| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dogbert" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2004 10:38:37 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 04:39:57 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
Miscellaneous notes:
1. I note that your "final word" post was made only to aus.politics, not
the other ngs this thread has been in, so I had to go to google to find it
and restore the relevant groups
2. I set a trap for you which you kindly fell into. I said that one can
still find copies of the US Constitution which have the offensive slave
clauses in them. You said that you can also find ones without them.
However, this is probably not true. I do not recall ever seeing such an
edited copy; sometimes one sees ones with the amended clauses struck out
but still readable For instance, the copies at
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
or
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html
still have them, together with notes about how they were subsequently
amended.
The case of the PLO Charter, at
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp as you kindly point
out is no different.
Over the last few days there have been many posts saying"
"It hs been amended."
"No, it hasn't been amended!"
At the time of the last exchange in which I was involved the web had
just about ground to a halt. I promised to provide suitable
references when the response time improved.
I am happy to report that it has improved, although still fairly
slow even with ADSL; the problem is on the international cables,
loaded with spam from the latest viri.
Even so, with the help of a few cups of coffee I have located the
following:
http://www.cfi.org.uk/intlaw.htm
This page, from the " Christian Friends of Israel" site (with friends like
these, who needs enemies?) has nothing to do with the issue at hand and
does not mention the Charter at all. (Thus your statement "all point out"
below is refuted.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Covenant
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute and edit.
The current version of this page repeatedly makes bald assertions of fact
which are not supported by its references, makes ambiguous and unreferenced
quotes from uncheckable sources, etc. and does not state the other side -
particularly the unanimous official opinions of the PLO, Israel and the USA
that the PLO Charter has been amended.
From the discussion of this page:
"This whole page is nothing more than a presentation of a particular point
of view put forward by a few people who are disposed to such views. It
doesn't even pretend to obey the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. Rather, it is
propaganda pure and simple.
To see how contentious the claims on this page are, note that the Israeli
government site which is cited on the page states without any qualification
that the offending articles were "cancelled" (the word chosen by that
site's translator). "
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/1998/jan/cab29.htm
Note the date: Jerusalem, January 29, 1998
Before the December 14 meeting and the final Israeli acceptance.
From the same site (I was wondering when you would get around to quoting
from this extremist site), dated December 17, after the December 14 vote
and the Israeli acceptance:
"Even if Israel officially or unofficially accepts this fraudulent claim
that the PLO canceled their Covenant, it would not be so or legal. The
words and actions of the PLO real leaders speak more accurately to truth as
they refuse to comply with the Oslo/Hebron/Wye Peace Accords.
The "News of the Day" is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has accepted
this charade of the Covenant being canceled."
http://gamla.org.il/english/article/1998/dec/win3.htm
Note the position of these loons: Israel (PM Netanyahu) has accepted the
"Covenant" being cancelled. However, this change is "not so or legal." As
I have said all along, one can find extremists who against all evidence,
say the Charter has not been amended. You are one. But since the Israeli
government and both major political groupings therein have accepted it,
further argument is ridiculous.
**********
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_plo_charter_revise.php
From here, referring to the earlier April 1996 vote:
"The governments of the United States and of Israel welcomed the vote,
stating that it marked the fulfillment of the Palestinian
obligation on the Covenant."
The same statement is at the ADL website - or are they antisemites? -
http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/revision_of_plo_covenant.asp
All point out, with considerable objectivity,
;-)
that despite the
various statements and letters the Charter has yet to be amended.
As shown above they of course do not.
Perhaps the most authoriative is:
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp
This is perhaps the most authoritative source against your views. Thank
you for answering your own question about where one can find the revised
PLO charter with the amendments.
This is the site of the Palestinian National Authority. After
quoting the unchanged Charter of 1968 it states:
#begin quote#
Amendments
In a letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat stated
that those articles which denied Israel's right to exist or are
inconsistent with the PLO's new commitments to Israel following
their mutual reognition, were no longer valid (see Oslo peace
process).
The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the
issue of amending the Charter and adopted the following decision:
A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by
canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged
the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the
Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first
session of the Palestinian Central Council.
The decision was adopted by a vote of: 504 in favor, 54 against,
and 14 abstentions.
Better than 2/3, note.
On January 1998, Yasser Arafat sent a letter to US President, Bill
Clinton, outlining the implications of this decision in terms of the
specific articles of the Charter that were nullified or amended as a
result of that decision. In December 1998, both the PLO Executive
Committee and the PLO Central Council reaffirmed this decision
The decision was adopted by a vote of: 504 in favor, 54 against,
and 14 abstentions.
On January 1998, Yasser Arafat sent a letter to US President, Bill
Clinton, outlining the implications of this decision in terms of the
specific articles of the Charter that were nullified or amended as a
result of that decision. In December 1998, both the PLO Executive
Committee and the PLO Central Council reaffirmed this decision
#end quote#
Please note point B above:
B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the
Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first
session of the Palestinian Central Council.
It still hasn't happened.
As I have agreed all along, but accurately pointed out is completely
irrelevant. At the very best, you are saying that the PLO is not living up
to their own charter by not obeying this amendment. Well, they didn't live
up to the old charter either, by not destroying Israel. That's life. They
did revise the old charter by amending it, as per agreements with Israel,
though.
The formatting of this will be a mess, for which I apologize.
Formatting is fine, it's just the logic which is defective.
I have nothing else to say on this issue. I hope everyone else feels
the same, but somehow I doubt it.
I agree, you have nothing else to say. And what you said does not prove
your points, in particular, the "authoritative statement" above practically
explodes it. Were you on a kamikaze or fedayeen debate team?
Izzy
This is the same stupid argument you have been presenting. Ignore clause
A, obsess about clause B. I pointed out a long time ago that an honest
lunatic could say the charter has not been amended, just the same way crazy
people say the US Constitution was illegal, or the 13-15th amendments (or
the income tax amendment - wonder why they don't like that one) were
illegal.
However, sane people do agree that to all intents and purposes, these US
laws were passed, and also the PLO Charter was revised in the 90's.
What I have consistently said was that the formal acceptance the change by
the (right-wing Likud) government of Israel on December 14, 1998 at the
latest should put the issue to rest. (According to the ADL and the
palestinefacts site **YOU** used, Israel's 1996 Labor government had
accepted the 1996 statement even!) You repeatedly and dishonestly
disputed this, after I supplied on your request and to your surprise, these
unequivocal statements that even GAMLA accepts the existence of.
.
|
|
| User: "Iskandar Baharuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
08 Feb 2004 03:12:00 PM |
|
|
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:papc20tt69bnoor3q45tfmo42vm8vd9bc9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 04:39:57 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
Miscellaneous notes:
1. I note that your "final word" post was made only to
aus.politics, not
the other ngs this thread has been in, so I had to go to google to
find it
and restore the relevant groups
2. I set a trap for you which you kindly fell into. I said that
one can
still find copies of the US Constitution which have the offensive
slave
clauses in them. You said that you can also find ones without
them.
However, this is probably not true. I do not recall ever seeing
such an
edited copy; sometimes one sees ones with the amended clauses
struck out
but still readable For instance, the copies at
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
or
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html
still have them, together with notes about how they were
subsequently
amended.
The case of the PLO Charter, at
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp as you kindly
point
out is no different.
Over the last few days there have been many posts saying"
"It hs been amended."
"No, it hasn't been amended!"
At the time of the last exchange in which I was involved the web
had
just about ground to a halt. I promised to provide suitable
references when the response time improved.
I am happy to report that it has improved, although still fairly
slow even with ADSL; the problem is on the international cables,
loaded with spam from the latest viri.
