eCitizen

Canada has negotiated land settlements. More needs to be done, but there has been serious acknowledgment of the debt owing and there is a process in place. There are direct discussions, unlike Israel, which continues to try to negotiate over the heads of the Palestinians with any major power who is willing to pour money into zionism.

The first stops for a new Canadian Foreign Minister should be, in this order.... Vancouver....Beijing... New Delhi.... Bruxelles....Washington... New York. Why on earth is John Baird going to Libya? Why does the Harper government continue to squander opportunities to be a world player? DISAPPOINTED !

Listening to Jazz FM this afternoon and there was an ad for "the next phase of Canada's economic action plan". At the end, in sotto voce was one of those creeping disclaimers like you hear for drug plans... "Subject to approval by Parliament" Is this Stephen Harper acknowledging Parliament?

I once bought a set of 3 books in Beijing that were published in Singapore - Fun With Chinese Characters. It cost me $US150 because the Politburo (or whoever) had decided to restrict all foreign language publications to rich foreigners.... er well something like that. At least as near as I can figure it out. You could only buy it in the "Friendship Stores". It was actually worth it. Well at least at the salary I was making then. A three volume set laying out the most commonly used Chinese characters with illustrations and English explanations for each one, with etymology, use and variations. Turns out it was developed by the Government of Singapore and published by the Singapore Straits Times to teach Mandarin to Singaporian children. Lee Quan Yew had a big campaign on to make Mandarin the the official Chinese dialect of the island nation (as opposed to the mutated South China version being spoken in the streets). There were banners across Orchard Road : Learn Mandarin!. I'm not kidding. It was around this time that Deng Xiaopeng told the world that he thought China should be modeled on Singapore! The mouse that roared. Imagine Harper saying Canada should be modeled on New York... or Marseilles.. or any foreign city. Damn, that little man had some big balls. Where is Israel's Deng Xiaopeng? Maybe I should have waited for my next trip and bought it in Singapore. Probably would have cost me $S10!

A review in a recent issue of The Economist of a two books describing the situation for Palestinian Arab citizens within Israel... http://www.economist.com/node/18741300

Well ummm. No. What is unique about Israel's position is the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has ratified and by whioh it is bound. As is demonstrated in the Haaretz article I've posted twice in this thread and meticulously researched in the published works of modern Israeli historians, the Palestinians did not leave of their own accord but were driven out by Zionist militias. Perhaps you have some personal stake in propagating the mythology that Israel has constructed around its founding. Tant pis.

Yes you are right! I agree with you. How can you compensate for a life, a family, a home, a business, a career? To be uprooted and displaced or worse. Much worse. But the law at least provides for some form of redress. No it is not the same, but it is something. It is at least an acknowledgement. Yes you have been wronged. Yes this is not right what was done to you, to your family. At least there is that. And that is something that the world can see. This should not be allowed to happen. This is wrong. This is what we believe is fair and just; though there is little we can do, we can at least do this. And at the end of the day, isn't what this is really about? Some measure of fairness? Some justice? Some recognition? And most especially for those who do not have power to force it out of those who have wronged them. That is surely when justice and fairness are most important of all and when we really show our mettle as a species. And of course that brings us to the Palestinians. They are owed a "Right of Return". Whether or not that is something Israel considers possible is really about declaring a bargaining position. If the Israelis don't want to give that up, then it is something they must bargain for. It is not enough that some twit like Netenyahu can fold his arms and declare, "No. Not ever. Impossible. Hrumph." And when one speaks of such a right or return, somebody on the Israeli side says, "Well what about those Jews driven out of Arab lands?" Certainly. They too may be owed a right of return. And they should pursue that with the countries responsible just as the Palestinian Arabs are pursuing their right of return with Israel. Where this goes off the track is when somebody says, "Well we'll just trade the Palestinian Arab right of return for that of the Jews who had to leave Arab countries." Naturally, that is untenable. This is making Palestinians Arabs suffer because of actions taken by governments over whom they had no control, whether those governments acted in sympathy or not.

Is that it? Israel poo poo ka ka? Do you actually have a historical argument? A fact based argument? Do you know anything at all? Looking at your posts in this thread, I'm not seeing much evidence of anything but a lot of enmity for some of the other members. There is a program on one of the cable channels that features live video taken in American jails. Every once in a while they show a prisoner who starts throwing feces at the window of his holding cell and smearing it all over the place. Poo poo ka ka. Indeed.

"Interests: Exposing liars".

Oh but they have been. There have been a number of legal cases in which Jews who were illegally dispossessed of their property were given restitution. And if there are any who have not, then I absolutely agree that they should pursue those cases against the governments who are responsible.

So why did Israel sign them?

Your intractability doesn't surprise me given your self-description. Judeosupremacism? How is that different from white supremacism? Settler Fundamentalist? I mean really. Who do you think your fooling? The JNF Act enshrines the JNF policy of refusing to lease land to Arab citizens and is a perfect example of state approved institutional racism. Whether the JNF is a private organisation or not is irrelevant. If the Canadian government passed a Bank Act that said it is OK for the banks to refuse to lend to a particular ethnic or religious group, we would become an instant international pariah and rightly so. You've lost the point. Move on. I'm certainly not going to waste any more time on this.

Where is that tinfoil hat?

