suds

Take my word for it.... it's never gonna happen. Never. Both the British and U.N. came to the same realization that the Jews and Arabs couldn't live under the same roof together. So, 80 years later do you get this sense that things are better now than back then? The thing is that even with the present situation the Israelis can live with the status quo while the Palestinians have to make a choice. That is if they want to have some kind of life to live for them and their children. And with the world just waiting to rebuild Gaza, it shouldn't be a difficult one.

That's sort of what the British had in mind at the very beginning of their Mandate. After the British gave up on that idea, it was the U.N. in the end that decided on one State for the Arabs and one State for the Jews, with economic cooperation. How would a single state with two nations work politically with the Jews outnumbered to such an extent? What about Israel's nukes for example? Why would Israel agree to such an arrangement in the first place if they won't budge on the right of return? It's what the Christians and Muslims attempted to do in Lebanon. Their power sharing agreement worked for a while, and then turned into civil war.

Hi Gaetan. Have you thought this through? How would you like to see this end? A blockade isn't going to end anything. Nobody in their right mind wants to see this continue. No negotiations means no peace, and it's going to end horribly for someone. Maybe everyone.

This is unbelievable to say the least. I don't blame the Judge. One silly government did this.

Ok, I'll play the peanut gallery. I'm not going to defend Israel because I believe what they're doing is wrong. But if the Palestinians don't like it, then tell them to sit down, negotiate in good faith, and sign a f*cking peace agreement!!. That's if it's not too late. And I wouldn't blame Israel if they told them to go to hell.

I can't say I like the way you worded this. Is that 'someone' you're referring to me or someone else?? If it's me, then that creates a big f*cking problem. If it's not, then please remove it.

Ireland is 90% white and predominantly Christian. There's next to no Jews, Arabs, or any other minority living there. If that's the best reason that anyone can come up with why there's so much antisemitism, then they must be getting fed a pile of sh*t from somewhere. Unlike Canada and Australia where I'm sad to say that votes count, it doesn't exist there.

I can agree with that. Except I've never heard of any Israeli leader insist a Palestinian identity does not exist. Can you say the same thing with Palestinian leaders on Jewish identity and ties to the land? Well good luck with that. And you can lump all those who refer to Jews as 'colonizers' in with that brand.

Jordan is not technically Palestine. The State of Palestine today is officially the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Under the British Mandate, Transjordan (which made up 3/4 of the total Mandate) was made off limits to Jewish settlement. What Hamas refers to as conquered lands is specifically Israel, and Spain (including Andalusia). So my Spanish friends, I guess you're next on their bucket list.

How would one correctly define the belligerents in the conflicts pre May 14, 1948 compared to afterwards when Israel was attacked by a number of Arab armies from different countries? For the sake of convenience, would 'Palestinian Arabs' have been a better choice of words than simply 'Palestinian'?

That's what Hamas wants and not necessarily all Palestinians. The struggle between Jews and Palestinians began in the mid 1800's as a conflict between Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism. In the 1900's as more Arab countries got involved, it turned into a conflict between Zionism and Pan-Arab Nationalism. Since then, Hamas has turned it into a conflict between Zionism and Islamism. Or as a poster had mentioned in another thread .... 'a conflict of winner take all'. The Jews see it as 'promised land' while Hamas sees all of Palestine as conquered land that must remain Islamic until the day of resurrection. Israel isn't going anywhere, and there will never be anything resembling peace until Hamas is gone. It's all in the Hamas Covenant.

I must have missed that. So as it stands now, what don't we agree with? Other than my feelings that it's best just to leave it the way it is, outside of maybe clarifying a few things.

Another thing to consider is that if the Crown is done away with... all of the treaties the First Nations signed with the Crown may have to be renegotiated. Again, some scholars say they will have to be renegotiated and some say they won't. What will the First Nations think about that?