Even so, with the help of a few cups of coffee I have located the
following:
http://www.cfi.org.uk/intlaw.htm
This page, from the " Christian Friends of Israel" site (with
friends like
these, who needs enemies?) has nothing to do with the issue at
hand and
does not mention the Charter at all. (Thus your statement "all
point out"
below is refuted.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Covenant
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute
and edit.
The current version of this page repeatedly makes bald assertions
of fact
which are not supported by its references, makes ambiguous and
unreferenced
quotes from uncheckable sources, etc. and does not state the
other side -
particularly the unanimous official opinions of the PLO, Israel
and the USA
that the PLO Charter has been amended.
From the discussion of this page:
"This whole page is nothing more than a presentation of a
particular point
of view put forward by a few people who are disposed to such
views. It
doesn't even pretend to obey the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. Rather,
it is
propaganda pure and simple.
To see how contentious the claims on this page are, note that the
Israeli
government site which is cited on the page states without any
qualification
that the offending articles were "cancelled" (the word chosen by
that
site's translator). "
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/1998/jan/cab29.htm
Note the date: Jerusalem, January 29, 1998
Before the December 14 meeting and the final Israeli acceptance.
From the same site (I was wondering when you would get around to
quoting
from this extremist site), dated December 17, after the December
14 vote
and the Israeli acceptance:
"Even if Israel officially or unofficially accepts this fraudulent
claim
that the PLO canceled their Covenant, it would not be so or legal.
The
words and actions of the PLO real leaders speak more accurately to
truth as
they refuse to comply with the Oslo/Hebron/Wye Peace Accords.
The "News of the Day" is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has
accepted
this charade of the Covenant being canceled."
http://gamla.org.il/english/article/1998/dec/win3.htm
Note the position of these loons: Israel (PM Netanyahu) has
accepted the
"Covenant" being cancelled. However, this change is "not so or
legal." As
I have said all along, one can find extremists who against all
evidence,
say the Charter has not been amended. You are one. But since the
Israeli
government and both major political groupings therein have
accepted it,
further argument is ridiculous.
**********
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_plo_charter_revise.php
From here, referring to the earlier April 1996 vote:
"The governments of the United States and of Israel welcomed the
vote,
stating that it marked the fulfillment of the Palestinian
obligation on the Covenant."
The same statement is at the ADL website - or are they
antisemites? -
http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/revision_of_plo_covenant.asp
All point out, with considerable objectivity,
;-)
that despite the
various statements and letters the Charter has yet to be amended.
As shown above they of course do not.
Perhaps the most authoriative is:
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp
This is perhaps the most authoritative source against your views.
Thank
you for answering your own question about where one can find the
revised
PLO charter with the amendments.
This is the site of the Palestinian National Authority. After
quoting the unchanged Charter of 1968 it states:
#begin quote#
Amendments
In a letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat
stated
that those articles which denied Israel's right to exist or are
inconsistent with the PLO's new commitments to Israel following
their mutual reognition, were no longer valid (see Oslo peace
process).
The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider
the
issue of amending the Charter and adopted the following decision:
A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by
canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged
the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting
the
Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first
session of the Palestinian Central Council.
The decision was adopted by a vote of: 504 in favor, 54
against,
and 14 abstentions.
Better than 2/3, note.
On January 1998, Yasser Arafat sent a letter to US President,
Bill
Clinton, outlining the implications of this decision in terms of
the
specific articles of the Charter that were nullified or amended
as a
result of that decision. In December 1998, both the PLO Executive
Committee and the PLO Central Council reaffirmed this decision
The decision was adopted by a vote of: 504 in favor, 54
against,
and 14 abstentions.
On January 1998, Yasser Arafat sent a letter to US President,
Bill
Clinton, outlining the implications of this decision in terms of
the
specific articles of the Charter that were nullified or amended
as a
result of that decision. In December 1998, both the PLO Executive
Committee and the PLO Central Council reaffirmed this decision
#end quote#
Please note point B above:
B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the
Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first
session of the Palestinian Central Council.
It still hasn't happened.
As I have agreed all along, but accurately pointed out is
completely
irrelevant. At the very best, you are saying that the PLO is not
living up
to their own charter by not obeying this amendment. Well, they
didn't live
up to the old charter either, by not destroying Israel. That's
life. They
did revise the old charter by amending it, as per agreements with
Israel,
though.
The formatting of this will be a mess, for which I apologize.
Formatting is fine, it's just the logic which is defective.
I have nothing else to say on this issue. I hope everyone else
feels
the same, but somehow I doubt it.
I agree, you have nothing else to say. And what you said does not
prove
your points, in particular, the "authoritative statement" above
practically
explodes it. Were you on a kamikaze or fedayeen debate team?
Izzy
This is the same stupid argument you have been presenting. Ignore
clause
A, obsess about clause B. I pointed out a long time ago that an
honest
lunatic could say the charter has not been amended, just the same
way crazy
people say the US Constitution was illegal, or the 13-15th
amendments (or
the income tax amendment - wonder why they don't like that one)
were
illegal.
However, sane people do agree that to all intents and purposes,
these US
laws were passed, and also the PLO Charter was revised in the
90's.
What I have consistently said was that the formal acceptance the
change by
the (right-wing Likud) government of Israel on December 14, 1998
at the
latest should put the issue to rest. (According to the ADL and
the
palestinefacts site **YOU** used, Israel's 1996 Labor government
had
accepted the 1996 statement even!) You repeatedly and
dishonestly
disputed this, after I supplied on your request and to your
surprise, these
unequivocal statements that even GAMLA accepts the existence of.
This is a most extraoridary and rambling post. I was tempted to trim
it, but want to avoid any accusation that I have tampered with it.
To cover a few points:
Miscellaneous notes:
1. I note that your "final word" post was made only to
aus.politics, not
the other ngs this thread has been in, so I had to go to google to
find it
and restore the relevant groups
Sorry you had to go to all that trouble. There are some who become
very upset with cross-posting. Also, there are some groups my ISP
does not recognize.
2. I set a trap for you which you kindly fell into. I said that
one can
still find copies of the US Constitution which have the offensive
slave
clauses in them. You said that you can also find ones without
them.
However, this is probably not true. I do not recall ever seeing
such an
edited copy; sometimes one sees ones with the amended clauses
struck out
but still readable For instance, the copies at
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
This is a very weird trap. You can find old copies of the US
Constitution in most large libraries, including the Library of
Congress. I really do not understand the relevance.
The case of the PLO Charter, at
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp as you kindly
point
out is no different.
Over the last few days there have been many posts saying"
"It hs been amended."
"No, it hasn't been amended!"
The posts saying "it has been amended" refer to the Arafat letters.
The posts saying "no, it hasn't been amended!" are referring to the
official version on the PA website, coupled with the draft charter
put forward in March 2003.
You seem satisfied that a letter signed by Arafat in 1998
constitutes amendment. I do not.
Why? If the Charter was indeed amended, why was it necessary to
spend five years working out the text of the revised Charter?
Presumably all that was necessary was to delete the clauses
mentioned in the letter.
If the draft of March 2003 conformed to Arafat's letter, why was it
not ratified?
I believe the answer is that the real rulers of Palestine are
emotionally incapable of facing reality and formally recognizing
Israel's right to exist.
The only thing on the table at present is a couple of "gunnas". We
have yet to see a "done".
I cannot imagine what you will come up with next, but I have no
doubt that you will be back.
