here is the official position of the Palestinian National Authority on Jerusalem:
Source.
The people who live in Jerusalem have "jurisdiction" over it. Right now there are something like half a million Israelis there - what do you recommend - deporting them all to Poland??
The Palestinians don't ven want west Jerusalem. How can you create an Islamic state under Sharia law if you have over 50% of the population who are non-Muslims?
"Palestine shall be committed to guaranteeing freedom of worship and access"
That's nice to hear - I wonder what happened to that sentiment during the 1948 to 1967 when the Palestinians controlled Old Jerusalem and went out of their way to desecrate Jewish religious locations even using Jewish gravestones to build roads for people to walk on. I;d like to believe that they have a more charitable attitude towards other religions now. Please provide some evidence that is the case.
No, I was thinking maybe your place.
That's an Islamophobic statement - which I know is just there for fun baiting purposes - but you're not supposed to do that on babble, so I'm reporting you, with sadness.
This is indeed the danger of the "forget" everything prior to 67 position you are defending. Somehow you end up saying that the Palestinians "now wanted all of Jerusalem" as if this is some new "extra" demand, when in fact the present Palestinian position of accepting only East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state is a major concession on their part.
Sometime in the future, after you have stuffed everything that has happened between 1967 and the present because of some alleged "international consensus" you will be going on about how you are surprised that the Palestinians "now want all of Hebron" as the capital of the Palestinian state.
Greedy fucks, those Palestinians, always wanting what we are taking from them.
The charter of Hamas calls for the creation of an "islamic state" in Palestine. I would like to know how exactly you go about creating an Islamic state if the majority of the population is not Muslim and wants no part of that? (Not to mention that many Muslims want no part of an Islamic state) How? I'd like to know. What's the secret recipe?
Sorry, but I just have to post this whenever I read about the Israeli/Palestine situation -
John Lennon:
Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...
Why would you think I would EVER "stuff everything that has happened between 1967 and now"? I've never absolved the Israelis of anything or in any condoned the Occupation or the Siege. You're being very hostile in this and you're making assumptions about where I come down on the issues that are completely unfounded.
I abhor everything the Israelis have done to Palestinians since 1967. I realize that it's a major concesson on the Palestinians' part to even consider accepting the continuation of Israel in any form at all. I just thought that what they always had said was they wanted East Jerusalem, that West Jerusalem(which was always, as far as I knew predominately Jewish)was not so much a concern. As I said, if I was wrong about that, I stand corrected. Please stop acting as if I suddenly turned into Bernie Farber or Hillary Clinton.
Yes, well the Israeli declaration of independence calls for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. You don't seem to find that so appauling.
Hamas has made some noises about recognizing the 1949 armistice line as a basis for peace - and the 1949 armistice line puts west Jerusalem in Israel and east Jerusalem in Jordan (to be grandfathered to Palestine).
BTW: I'm surprised that Harper in his efforts to be more pro-Israel than Avigdor Lieberman hasn't yet resurrected Joe Clarks promise to move to the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? What's he waiting for??
And I wasn't saying "forget everything PRIOR to 67".
Even in my early posts here on the subject, when I was more pro-Israel than I am now, I never said that(at least as far as I can recollect).
There needs to be major compensation to Palestinians for the dispossession and an admission that they were victims of a great injustice in 1948. I'd even be willing to support some form of Right of Return. There's nothing I've said on this issue for a very long time(and my position has changed since I've started posting here)to justfiy your conclusions about me. I'd even be willing to consider a unitary state as a long-term goal...but there would have to be a reconciliation process(with a lot of reparations to Palestinians)before that would really work. It wouldn't work right now because the animosity is too deep.
Why are you acting like I'm a Likudnik or something?
I find it "appalling" if it has to be a Jewish state in the entire old mandate of Palestine (ie: everything between the Med. and the Jordan river) with no rights for non-Jews - (i.e. if Israel annexed all the occupied territories and forced all 2 million Palestinians to convert to Judaism and/or live under Jewish religious law).
Anyway, all this stuff about Jerusalem is thread drift, and I'm sorry I participated in it. It would make a very interesting thread. The issue here is the Canada Israel Committee and its homophobic attack on Libby Davies. Should Jack Layton condemn it - or say nothing?