I wouldn't say they were useless, but it is a subject that not all constitutional scholars agree on. Without a Governor General, any future PM would have almost complete control over the workings of Parliament with little oversight (it being almost that way now, see my second link). It's why many feel that systemic changes have to be made. I would prefer these reserve powers lying in the hands of the Supreme Court if possible. Except the Supreme Court is also an un-elected body isn't it? There's also supposed to be a separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches. An elected head of state perhaps? This is where we get back to being neutral or apolitical in answer to your first question. My expert opinion (ha ha) would pick the Supreme Court.

Reserve Powers: The Prerogative Right of Viceregals to make Independent Political Decisions As the name suggests, the reserve powers of the Crown are prerogatives held in reserve, to be used only in times of constitutional uncertainty or crisis when the monarch or her or his viceregal representatives may be required to make governmental and constitutional decisions of the highest order contrary to the advice of a first minister. In a parliamentary system, these extraordinary circumstances have tended to arise during times of minority governments, when no one political party has won a majority of parliamentary seats in the most recent election. While most minority governments in Canadian history have functioned relatively well, problems can and have arisen in rare instances, resulting in constitutional impasses. In circumstances such as these, the viceregal possesses the individual constitutional prerogative to exercise one of more of the reserve powers independently from the advice of the first minister. In so acting, a viceregal will be exercising these powers so as to uphold the principles and practices of responsible government. https://iscc-iecc.ca/backgrounder/reserve-powers-of-the-crown/ https://firstfreedoms.ca/a-broken-system-the-mackinnon-decision-and-the-urgent-need-for-parliamentary-reform/

That, or something very close to it. Because it's the only thing that makes any sense.

What would Canada as a republic look like? Just simply say goodbye to Charles and replace him with an elected head of state? What powers would an elected head of state have if any? What about any terminology referring to the 'crown'? Would it no longer exist? Would there be any changes for the Governor General and all the provincial Lieutenant Governors who as of now still represent the crown? Or would they retain the same duties and be representatives of the newly elected head of state?

Are you referring to visible minorities because my memory can't stretch any further than that. According to the Canadian Encyclopaedia, overt racial discrimination in immigration policy only began to disappear from Canadian immigration legislation and regulations by the late 1960's. Up until then almost all immigration was from European countries. French or English was also a priority. These racist policies seem to back up what I remember and what my yearbook shows. My schooling took place in Ontario and Quebec which may have made a difference. It's possible the eastern part of Canada may have attracted more white Europeans, while the western part more brown skinned Asians. I have no idea, but please advise Herbie that I was not schooled on some distant planet.

I can see why. Thanks.

Let's say one was Chinese living in a large Chinese community and wanted to run for election. Your chances of a successful run would be far greater by having the backing of the 'United Front'. So how do you stop this interference by the CPP? Obviously we can't ban Chinese people from running for election.

Interesting. So Ma could have been pressured by Beijing to cross the floor making a Liberal majority that much more likely. And more interference in our elections by the CCP. That's just great.

I went to public school and high school in the late 50's and 60's. The yearbook I still have from 1965 shows maybe one or two non-white kids. It's hard to tell. In all the other years I don't recall there being more than a few either. Of course this is just young kids and teenagers. The first time I saw a black person was when we took a drive to the states when I was about 10 or so. But again, this is the world view from the eyes of a 10 year old.

Climate change, a functioning economy, population, energy capacity, resource availability, food supply, water, defense, healthcare, AI, managing debt, financing major projects, living standards, and perhaps the most important thing ..... sustainability, are all things to be considered on where we're going to be as a country (or world) or would like to be in the not so distant future. And I'm not bright enough to put them all together. Just increasing population growth is only a short term solution that could possibly have long term negative effects at the stage we're at now. All these people we bring in get old too. We should be getting the right people to start figuring some of this stuff out. NOW. I'm not knocking politicians but they don't really have a clue.

The obvious question is how much is too much. 100 times seems extremely excessive to me.

This is what I would refer to as being one of the uglier sides of politics. Putting one's own best interests ahead of everything else.