Ciao,
Izzy
.
|
|
|
| User: "dogbert" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
10 Feb 2004 04:14:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:12:00 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:papc20tt69bnoor3q45tfmo42vm8vd9bc9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 04:39:57 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
This is a most extraoridary and rambling post. I was tempted to trim
it, but want to avoid any accusation that I have tampered with it.
Trim away. If I rambled it was because I had to individually answer each
one of your irrational and frequently self-refuting claims.
2. I set a trap for you which you kindly fell into. I said that
one can still find copies of the US Constitution which have the offensive
slave clauses in them. You said that you can also find ones without
them. However, this is probably not true. I do not recall ever seeing
such an edited copy; sometimes one sees ones with the amended clauses
struck out but still readable For instance, the copies at
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
This is a very weird trap. You can find old copies of the US
Constitution in most large libraries, including the Library of
Congress. I really do not understand the relevance.
The trap was that you seem to think the standard practice is to
"delete"amended clauses in later editions of a constitution. This is not
so.
The case of the PLO Charter, at
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp as you kindly
point
out is no different.
Over the last few days there have been many posts saying"
"It hs been amended."
"No, it hasn't been amended!"
The posts saying "it has been amended" refer to the Arafat letters.
And much else, in fact an enormous mass of evidence, in particular the
official version you refer to below, which contains the words "Amendments."
The posts saying "no, it hasn't been amended!" are referring to the
official version on the PA website, coupled with the draft charter
put forward in March 2003.
Well as this official version supports the view that it was amended, and
practically explodes your case, you are displaying the fact that you do not
believe in logic if it conflicts with your cherished fantasies.
I could equally logically argue to you : That based on the posts of the
omniscient Iskandar Baharuddin, it is clear that IB believes the PLO
Charter to have been amended, therefore it is true that it has been
amended.
You seem satisfied that a letter signed by Arafat in 1998
constitutes amendment. I do not.
The letter explicates the specific clauses referred to in the 1996
amendment. This was the Likud complaint. The 1998 Gaza meeting showed very
broad consent to this specification, consent broad enough for the Likud to
drop its complaint that the Charter had not been amended, and it and the
State of Israel formally stated that it had been, as I posted innumerable
times.
Why? If the Charter was indeed amended, why was it necessary to
spend five years working out the text of the revised Charter?
There's a lot more stuff in the revision than just revocation of these
clauses. Time did not stop in 1996 and 1998. Why do you accept the 1968
amendment of the PLO Charter from the original 1964 version apparently?
Why is that amendment OK, but the 1996 (or 1998) one not?
Presumably all that was necessary was to delete the clauses
mentioned in the letter.
They were revoked by the amendment. As referred to above, "deletion" is
not a standard practice and is not followed in the USA, for example.
If the draft of March 2003 conformed to Arafat's letter, why was it
not ratified?
Why was the ERA in the USA not ratified? Unless you are American or
Palestinian, why is it any of your business? Everybody important,
everybody involved, agrees the amendment has already occurred.
I believe the answer is that the real rulers of Palestine are
emotionally incapable of facing reality and formally recognizing
Israel's right to exist.
This formal recognition was already done by the PLO in 1988. This
recognition was recognized by Israel in the letters of mutual recogntion in
1993. Why the PLO had to is remarkable.
Of course the US does not recognize Israel's "right to exist." It just
recognized Israel's existence, at first de facto and later de jure. These
are the normal words and normal actions, not "right to."
The emotional incapability, the refusal to face reality is practically all
on the Israeli side. If they recognized the Palestinian "right to exist",
in particular in a state on the West Bank and Gaza - as they did more or
less at Taba in 2001, but have tried to revoke since then - then the
conflict would be over in no time.
The only thing on the table at present is a couple of "gunnas". We
have yet to see a "done".
Gamla, the Likud and Labor parties, the Israeli government, Ephraim Karsh,
the Jewish Virtual Library etc etc, and the US government see "dones."
Your own view is a little less weighty. You may see pink elephants - that
does not mean they are there, or anyone else sees them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iskandar Baharuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
10 Feb 2004 04:58:57 PM |
|
|
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:2oli209pcinu9md3c0c35ra6d5ar1vjpvt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:12:00 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:papc20tt69bnoor3q45tfmo42vm8vd9bc9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 04:39:57 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
This is a most extraoridary and rambling post. I was tempted to
trim
it, but want to avoid any accusation that I have tampered with
it.
Trim away. If I rambled it was because I had to individually
answer each
one of your irrational and frequently self-refuting claims.
2. I set a trap for you which you kindly fell into. I said
that
one can still find copies of the US Constitution which have the
offensive
slave clauses in them. You said that you can also find ones
without
them. However, this is probably not true. I do not recall ever
seeing
such an edited copy; sometimes one sees ones with the amended
clauses
struck out but still readable For instance, the copies at
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
This is a very weird trap. You can find old copies of the US
Constitution in most large libraries, including the Library of
Congress. I really do not understand the relevance.
The trap was that you seem to think the standard practice is to
"delete"amended clauses in later editions of a constitution. This
is not
so.
The case of the PLO Charter, at
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp as you
kindly
point
out is no different.
Over the last few days there have been many posts saying"
"It hs been amended."
"No, it hasn't been amended!"
The posts saying "it has been amended" refer to the Arafat
letters.
And much else, in fact an enormous mass of evidence, in particular
the
official version you refer to below, which contains the words
"Amendments."
The posts saying "no, it hasn't been amended!" are referring to
the
official version on the PA website, coupled with the draft
charter
put forward in March 2003.
Well as this official version supports the view that it was
amended, and
practically explodes your case, you are displaying the fact that
you do not
believe in logic if it conflicts with your cherished fantasies.
I could equally logically argue to you : That based on the posts
of the
omniscient Iskandar Baharuddin, it is clear that IB believes the
PLO
Charter to have been amended, therefore it is true that it has
been
amended.
You seem satisfied that a letter signed by Arafat in 1998
constitutes amendment. I do not.
The letter explicates the specific clauses referred to in the 1996
amendment. This was the Likud complaint. The 1998 Gaza meeting
showed very
broad consent to this specification, consent broad enough for the
Likud to
drop its complaint that the Charter had not been amended, and it
and the
State of Israel formally stated that it had been, as I posted
innumerable
times.
Why? If the Charter was indeed amended, why was it necessary to
spend five years working out the text of the revised Charter?
There's a lot more stuff in the revision than just revocation of
these
clauses. Time did not stop in 1996 and 1998. Why do you accept
the 1968
amendment of the PLO Charter from the original 1964 version
apparently?
Why is that amendment OK, but the 1996 (or 1998) one not?
Presumably all that was necessary was to delete the clauses
mentioned in the letter.
They were revoked by the amendment. As referred to above,
"deletion" is
not a standard practice and is not followed in the USA, for
example.
If the draft of March 2003 conformed to Arafat's letter, why was
it
not ratified?
Why was the ERA in the USA not ratified? Unless you are American
or
Palestinian, why is it any of your business? Everybody important,
everybody involved, agrees the amendment has already occurred.
I believe the answer is that the real rulers of Palestine are
emotionally incapable of facing reality and formally recognizing
Israel's right to exist.
This formal recognition was already done by the PLO in 1988.
This
recognition was recognized by Israel in the letters of mutual
recogntion in
1993. Why the PLO had to is remarkable.
Of course the US does not recognize Israel's "right to exist." It
just
recognized Israel's existence, at first de facto and later de
jure. These
are the normal words and normal actions, not "right to."