I don't know why. You seem perfectly happy to flush everything prior to 1967 down the memory hole, why not also everything from then until 2010?
You proclaim your surprise at the idea that Palestinians might now demand all of Jerusalem as the proper capital for their state, as if this was some kind of extra new agressive territorial demand, as opposed to recognizing that agreeing only to having East Jerusalem as the capital is a major concession on their part.
The people who are now demanding more, are not the Palestinians, but the Isrealis, who are now demanding all of Jerusalem as part of their territory. Indeed as we speak they are affecting this land transfer through an agressive policy of disallowing Palestinian development, ongoing evictions of Palestinian families, and giving out permits to Jews seeking to build in East Jerusalem.
Oh Stock, me thinks you are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room.
I'd actually like to see a gay rights organization like Egale take the lead in demanding an apology from the Canada-Israel Committee.
Ridiculous, Hamas has always affirmed the rights of minorities, including Jews and Christians in their proposed state. Indeed they ran several Christian candidates in the last elections. It's practically Qu'ranic law that provisions be made for religious minorities. Indeed their arguement is that Islam is far a more appropriate model for creating a multiethnic state than Judaism, because Judaism makes absolutely no such provisions for minority rights.
Therefore there is no basis for your claim that Hamas proposes to impose a uniform religious state that enforces religous conformity.
For most intents and purposes it is, though not legitimately so.
I do try to ignore Unionist as much as possible - though I wouldn;t be so hard on him as to call him an elephant.
"Its practically Qu'ranic law that provisions be made for religious minorities."
I guess someone forgot to tell Saudi Arabia - where its actually illegal to be anything other than Muslim.
But how exactly do you create an "islamic state" is Muslims are the minority?? What is the Qu'ranic law provisions for religious MAJORITIES that are non-Muslim??
Egale is a bad example. They joined with the CJC to bar a Muslim cleric from Canada, based on phony "evidence" from the racist pro-Zionist CCD.
Jack Layton should consider speaking out publicly when his Deputy Leader has been called a "mouthy lesbian" by a registered Ottawa lobby group.
Is that rocket science?
Okay that was funny, although you know that is not what I mean )
It might interest you to know that Helen Kennedy the Director or Egale is a member of the Pride Day committee and cast one of the dissenting votes AGAINST preventing QAIA taking part in the parade.
Ok, thanks for that info, Stockholm. I guess she'll be saying that the CIC should not have called Libby Davies a "mouthy lesbian", then? I guess we don't need to lobby Egale on that issue, since they're so pro-LGBTQ and pro-free-speech? Let me know when that happens. I'm all ears.
And I guess it's proper for Jack Layton not to condemn a homophobic attack on his Deputy Leader, because it's someone else's jurisdiction to do that, eh?
And as I pointed out. If you actually bothered to read Hamas statements on this, and indeed their original charter they explicitly express the principle of a multireligious state, under Islamic guidance:
Hamas Charter
There is absolutely no foundation for your generalized and stereotyped hyperbole, exageration and libel, about mass expulsions of religious minorities.
I don't agree with this, but there is nothing in this that seperates it from the concept of a multi-ethnic state, defined under the banner of Judaism, as expressed in "secular" Zionism.
I would actually like the NDP and Egale to demand that the head of the Canada-Israel Committee personally apologize to Libby Davies and to all gays and lesbians - with tv cameras rolling.
"f you actually bothered to read Hamas statements on this, and indeed their original charter they explicitly express the principle of a multireligious state, under Islamic guidance"
Oh I se, so under Hamas rule I can be Jewish or Christian or atheist as long as I'm under "ISLAMIC GUIDANCE". Sounds like Philipine dictator Ferdinand Marcos describing his regime as "guided democracy".
Nope. You were saying they would not allow any Jews or Christians to live in their Islamic state, ala Saudi Arabia. It's just Islamophobic stereotyping and slander. You have no basis for making such assertions.
In fact, Hamas has explicitly distanced itself from those concepts, on paper, in the very charter you and others like you like quote when discussing how Hamas aims to kill Jews, "just because they are Jews". Your cherry picking of the document shows your ill intent. You choose which parts you want to believe, and then assert the rest is lies.
To avoid intellectual hypocrisy you must either accept that the document is a valid expression of their intent, or not.