Under the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed and by which it is therefor bound, it makes no difference why people leave an area of conflict, they are still owed a "right of return". This provision was enacted to prevent the kind of civilian disasters that occurred during the second world war where civilians would refuse to leave an area of conflict for fear of losing their property and ended up getting massacred. A more modern example occurred in the former Yugoslavia where Moslems fled an area of conflict only to have their land and houses taken over by Serbs. After the Arabs left, Israel closed its borders and refused to allow them to return. It then passed, in 1950, the laws of abandonment which said that any Arab land left vacant could be confiscated by the state. In any case, modern historians have shown that most of the Palestinians did not leave voluntarily, but were driven out by Zionist militias. I posted a link to a Haaretz article earlier in this thread which provides historical evidence supporting this. Remember that the Arabs and Jews both had been disarmed by the British in 1939. The Jews re-armed by smuggling arms in from Czechoslovakia, whose arms makers had lost their best customer once the Nazis were defeated. The Arabs, after centuries of poverty under the Turks, had no resources with which to re-arm. In 1947, when the Zionist purges started, the Arabs were unarmed and vulnerable. Here is the link again The 1948 Arab Evacuation of Haifa

Here is an article by Robert Fisk in The Independent detailing the inside story of the Hamas/Fatah agreement. Note that part of the agreement involves Hamas pledging not to fire any more rockets at Israel. Since the agreement, no rockets have fallen to my knowledge. Revealed: the untold story of the deal that shocked the Middle East Fisk has been reporting on the Middle East for some 30 years. He has written many well reviewed books, including Pity The Nation which describes the Lebanese civil war, invasion and occupation of Lebanon by Israel in the 1980s, and the birth of Hamas. While writing Pity the Nation, Fisk lived in Beirut and watched events unfold.

There is a very strong movement by the Israeli right to acquire as much land as possible in Jerusalem in concert with Netenyahu's goal of a "united" Jerusalem. Arabs know well that once they sell land in Jerusalem to a Jew, there will be zero chance they would ever be able to buy it back. In a free and open real estate market, all buyers and sellers would be on a level playing field. What is happening in Jerusalem is that you have land being sequestered by one group with the goal of eliminating the other.

This guy has posted a half dozen times in this thread and has yet to say anything on the topic. Is he always like this?

I posted a link showing that the Knesset passed on first reading the JNF Act which includes a policy that the JNF will not lease land to Arabs. Enough said.

Here is an Al Jazeera online item on this subject Can equality exist in the Jewish state? Note the comments regarding the advantages of serving in the military.

Huh? So now we're into tinfoil hat territory are we? Stay on the porch DOP. Chasing cars will only get your pawsies trampled.

Oh I see. So now the thread is about something else is it? Typical. Whenever anybody debunks one of the many myths promulgated by Israel's supporters, somebody pops up and say "Oh yeah? Well the Arabs are worse!". Read the thread title Dog on Porch. Stick to the subject.

What you meant to say? What you are doing is spinning. You think that because you make a distinction between one kind of immigration and another, everybody else should just go along with it. The fact remains that Israel deliberately favours immigration of Jews and stacks the deck in favour of a Jewish demographic majority. The heterogeneity of Jews is completely irrelevant. Try to focus on the point under discussion. Not sure what olim means. I don't speak Hebrew and have absolutely no interest in learning it. This is an English board. Speak English. If you want to speak Hebrew, find a Hebrew board. Your characterisation of the JNF as a small private organisation with a small amount of land is inaccurate and you know it. Here is the Wikipedia entry....Jewish National Fund which indicates the JNF has controlled 13% of all land in Israel and has been actively finding land to house Jewish immigrants (relevant to my point re land policy, huh?). Here is a quote from that Wikipedia article describing the JNF's attitude towards Arabs... This quote makes it abundantly clear how the JNF favours Jews and discriminates against Arabs. Note also the passage that refers to the JNF's role in acquiring land characterised as belonging to "missing persons" - i.e. Palestinian refugees.As for the Arabs and military service, I stick to my assertion. Not serving in the military puts one at a disadvantage in Israel.

What do I know? More than you give me credit for, apparently. Religion - the Jewish state doesn't have an official religion. Good one. Immigration - (emigration refers to the process of leaving a country; immigration is incoming. Check your dictionary.) The policy favours the members of one religion. Whether they are citizens at the time is immaterial since they invariably become citizens and thereby increase the population and democratic weight of the favoured religion. How it is "seen" is really irrelevant. Immigration by any other name is still immigration. Land policy - if you are a settler as your subtitle indicates (and a Judaeosupremacist !), you can't be serious in saying land policies do not favour Jews. Once those immigrants arrive and become citizens, they are offered loans at very favourable rates and placement in new housing blocks, often in settlements. In any case, I refer you to the covenants of the JNF. Military service - military service is fundamental to full acceptance into Israeli life and considered not only a duty but a rite of citizenship. There is resentment against those who do not serve who are seen as getting a "free ride". In any case, Arabs are not invited to serve in the military because they are not considered trustworthy. Given your self-description, your post is clearly disingenuous. My guess is that you are one of the those Hasbara types and that further discussion will just produce more of the same.

How about if that state favours the members of the "official religion" with respect to its policies? Israel's immigration, housing, land policies.... etc. all heavily favour Jews.

Haaretz weighs in on 1948 and Israeli mythology concerning the Palestinian evacuation of Haifa... http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/port-in-a-storm-1.365729