The emotional incapability, the refusal to face reality is
practically all
on the Israeli side. If they recognized the Palestinian "right to
exist",
in particular in a state on the West Bank and Gaza - as they did
more or
less at Taba in 2001, but have tried to revoke since then - then
the
conflict would be over in no time.
The only thing on the table at present is a couple of "gunnas".
We
have yet to see a "done".
Gamla, the Likud and Labor parties, the Israeli government,
Ephraim Karsh,
the Jewish Virtual Library etc etc, and the US government see
"dones."
Your own view is a little less weighty. You may see pink
elephants - that
does not mean they are there, or anyone else sees them.
The following articles are taken from the current version of the
Palestinian National Charter at:
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp
"Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the
establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal,
regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the
will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their
homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the
Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to
self-determination."
"Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by
the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are
substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all
proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or
its internationalization."
"Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated
with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for
liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist
and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in
its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of
the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism
placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the
hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel
is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East
and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy
the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the
establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people
look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and
urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to
offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just
struggle for the liberation of their homeland."
"Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand
of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an
illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its
operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be
preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands
safeguarded."
"Article 29: The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and
genuine legal right to liberate and retrieve their homeland. The
Palestinian people determine their attitude toward all states and
forces on the basis of the stands they adopt vis-a-vis to the
Palestinian revolution to fulfill the aims of the Palestinian
people."
"Article 30: Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of liberation
are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective
force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people."
"AMENDMENTS:
"The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the
issue of amending the Charter and adopted the following decision:
"A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling
the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O.
and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
"B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the
Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first
session of the Palestinian Central Council."
In just over two months it will be eight years since the legal
committee was given the task of redrafting the Palestinian National
Charter.
The revised Charter has yet to be approved. It's a "gunna".
I do not believe any further comment is required.
Izzy
.
|
|
|
| User: "dogbert" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
10 Feb 2004 09:31:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:58:57 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:2oli209pcinu9md3c0c35ra6d5ar1vjpvt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:12:00 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:papc20tt69bnoor3q45tfmo42vm8vd9bc9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 04:39:57 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
This is a most extraoridary and rambling post. I was tempted to
trim it, but want to avoid any accusation that I have tampered with
it.
Trim away. If I rambled it was because I had to individually
answer each one of your irrational and frequently self-refuting claims.
2. I set a trap for you which you kindly fell into. I said
that one can still find copies of the US Constitution which have the
offensive slave clauses in them. You said that you can also find ones
without them. However, this is probably not true. I do not recall ever
seeing such an edited copy; sometimes one sees ones with the
amended clauses
struck out but still readable For instance, the copies at
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
This is a very weird trap. You can find old copies of the US
Constitution in most large libraries, including the Library of
Congress. I really do not understand the relevance.
The trap was that you seem to think the standard practice is to
"delete"amended clauses in later editions of a constitution. This
is not so.
The case of the PLO Charter, at
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp as you
kindly
point
out is no different.
Over the last few days there have been many posts saying"
"It hs been amended."
"No, it hasn't been amended!"
The posts saying "it has been amended" refer to the Arafat
letters.
And much else, in fact an enormous mass of evidence, in particular
the
official version you refer to below, which contains the words
"Amendments."
The posts saying "no, it hasn't been amended!" are referring to
the
official version on the PA website, coupled with the draft
charter
put forward in March 2003.
Well as this official version supports the view that it was
amended, and
practically explodes your case, you are displaying the fact that
you do not
believe in logic if it conflicts with your cherished fantasies.
I could equally logically argue to you : That based on the posts
of the
omniscient Iskandar Baharuddin, it is clear that IB believes the
PLO
Charter to have been amended, therefore it is true that it has
been
amended.
You seem satisfied that a letter signed by Arafat in 1998
constitutes amendment. I do not.
The letter explicates the specific clauses referred to in the 1996
amendment. This was the Likud complaint. The 1998 Gaza meeting
showed very
broad consent to this specification, consent broad enough for the
Likud to
drop its complaint that the Charter had not been amended, and it
and the
State of Israel formally stated that it had been, as I posted
innumerable
times.
Why? If the Charter was indeed amended, why was it necessary to
spend five years working out the text of the revised Charter?
There's a lot more stuff in the revision than just revocation of
these
clauses. Time did not stop in 1996 and 1998. Why do you accept
the 1968
amendment of the PLO Charter from the original 1964 version
apparently?
Why is that amendment OK, but the 1996 (or 1998) one not?
Presumably all that was necessary was to delete the clauses
mentioned in the letter.
They were revoked by the amendment. As referred to above,
"deletion" is
not a standard practice and is not followed in the USA, for
example.
If the draft of March 2003 conformed to Arafat's letter, why was
it
not ratified?
Why was the ERA in the USA not ratified? Unless you are American
or
Palestinian, why is it any of your business? Everybody important,
everybody involved, agrees the amendment has already occurred.
I believe the answer is that the real rulers of Palestine are
emotionally incapable of facing reality and formally recognizing
Israel's right to exist.
This formal recognition was already done by the PLO in 1988.
This
recognition was recognized by Israel in the letters of mutual
recogntion in
1993. Why the PLO had to is remarkable.
Of course the US does not recognize Israel's "right to exist." It
just
recognized Israel's existence, at first de facto and later de
jure. These
are the normal words and normal actions, not "right to."
The emotional incapability, the refusal to face reality is
practically all
on the Israeli side. If they recognized the Palestinian "right to
exist",
in particular in a state on the West Bank and Gaza - as they did
more or
less at Taba in 2001, but have tried to revoke since then - then
the
conflict would be over in no time.
The only thing on the table at present is a couple of "gunnas".
We
have yet to see a "done".
Gamla, the Likud and Labor parties, the Israeli government,
Ephraim Karsh,
the Jewish Virtual Library etc etc, and the US government see
"dones."
Your own view is a little less weighty. You may see pink
elephants - that
does not mean they are there, or anyone else sees them.
The following articles are taken from the current version of the
Palestinian National Charter at:
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp
"Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the
establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal,
regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the
will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their
homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the
Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to
self-determination."
"Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by
the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are
substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all
proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or
its internationalization."
"Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated
with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for
liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist
and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in
its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of
the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism
placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the
hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel
is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East
and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy
the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the
establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people
look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and
urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to
offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just
struggle for the liberation of their homeland."
"Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand
of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an
illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its
operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be
preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands
safeguarded."
"Article 29: The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and
genuine legal right to liberate and retrieve their homeland. The
Palestinian people determine their attitude toward all states and
forces on the basis of the stands they adopt vis-a-vis to the
Palestinian revolution to fulfill the aims of the Palestinian
people."
"Article 30: Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of liberation
are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective
force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people."
"AMENDMENTS:
"The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the
issue of amending the Charter and adopted the following decision:
"A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling
the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O.
and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
"B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the
Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first
session of the Palestinian Central Council."
In just over two months it will be eight years since the legal
committee was given the task of redrafting the Palestinian National
Charter.
The revised Charter has yet to be approved. It's a "gunna".
Yes, for the umpteenth time. We agree on this. This does not have
anything to do with the other amendment A above, which everybody involved
eventually accepted was sufficient revocation of the relevant clauses. Why
are you obsessed about B but ignore A? If B is in any sense binding, A
must be too.
I do not believe any further comment is required.
Yes, you have no case. We all knew that.
Zaijian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iskandar Baharuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
10 Feb 2004 09:53:55 PM |
|
|
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:da8j20h8c6l3hpo82o4smprfa59453cfj0@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:58:57 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:2oli209pcinu9md3c0c35ra6d5ar1vjpvt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:12:00 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:papc20tt69bnoor3q45tfmo42vm8vd9bc9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 04:39:57 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
This is a most extraoridary and rambling post. I was tempted
to
trim it, but want to avoid any accusation that I have tampered
with
it.
Trim away. If I rambled it was because I had to individually
answer each one of your irrational and frequently self-refuting
claims.
2. I set a trap for you which you kindly fell into. I said
that one can still find copies of the US Constitution which
have the
offensive slave clauses in them. You said that you can also
find ones
without them. However, this is probably not true. I do not
recall ever
seeing such an edited copy; sometimes one sees ones with the
amended clauses
struck out but still readable For instance, the copies at
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
This is a very weird trap. You can find old copies of the US
Constitution in most large libraries, including the Library of
Congress. I really do not understand the relevance.
The trap was that you seem to think the standard practice is to
"delete"amended clauses in later editions of a constitution.
This
is not so.
The case of the PLO Charter, at
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp as you
kindly
point
out is no different.
Over the last few days there have been many posts saying"
"It hs been amended."
"No, it hasn't been amended!"
The posts saying "it has been amended" refer to the Arafat
letters.
And much else, in fact an enormous mass of evidence, in
particular
the
official version you refer to below, which contains the words
"Amendments."
The posts saying "no, it hasn't been amended!" are referring
to
the
official version on the PA website, coupled with the draft
charter
put forward in March 2003.
Well as this official version supports the view that it was
amended, and
practically explodes your case, you are displaying the fact
that
you do not
believe in logic if it conflicts with your cherished fantasies.
I could equally logically argue to you : That based on the
posts
of the
omniscient Iskandar Baharuddin, it is clear that IB believes
the
PLO
Charter to have been amended, therefore it is true that it has
been
amended.
You seem satisfied that a letter signed by Arafat in 1998
constitutes amendment. I do not.
The letter explicates the specific clauses referred to in the
1996
amendment. This was the Likud complaint. The 1998 Gaza meeting
showed very
broad consent to this specification, consent broad enough for
the
Likud to
drop its complaint that the Charter had not been amended, and
it
and the
State of Israel formally stated that it had been, as I posted
innumerable
times.
Why? If the Charter was indeed amended, why was it necessary
to
spend five years working out the text of the revised Charter?
There's a lot more stuff in the revision than just revocation
of
these
clauses. Time did not stop in 1996 and 1998. Why do you
accept
the 1968
amendment of the PLO Charter from the original 1964 version
apparently?
Why is that amendment OK, but the 1996 (or 1998) one not?
Presumably all that was necessary was to delete the clauses
mentioned in the letter.
They were revoked by the amendment. As referred to above,
"deletion" is
not a standard practice and is not followed in the USA, for
example.
If the draft of March 2003 conformed to Arafat's letter, why
was
it
not ratified?
Why was the ERA in the USA not ratified? Unless you are
American
or
Palestinian, why is it any of your business? Everybody
important,
everybody involved, agrees the amendment has already occurred.
I believe the answer is that the real rulers of Palestine are
emotionally incapable of facing reality and formally
recognizing
Israel's right to exist.
This formal recognition was already done by the PLO in 1988.
This
recognition was recognized by Israel in the letters of mutual
recogntion in
1993. Why the PLO had to is remarkable.
Of course the US does not recognize Israel's "right to exist."
It
just
recognized Israel's existence, at first de facto and later de
jure. These
are the normal words and normal actions, not "right to."
The emotional incapability, the refusal to face reality is
practically all
on the Israeli side. If they recognized the Palestinian "right
to
exist",
in particular in a state on the West Bank and Gaza - as they
did
more or
less at Taba in 2001, but have tried to revoke since then -
then
the
conflict would be over in no time.
The only thing on the table at present is a couple of
"gunnas".
We
have yet to see a "done".
Gamla, the Likud and Labor parties, the Israeli government,
Ephraim Karsh,
the Jewish Virtual Library etc etc, and the US government see
"dones."
Your own view is a little less weighty. You may see pink
elephants - that
does not mean they are there, or anyone else sees them.
The following articles are taken from the current version of the
Palestinian National Charter at:
http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp
"Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the
establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal,
regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to
the
will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in
their
homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the
Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to
self-determination."
"Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves
by
the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are
substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all
proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem,
or
its internationalization."
"Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically
associated
with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for
liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is
racist
and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial
in
its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of
the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism
placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat
the
hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress.
Israel
is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East
and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will
destroy
the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the
establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people
look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces
and
urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to
offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just
struggle for the liberation of their homeland."
"Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the
demand
of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an
illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its
operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be
preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective
homelands
safeguarded."
"Article 29: The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and
genuine legal right to liberate and retrieve their homeland. The
Palestinian people determine their attitude toward all states and
forces on the basis of the stands they adopt vis-a-vis to the
Palestinian revolution to fulfill the aims of the Palestinian
people."
"Article 30: Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of
liberation
are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective
force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people."
"AMENDMENTS:
"The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider
the
issue of amending the Charter and adopted the following decision:
"A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by
canceling
the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the
P.L.O.
and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
"B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the
Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first
session of the Palestinian Central Council."
In just over two months it will be eight years since the legal
committee was given the task of redrafting the Palestinian
National
Charter.
The revised Charter has yet to be approved. It's a "gunna".
Yes, for the umpteenth time. We agree on this. This does not
have
anything to do with the other amendment A above, which everybody
involved
eventually accepted was sufficient revocation of the relevant
clauses. Why
are you obsessed about B but ignore A? If B is in any sense
binding, A
must be too.
If there were a B, I would agree with you about A.
The absence of B suggests extreme reluctance to follow through on A.
Either that, or the Palestinians are hoplelessy incompetent, which I
concede to be a possibility.
Izzy
I do not believe any further comment is required.
Yes, you have no case. We all knew that.
Zaijian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dogbert" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
10 Feb 2004 10:58:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:53:55 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
"dogbert" <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:da8j20h8c6l3hpo82o4smprfa59453cfj0@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:58:57 +0800, "Iskandar Baharuddin"
<brengsek@mcpc.net.au> :
"AMENDMENTS:
"The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider
the
issue of amending the Charter and adopted the following decision:
"A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by
canceling
the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the
P.L.O.
and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
"B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the
Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first
session of the Palestinian Central Council."
In just over two months it will be eight years since the legal
committee was given the task of redrafting the Palestinian
National
Charter.
The revised Charter has yet to be approved. It's a "gunna".
Yes, for the umpteenth time. We agree on this. This does not
have
anything to do with the other amendment A above, which everybody
involved
eventually accepted was sufficient revocation of the relevant
clauses. Why
are you obsessed about B but ignore A? If B is in any sense
binding, A
must be too.
If there were a B, I would agree with you about A.
There is a B, the task imposed by Amendment B. Although it has not been
presented and ratified, a draft exists, which is probably sufficient to
satisfy the precise language of Amendment B. Do you think the draft is in
violation of the PLO's pledges to Israel?
The absence of B suggests extreme reluctance to follow through on A.
There is nothing to follow through on. Everybody involved agrees A is
sufficient amendment.The amendment has been done.
Either that, or the Palestinians are hoplelessy incompetent, which I
concede to be a possibility.
They are, but this isn't why. What motive do they have to rush to approve
a draft after all of Israel has accepted the earlier amendments? Any such
move could be seen as appeasement to Israeli aggression in the current
climate. It is not such a good idea to write a new constitution when under
the gun and subject to outside influence or the perception of it. It is a
propaganda/psychological bargaining chip - not of very much value IMHO
since the story is basically over, but not worthless. Maybe if Israel
actually left Gaza, did something real for a change, it would occur.
The problem here, as most places in the conflict, is that Israel has to do
something because the other side has very little room, they have no more
concessions to give. Israel should give some. Israel is the one that
should show good faith. If Israel would correspondingly change (or write)
its constitution to meet with the minimal Arab demands - renounce 22% when
the evil Pallies have renounced 78% there wouldn't be any conflict.
Getting out of Gaza - as 80-90% of the Gaza settlers wanted to at the
beginning of Oslo, but were kept there at the behest of the oh-so-peaceful
Rabin, would be an excellent start.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igtheist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
10 Feb 2004 09:30:37 PM |
|
|
dogbert <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message news:<papc20tt69bnoor3q45tfmo42vm8vd9bc9@4ax.com>...
I said that one can
still find copies of the US Constitution which have the offensive slave
clauses in them.
Which offensive slave clauses?
FYI. The 3/5 slave clause was intended to weaken the representation
afforded to the slave owners. The slave owners were the ones that
were allowed to vote on behalf of their slaves. The slave holders
were in favor of a full vote per slave. Thus the 3/5 clause was not
offensive and was instead an attempt to move away from the legacy of
slavery inherited from British rule.
Note: I have not re-researched this and I am doing this from my
memories of this going 25 years back. So forgive me if any specifics
are not exact. But you get the gist of the argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dogbert" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
10 Feb 2004 10:29:47 PM |
|
|
On 10 Feb 2004 19:30:37 -0800, (Igtheist)
:
dogbert <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message news:<papc20tt69bnoor3q45tfmo42vm8vd9bc9@4ax.com>...
I said that one can
still find copies of the US Constitution which have the offensive slave
clauses in them.
Which offensive slave clauses?
FYI. The 3/5 slave clause was intended to weaken the representation
afforded to the slave owners. The slave owners were the ones that
were allowed to vote on behalf of their slaves. The slave holders
were in favor of a full vote per slave.
Basically correct. It was about weighting the represenation of the states,
how many house seats and electoral votes they would get. By virtue of it,
every slave state would have 3/5 x (ratio of slaves to free in the
population) more votes than they would otherwise deserve.
Thus the 3/5 clause was not
offensive and was instead an attempt to move away from the legacy of
slavery inherited from British rule.
That it was not zero was offensive, that slavery was allowed and
legislated upon was offensive, but your point is well taken.
Slavery as a legacy of British rule has the problem that the first
Emancipation Proclamation in the US was British, liberating slaves who
would fight against the colonists, (and maybe all), would have to look it
up. Should be in Lies My Teacher Told Me, or A People's History of the US.
Note: I have not re-researched this and I am doing this from my
memories of this going 25 years back. So forgive me if any specifics
are not exact. But you get the gist of the argument.
Yes. Cheers me up that there's someone else reading this, who can make a
sensible argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igtheist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
11 Feb 2004 07:56:37 PM |
|
|
dogbert <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message news:<tnbj2012i70p493iuv3vcjog411f8mrjsi@4ax.com>...
On 10 Feb 2004 19:30:37 -0800, (Igtheist)
:
Thus the 3/5 clause was not
offensive and was instead an attempt to move away from the legacy of
slavery inherited from British rule.
That it was not zero was offensive, that slavery was allowed and
legislated upon was offensive, but your point is well taken.
Well at least you got it correct. Most people who claim it to be
offensive are upset because they think it proves that blacks were
considered worth only 3/5ths of a white.
However it was a necceary compromise with the slave holding states.
Slavery as a legacy of British rule has the problem that the first
Emancipation Proclamation in the US was British, liberating slaves who
would fight against the colonists, (and maybe all), would have to look it
up. Should be in Lies My Teacher Told Me, or A People's History of the US.
I was aware of that and it doesn't exactly sway me. Offering
conditional freedom to the slaves of your enemy during times of war
isn't exactly motivated by ethics. It wasn't like they were freeing
their own slaves, just the colonists slaves. Had the colonists been
fighting the British in her Carribean colonies I am sure things would
have been the other way round with an offer to free British slaves.
The fact is the British didn't get around to freeing there slaves till
about 58 years after the constitution was drafted. Even then their
motivations were not neccesarily honorable. After all using slaves
can be less profitable than free men in servitude. Call me jaded but
I bet if you look into it there were other motives.
Around 30 years later the US did the same. But Lincoln handled it in
a ruthless and idiotic way. His real intentions being to maintain
trade tarriffs which were hurting the south. Had his real
intentions been to free slaves he could have done what the British
did, which was to buy out the slaveholders. Lincoln was an all
around jerk who ended up causing our bloodest war. He also basically
threw out the constitution to pursue it.
The long and the short of it is that the Constitution was drafted
under conditions were the ideals behind it were compromised. The
goal of the U.S. was not to set up some racist society.
BTW. I also believe that both blacks and women were able to vote from
the get go depending on the state. But again this is from memory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iskandar Baharuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
11 Feb 2004 09:38:39 PM |
|
|
"Igtheist" <igtheist_N_O_S_P_A_M@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ec75c602.0402111756.5c5a7ff9@posting.google.com...
| dogbert <dogbert@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:<tnbj2012i70p493iuv3vcjog411f8mrjsi@4ax.com>...
| > On 10 Feb 2004 19:30:37 -0800,
igtheist_N_O_S_P_A_M@hotmail.com (Igtheist)
| > :
|
| > >Thus the 3/5 clause was not
| > >offensive and was instead an attempt to move away from
the legacy of
| > >slavery inherited from British rule.
| >
| > That it was not zero was offensive, that slavery was
allowed and
| > legislated upon was offensive, but your point is well
taken.
|
| Well at least you got it correct. Most people who claim
it to be
| offensive are upset because they think it proves that
blacks were
| considered worth only 3/5ths of a white.
|
| However it was a necceary compromise with the slave
holding states.
|
| > Slavery as a legacy of British rule has the problem
that the first
| > Emancipation Proclamation in the US was British,
liberating slaves who
| > would fight against the colonists, (and maybe all),
would have to look it
| > up. Should be in Lies My Teacher Told Me, or A People's
History of the US.
|
| I was aware of that and it doesn't exactly sway me.
Offering
| conditional freedom to the slaves of your enemy during
times of war
| isn't exactly motivated by ethics. It wasn't like they
were freeing
| their own slaves, just the colonists slaves. Had the
colonists been
| fighting the British in her Carribean colonies I am sure
things would
| have been the other way round with an offer to free
British slaves.
|
| The fact is the British didn't get around to freeing there
slaves till
| about 58 years after the constitution was drafted. Even
then their
| motivations were not neccesarily honorable. After all
using slaves
| can be less profitable than free men in servitude. Call
me jaded but
| I bet if you look into it there were other motives.
|
| Around 30 years later the US did the same. But Lincoln
handled it in
| a ruthless and idiotic way. His real intentions being to
maintain
| trade tarriffs which were hurting the south. Had his
real
| intentions been to free slaves he could have done what the
British
| did, which was to buy out the slaveholders. Lincoln was
an all
| around jerk who ended up causing our bloodest war. He
also basically
| threw out the constitution to pursue it.
This is one of the more preposterous statements I have read
in this NG.
The Emancipation Proclamation was issued after three years
of war, under War Powers.
It was confirmed by the Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in
1965.
Lincoln was the best friend the South had. John Wilkes Booth
caused enormous suffering to his people.
|
| The long and the short of it is that the Constitution was
drafted
| under conditions were the ideals behind it were
compromised. The
| goal of the U.S. was not to set up some racist society.
Thank you for that. Without compromise at the time there
would have been no USA. It should be noted that the original
Constitution permitted a ban on the import of slaves after
1808. The enabling legislation was passed by Congress in
1807.
Even so, British "blackbirders" smuggled another 50,000
slaves into the South up to the Civil War.
|
| BTW. I also believe that both blacks and women were able
to vote from
| the get go depending on the state. But again this is
from memory.
Your memory is not totally wrong.
New Jersey allowed female residents with property to vote
from 1776. However, they were disenfranchised in 1807.
Free blacks were originally allowed to vote in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Connecticut later withdrew the
right.
Women first won the right to vote in the Territory of
Wyoming, in 1869.
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"Insanity: Repeating the same action over and over in
expectation of a different outcome."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igtheist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
13 Feb 2004 07:12:00 AM |
|
|
"Iskandar Baharuddin" <brengsek@mcpc.net.au> wrote in message news:<402af53c@news.highway1.com.au>...
"Igtheist" <igtheist_N_O_S_P_A_M@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ec75c602.0402111756.5c5a7ff9@posting.google.com...
| > Slavery as a legacy of British rule has the problem
that the first
| > Emancipation Proclamation in the US was British,
liberating slaves who
| > would fight against the colonists, (and maybe all),
would have to look it
| > up. Should be in Lies My Teacher Told Me, or A People's
History of the US.
|
| I was aware of that and it doesn't exactly sway me.
Offering
| conditional freedom to the slaves of your enemy during
times of war
| isn't exactly motivated by ethics. It wasn't like they
were freeing
| their own slaves, just the colonists slaves. Had the
colonists been
| fighting the British in her Carribean colonies I am sure
things would
| have been the other way round with an offer to free
British slaves.
|
| The fact is the British didn't get around to freeing there
slaves till
| about 58 years after the constitution was drafted. Even
then their
| motivations were not neccesarily honorable. After all
using slaves
| can be less profitable than free men in servitude. Call
me jaded but
| I bet if you look into it there were other motives.
|
| Around 30 years later the US did the same. But Lincoln
handled it in
| a ruthless and idiotic way. His real intentions being to
maintain
| trade tarriffs which were hurting the south. Had his
real
| intentions been to free slaves he could have done what the
British
| did, which was to buy out the slaveholders. Lincoln was
an all
| around jerk who ended up causing our bloodest war. He
also basically
| threw out the constitution to pursue it.
This is one of the more preposterous statements I have read
in this NG.
I think you have overreached here just a little bit. I don't know
which statement you are referring to so you'll have to clue me in.
The Emancipation Proclamation was issued after three years
of war, under War Powers.
Your response is so vague I can't tell what you're objecting to.
How about you read and object to this:
The Despot Named Lincoln
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=207&sortorder=issue
Lincoln was all about tariffs and slavery played second fiddle. Same
as with the British who wanted to tax the colonies and not free
slaves. He was a warmonger who violated the constitution in his
pursuit of war.
Lincoln was the best friend the South had.
Actually, I think I nominate that statement for most preposterous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iskandar Baharuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
13 Feb 2004 08:40:08 AM |
|
|
"Igtheist" <igtheist_N_O_S_P_A_M@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ec75c602.0402130512.6ab142be@posting.google.com...
| "Iskandar Baharuddin" <brengsek@mcpc.net.au> wrote in
message news:<402af53c@news.highway1.com.au>...
| > "Igtheist" <igtheist_N_O_S_P_A_M@hotmail.com> wrote in
| > message
| > news:ec75c602.0402111756.5c5a7ff9@posting.google.com...
| > | > Slavery as a legacy of British rule has the problem
| > that the first
| > | > Emancipation Proclamation in the US was British,
| > liberating slaves who
| > | > would fight against the colonists, (and maybe all),
| > would have to look it
| > | > up. Should be in Lies My Teacher Told Me, or A
People's
| > History of the US.
| > |
| > | I was aware of that and it doesn't exactly sway me.
| > Offering
| > | conditional freedom to the slaves of your enemy during
| > times of war
| > | isn't exactly motivated by ethics. It wasn't like
they
| > were freeing
| > | their own slaves, just the colonists slaves. Had the
| > colonists been
| > | fighting the British in her Carribean colonies I am
sure
| > things would
| > | have been the other way round with an offer to free
| > British slaves.
| > |
| > | The fact is the British didn't get around to freeing
there
| > slaves till
| > | about 58 years after the constitution was drafted.
Even
| > then their
| > | motivations were not neccesarily honorable. After
all
| > using slaves
| > | can be less profitable than free men in servitude.
Call
| > me jaded but
| > | I bet if you look into it there were other motives.
| > |
| > | Around 30 years later the US did the same. But
Lincoln
| > handled it in
| > | a ruthless and idiotic way. His real intentions
being to
| > maintain
| > | trade tarriffs which were hurting the south. Had
his
| > real
| > | intentions been to free slaves he could have done what
the
| > British
| > | did, which was to buy out the slaveholders. Lincoln
was
| > an all
| > | around jerk who ended up causing our bloodest war.
He
| > also basically
| > | threw out the constitution to pursue it.
| >
| > This is one of the more preposterous statements I have
read
| > in this NG.
|
| I think you have overreached here just a little bit. I
don't know
| which statement you are referring to so you'll have to
clue me in.
I thought it obvious that I was referring to the sentence
directly above my comment - the one about Lincoln being "an
all around jerk".
|
| > The Emancipation Proclamation was issued after three
years
| > of war, under War Powers.
|
| Your response is so vague I can't tell what you're
objecting to.
|
| How about you read and object to this:
| The Despot Named Lincoln
|
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=207&sortorder=issue
Thank you for the url. I have added it to my vast collection
of post-Modernist deconstruction crap.
I loved the way he sequed into the horrors of the
Reconstruction Era. The mess which followed the War was due
to the assassination of Lincoln.
| Lincoln was all about tariffs and slavery played second
fiddle. Same
| as with the British who wanted to tax the colonies and not
free
| slaves. He was a warmonger who violated the
constitution in his
| pursuit of war.
Tariffs were definitely an issue with the South, along with
the desire to preserve its "peculiar institution".
However, it is hard to understand how Lincoln's actions on
tariffs triggered Secession, since South Carolina seceded in
January, and the first Confederate Government was formed in
February 1861 - a month before Lincoln was inaugurated.
Despite this clear act of secession Lincoln took no military
action. The Civil War was begun by the South with the attack
on the Federal troops at Fort Sumter on 12 April 1861.
While tariffs were an issue, they had been an issue for
years' the panic in the South was caused by the election of
the man who gave the famous "house divided" speech, with
which most Southerners were familiar.
There is no question that Lincoln made use of War Powers, as
did FDR in his time.
One action which was probably unconstitutional was the
carving out of West Virginia from Virginia. However, no one
seems to have felt like challenging it, and it's a bit late
now.
The first real military move by the Union against the
Confederacy was not until July 1861, on the initiative of
General Winfield Scott. It was a disaster.
Lincoln himself did not issue a general war directive as
Commander-in-Chief until January 1862. General McClellan
ignored it and was sacked after two months of inactivity.
Lincoln moved with caution and restraint. He did not issue
the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863. In 1864 he vetoed
the Wade-Davis bill which imposed onerous conditions on
Southerners in occupied areas.
|
| >Lincoln was the best friend the South had.
|
| Actually, I think I nominate that statement for most
preposterous.
Well, many Southerners thought the same. His death was a
tragedy for the South.
When Lee surrendered, it was at Lincoln's orders that the
Confederate soldiers were release on parole. They were
allowed to take home their horses. Officer were allowed to
keep their sidearms.
Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, a weak man and a
Southerner. Then all hell broke loose.
BTW, your argument that Lincoln was more concerned about
tariffs that slavery suggests that you have never read his
Cooper Union address. I commend it to you. You can find it
at:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm
You would be one of very few people who do not recognise
that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest President of the
United States.
Try reading some undeconstructed history.
Izzy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igtheist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Palestinian National Charter |
13 Feb 2004 07:29:50 PM |
|
|
"Iskandar Baharuddin" <brengsek@mcpc.net.au> wrote in message news:<402ce1c0@news.highway1.com.au>...
"Igtheist" <igtheist_N_O_S_P_A_M@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ec75c602.0402130512.6ab142be@posting.google.com...
I thought it obvious that I was referring to the sentence
directly above my comment - the one about Lincoln being "an
all around jerk".
He was a jerk!
"During the war Lincoln established a number of tyrannical precedents,
including unconstitutionally conducting a war without the consent of
Congress; suspending habeas corpus; conscripting railroads and
censoring telegraph lines; imprisoning without trial some 30,000
northern citizens for merely voicing opposition to the war; deporting
a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, for opposing
Lincoln's income tax proposal at a Democratic Party political rally;
shutting down hundreds of Northern newspapers and imprisoning their
editors for questioning his war policies; ordering federal troops to
intimidate voters into voting Republican; and intentionally waging war
against civilians."
That's from this article:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=607&FS=Lincoln's+Economic+Legacy
|
| > The Emancipation Proclamation was issued after three
years
| > of war, under War Powers.
|
| Your response is so vague I can't tell what you're
objecting to.
|
| How about you read and object to this:
| The Despot Named Lincoln
|
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=207&sortorder=issue
Thank you for the url. I have added it to my vast collection
of post-Modernist deconstruction crap.
Why would you file it with your own writings? :)
Where you file things and what they are, are two separate issues.
Technically you could have filed it anywhere you pleased. Are you
claiming it's post-mondernist deconstruction? I know it's not so why
the diversion.
At this point I am starting to get concerned that you really don't
care what the truth is.
I loved the way he sequed into the horrors of the
Reconstruction Era. The mess which followed the War was due
to the assassination of Lincoln.
I see, had Lincoln, the jerk, as evidenced by the linked articles, not
been assassinated then the south would have been just fine. The
president who invented the idea of "War Powers", the racist, the liar,
and the man responsible for 600,000 deaths? He is the guy you think
would have been great for the south.
| Lincoln was all about tariffs and slavery played second
fiddle. Same
| as with the British who wanted to tax the colonies and not
free
| slaves. He was a warmonger who violated the
constitution in his
| pursuit of war.
Tariffs were definitely an issue with the South, along with
the desire to preserve its "peculiar institution".
However, it is hard to understand how Lincoln's actions on
tariffs triggered Secession, since South Carolina seceded in
January, and the first Confederate Government was formed in
February 1861 - a month before Lincoln was inaugurated.
Lincoln ran on a platform of screwing the south on tariffs and forcing
them to pay no matter what the cost. Of course the would secede when
he was elected. Lincoln had run on the platform of military
invasion of any southern state that didn't pay the tariffs. So it
is no so hard to understand. That is unless you're not too bright.
Do you think if the leader of the KKK was elected president today
that blacks would wait to riot until he took his oath?
Despite this clear act of secession Lincoln took no military
action.
Why should that lead to military action?
From the article:
"Lincoln may have "saved" the Union in a geographic sense, but his war
destroyed the union defined as a voluntary association of states.
Forcing a state to remain in the union at gunpoint renders that state
a conquered province, not a genuine partner. This was the overwhelming
sentiment of Northern opinion makers at the outset of the war.
As Horace Greeley wrote on March 21, 1861: "The great principle
embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is that governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed." If southerners
wanted to secede, "they have a clear right to do so." "Nine out of ten
of the people of the North," Greeley wrote, were opposed to forcing
South Carolina to remain in the Union."
The Civil War was begun by the South with the attack
on the Federal troops at Fort Sumter on 12 April 1861.
They were provoked into that attack and you know it.
While tariffs were an issue, they had been an issue for
years' the panic in the South was caused by the election of
the man who gave the famous "house divided" speech, with
which most Southerners were familiar.
Now this remark is particularly naïve. Here you admit that tariffs
are the sore point with the south. You know the south's solution to
the problem was secession. Yet you want to separate the two issues.
There is no question that Lincoln made use of War Powers, as
did FDR in his time.
LOL. "War powers" as you use it refers to the violation of the
constitution as exemplified by Lincoln. FDR was also a violator of
the constitution who used the precident set by Lincoln as an excuse
for his autocratic rule. Both these presidents were overruled by the
Supreme Court several times. However they were totally out of
control. Lincoln was deported a member of Congress who are by the
constitution not to be interfered with. FDR strong armed the Supreme
Court by threatening to pack it with an additional eight people of his
choosing.
One action which was probably unconstitutional was the
carving out of West Virginia from Virginia. However, no one
seems to have felt like challenging it, and it's a bit late
now.
He did plenty of others. He was full of contempt for the
constitution.
The first real military move by the Union against the
Confederacy was not until July 1861, on the initiative of
General Winfield Scott. It was a disaster.
That comment was totally irrelevant.
Lincoln himself did not issue a general war directive as
Commander-in-Chief until January 1862. General McClellan
ignored it and was sacked after two months of inactivity.
Now that says something about how much of a warmonger he was. He own
general objected.
Lincoln moved with caution and restraint.
LOL!
He did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
Shows you how far up on his list of priorities it was. He didn't even
free the slaves from states that stayed in the Union. He planned to
deport the slaves after the war was over. Is that what you mean when
you say he would have been good for the south? Shame on you.
In 1864 he vetoed
the Wade-Davis bill which imposed onerous conditions on
Southerners in occupied areas.
Feeling guilty was he. Or perhaps he understood that to extract
tariffs and retain is mercantilist political support he needed to get
the cash cow going again.
| >Lincoln was the best friend the South had.
|
| Actually, I think I nominate that statement for most
preposterous.
Well, many Southerners thought the same.
They would be right. But of course history is written by the victors.
His death was a
tragedy for the South.
LOL.
When Lee surrendered, it was at Lincoln's orders that the
Confederate soldiers were release on parole. They were
allowed to take home their horses. Officer were allowed to
keep their sidearms.
So what? What did you expect them to do? Cut them up and eat them?
Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, a weak man and a
Southerner. Then all hell broke loose.
I see. So 600,000 dead under Lincoln was as nothing compared to
carpetbaggers. Oh woe is me.
BTW, your argument that Lincoln was more concerned about
tariffs that slavery suggests that you have never read his
Cooper Union address. I commend it to you. You can find it
at:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm
Boy when he wasn't speaking to an abolitionist church he sure changed
his tune two years later:
August 22, 1862, Lincoln, "My paramount object in this struggle is to
save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I
could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I
could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do
that."
The fact that his Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves
from any states that stayed in the Union speaks to the actual truth of
his motivations.
You would be one of very few people who do not recognise
that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest President of the
United States.
Try reading some undeconstructed history.
I'm one of the few people who questions the received truths our
government teaches in the state schools. If that's what you mean.
I find history is often not best left to historians. Economists
make much better historians. Why don't you point out a false
historical claim in one of the links instead of making things up.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | |
