Rue

I am sorry JBG I can not embrace a thought process that generalizes all Muslims or Arabs as evil or in negative terms. I can't because I detest it when people do it in regards to Israelis or Jews and I detest it when they do it in regards to women, aboriginals or any other social group, etc. I think when you get into a thought space where you generalize a whole social group or ethnnic group in a negative way, you in effect dehumanize them or demonize them. I am 100% sure that's what Remiel and Black Dog are getting at. I think its important you know you can support Israel, be a Zionist but not hate Arabs or think they are all bad. I believe the vast majority of Muslims are no different then Jews, Israelis, Christians or anyone else. We all bleed red. We all want a steady job, a clean home, a place to bring up children in a safe environment, clean environment, etc. I just can not embrace this us and them catagorization. Peace can only come about when we stop looking at what is different or what we fear in others and instead see what we find similiar and what we can embrace or share joy in.

Last time I looked Indians lived in India. If you bother to read the legal arguements being advanced by the aboriginal nations they have never asked for ALL the land in Canada. The rights they seek enforced or the compensation they seek are based on specific treaties that were breached. You are correct when you say the concept of ownership in these nations is a collective concept. It is a collective right of the community or specific nation. As for various rights associated with hunting or fishing its far more complicated then saying it is limited to within reserves. Many of the treaties never said that. Here is another issue to ponder. The use of land by aboriginal peoples unlike the use of land by we allegedly advanced people did not poison it or deplete its resources. The aboriginal concept of exploiting the earth was one of not using more then the earth could provide and not destroying anything that could not be replaced and leaving the land as it was found. The current legal problems with the exploitation of land come from allegedly advanced civilization and its corporate structure which has not been morally responsible, has ignored all the laws of nature and done permanent damage to the earth. Its ironic that the latest trend is for politicians to be talking about the environment. Why is it now that we have destroyed the earth and are all dying of cancer, we finally think we should consider what the aboriginals tried to tell us centuries ago but we laughed off because of our notions of cultural superiority?

It is absurd to compare native rights to the normal property rights that everyone else. They are a special class of rights that only people with the right DNA are allowed to have. You are amazing. You keep referring to the collective rights of aboriginal peoples as dna based. Do you do that because you are that oblivious to history and refuse to acknowledge it? When the British and French came to Canada and imposed their laws and entered into treaties they then broke, do you think anyone cared about the DNA of aboriginals? The many years of hatred directed at aboriginals because of the notion that white Christians were superior-how does that fit in your DNA theory? Stop with the double standard. If you think its racist to acknowledge the collective rights of the aboriginals then you must be consistent and also consider it racist that our current laws are based on racism as well. The collective rights the aborginals are seeking recognized, are based on treaties NOT dna. They are based on treaties with their nations that were broken and they now seek compensation for. Stop selectively twisting this around as if we caucasians are the victims of racism by aboriginals we are not. They are not asking to kill us or put us on reservations or force us into orphanages and institutions so they can sexually molest us and impose their religious views on us.

FAIRNESS Your other statements indicate you are not interested in fairness. You are not neutral as to the Middle East conflict therefore you are necessarily unfair. Yoru concept of fairness, is to favour the Muslim world and be anti-Israel. You have made that clear in your statements. That means your comment above is meaningless.

"The billions upon billions of dollars we've lavished on Israel would have gone a long way in formenting good relationships with everyone in the region." Who is we? Its not the Canadian government. The Canadian government does not provide billions of foreign aid to Israel. So who are you referring to? The U.S.? Let's get something straight. Your selective recitation of history and the use of the word "zionist" as a catch-phrase negative term for any one you perceive is pro-Israel is defective and inaccurate and its inaccurate. Would you please take the time to find out what a zionist is before you trot it out in your unoriginal, anti-Israel rants. More to the point do you know anything about what the U.S. gains in its support of Israel? You think Jews in Israel sit around rich from Us benefits!!!? Grow up. The U.S. government subsidizes heavy military trade with Israel for an ibvious reason. Israel is the tester for all U.S. equipment. Israel takes the U.S. military equipment, tests it and refines it. Israel has become an open air research arena for the US military industrial complex. The US benefits from this arrangement for two reasons. Firstly the trade with Israel is tax free for the thousands of US military industrial companies. Secondly it enables them to test their equipment so they can then go on to sell it all over the world. So grow up. The US benefits financially from its support of Israel otherwise it would not do what it does. Secondly, and if you took the time to research you would find it out, the US most certainly charges Israel interest on what it owes. So the next time you say "we" be specific as to who "we" is because all you are doing is spouting the same old tiresome stereotypical rhetoric that somehow Israel is just sucking off the world like a parasite. Gee wonder where you got that stereotype from. Its oh so original. "In spite of all the money and weapons we've given to Israel, they still spy on us and have become one of the reasons the rest of the world hates us." You made two incredibly ridiculous statements. Firstly Israel does not spy on Canada. Israel has no need to spy on Canada. If anything, CSIS and the RCMP ask for Israeli assistance in providing information as to Hamas and Hezbollah money laundering in Canada. You made a sweeping statement as to Israel spying on Canada that has no substantiation and clearly is your own paranoid, subjective feeling. As for your simplistic and naive comment that the world hates Canada for being friendly to Israel is that the kind of analysis you offer on this forum as to foreign policy? You have to be kidding. So I get it. Lets all hate Israel and make sure the Canadian foreign policy is one that says we hate Israel, and then the world will like us? Talk about simplistic drivel. Canada's reputation in the world does not come about whether it is friendly with Israel or anyone else. It comes about from how we conduct ourselves with each and every nation. Your concept of foreign relations and what makes a country popular or unpopular is absurd. You are typical of a mentality that thinks if we hate Israel terrorists will leave us alone. You are living in an infantile world. The same terrorists that want Israel eradicated also want you eradicated. If you can't understand that its time you start to read the charters of Hezbollah, Al Quadea and Hamas to start with, then read the manifestos of the over 45 Islamic Terrorist organizations in the Middle East laundering money in Canada and committing white collar crimes in Canada to raise funds to fuel terrorist activities across the world. "Not only was our unbalanced policy wrong in terms of the US long-term interests, it was also the worng thing to do morally." Who are you to lecture anyone on "unbalanced" (you probably meant imbalanced) policy or morality when your concept of morality is to hate Israel so as not to be hated by others. Now that's moral. Now that is balanced. Your notion of balance is being bias against Israel, that is clear. That makes your comment absurd. Here is the bottom line. We know where you stand. Israel bad. Arab world good. Not original. Terribly simplistic. For those of us who can write, read and think, we realize the Middle East like many other conflict zones, came about from colonial interference and the creation of artificial borders so that Britain and France could control the Middle East and do two things; i-control the oil by creating Arab fiefdoms of friendly corupted regimes, ii-prevent Jews from having a country. The first agenda has been achieved but the cost has been high. The corupt regimes the Americans, British, French, Russians, Chinese and other European Union members care to prop up are costly and in the case of Iraq not worth the price of the oil they have or in the case of Iran, not long-term. In China's case with Iran, China will have depleted all of Iran's natural gas resources well before its twenty five year one sided treaty ends. The Russians who play both sides of the coin and ally with Israel and Turkey against some terrorists but then cozy up to Iran, find themselves unable to stop Muslim fundamentalists from flowing into their sphere of influence and competing with their Black Sea oil. The US and the European Union have both tried sucking up to the Arab world and it has made no difference. The bottom line is industry has finally decided the oil game is up and the car industry is already switching to technology it has been sitting on for over 50 years-electric hybrids, methane gas engines, ethol alcohol engines, hydrogen coversion engines and solar battery power. Within 50 years if the planet hasn't melted the Middle East will be an after thought as know one will want oil anymore and the price for it bottoms out. As for your convenient world of bad Israel and good Muslim countries got news for you-the people you are sucking up to despise you more then they do the Israelis. At least they know the Israelis will fight to live and until their death. With you on the other hand, your soft Western values make them laugh. They chomp at the bit until the day they can blow you up as you trot about thinking they are your friends cuz you hate Israelis.

That is about the strangest thing I have ever heard. Strange? I do not doubt you would find it strange. You have shown in your dialogue that you will not acknowledge the legal treaties we entered into with aboriginals and then breached. It is this refusal to acknowledge Canadian history, our historic treatment of aboriginals in the past and our legal cases and breached treaties, that led me to say you and not aboriginal warriors are a threat to my identity. Aboriginals when arguing for their rights, simply remind us all of where we came from. In your case, you choose to ignore where you come from, and truly believe you can simply start today, as if eveything is on a level playing field and just conveniently forget history. What I am saying to you is this-if you do not understand Canadian history and choose to ignore it - you are a threat to my Canadian identity. I choose to remember where I come from so as to know where I am going.

Rue, I have asked you this before and you evaded the question. What would you say if the law and these treaties required you to hand over your own property without compensation to a native band? Would you put your money where your mouth is? I am willing to bet your answer is no. If that is your answer then you have no business lecturing anyone on the sanctity of treaties or law. I have been away. I apologize for not responding earlier. I will give you the same answer I said in the past. If two parties have a conflict as to who should own the land, it should be the role of our government to find a way to accommodate both. As I have said in the past, neither I nor aboriginal groups advocating for their rights have asked treaties to be imposed blindly. To suggest such a thing is just not true. You have to take the time to read the arguements presented by the native groups before you label their positions as simply wanting to take things away from you. Now you asked me a question. Would I agree to someone taking my land away without compensation. That was NEVER the issue. If you read anything I said in defence of aboriginal legal rights, at no time have I ever said, people like you if displaced or placed in a situation of inequity, should not receive government compensation. I think with due respect you are posing the question as to recognizing aboriginal rights as an all or nothing debate. If we respect and honour their rights, it necessarily means taking land away from non natives. This is just not true. In the vast majority of legal disputes as to land, we are talking access to natural resources, hunting and fishing and compensation to aborigonals when land is exploited. We are not talking about taking your home away. I have said it once and I will say it again. If a Canadian is placed in a situation of hardship on an individual basis, i.e., they are faced with their home being taken away, then yes of course, we have to find a legal solution to compensate such people in the same humanitarian tradition we need to follow when we accommodate aboriginals. Please understand I have been in a position in Israel where two sets of people fought to the death over the same land. It doesn't work. It can't work. It requires ordinary people like you and me finding a compromise and compromises are possible. Aboriginal legal arguements presented to the federal government and in court have not been simply ultimatums. They have constantly suggested compromise positions only to have them rejected. By the way I don't blindly follow the law. I have been arguing the law is a set of variables that must be applied with compassion and due consideration for all the parties in the dispute, not just some.

JBG when you generalize all Palestinians in one lump sum negative category you are doing something just as wrong as when people lump all Zionists or Jews or Israelis into interchangeable negativegeneral categories. You see who responds to your postulations? Its the same people who engage in the same tiresome generalizations against ALL Jews, ALL Jewish Israelis and all Zionists. I will say it one more time JBG. As Jews, we are human. As Palestinians they are human. We both bleed the same blood and want the same things. The fact that Palestinians are in the grip of terrorist organizations does not mean you should generalize against them all just as we as Jews detest it when people generalize about all Israelis or Jews. The average Palestinian is no different then the average Israeli in the sense that they both want the following; i-peace ii-employment iii-access to fresh water iv-access to medical care and education. See I do not doubt there are good people in Israel. But I also know not everyone in Israel is an angel. I also do not doubt there are good people who are Palestinians even though I know how violent Hamas or Intifada or the PFLP or Fatah can be. All you will do is if you start off with the assumption Palestinians generally speaking are bad, is to encourage the Figleafs of the world. You reinforce their simplistic notions there is a bad guy and a good guy. You open yourself to the simplistic responses of Blackdog of Figleaf because you give them a simplistic paradign from which they respond. It is not black and white. Its grey. No side has a monopoly on virtue or goodness or evil. I have good friends who died as Israeli soldiers. It is in their memory I won't subscribe to the kind of hatred that dismisses all Palestinians as evil. That is not why they died and that is not what they would expect of me.

"As a lawyer can you not see how racist Canadian laws are, in favour of natives? " Uh no I can't and evidently neither can the Supreme Court of Canada. I think your definition of racist is defective. You are suggesting because aboriginals are merely seeking to reinforce treaties that have been broken somehow they are trying to ask for special rights. I think you have completely missed the boat on what racism is. Racism is the notion that we can ignore the pre-existing laws and existence of people prior to 1867 who are not caucasian Christians from Europe and whose religion and laws differed. Racism is placing these people on reserves, entering into treaties with these people then breaking them, and now trying to argue well tough, we are here now, lets just ignore what we did in the past and just start today and ignore what we did. "No tax, extra rights and freedoms?" This is where you are just plain wrong. You make this concept of no tax seem like a benefit. Have you even a clue why aboriginals are not taxed? You obviously don't otherwise you wouldn't make the assumption this is a privilege. If there is no tax, perhaps you should try find out why there is no tax. It makes up for something else taken away from aboriginals. Until you can figure that out, I won't go further on the point. See the problem is you are ignorning the reason why there is no tax. It was not given as a privilege, it was given as an offset for other rights taken away unfairly. As for your comment that aboriginals have extra rights, again this flows from your lack of awareness of what their rights are. They are not asking for anything extra. In fact if they were, the Supreme Court of Canada would not have made the decisions it already has. The aboriginal legal claims don't ask for anything extra, just what was originally promised to them in treaties that were then broken. In fact if the aboriginal peoples used the same arguement you are using today, they would in fact ask for more or extra rights. Please don't confuse them with you. "Being allowed to get away with terrorist-like actions that would have members of any other race incarcerated?" See the above comment for me is interesting. I lived in Israel. I have seen people blow up. I have seen people from both sides suffer from terrorist attacks. I have seen soldiers in Guatemala shoot down aboriginal peasant farmers in a corn-field and I barely got out alive having stumbled on to it. I have witnessed the Tonts Tonts Maceaux (I probably spelled it wrong) in Haiti terrorize their citizens when Papa Doc Duvaliers was in charge. I have seen terrorism and when I see what you refer to as terrorism all I can say is, aboriginal peoples have not engaged in terrorism. They haven't attacked innocent children or public areas. What you call terrorism are aboriginals occupying land. The reality is we live in a wonderful country where our armed forces and our police, with a couple of exceptions (thank you Mike Harris) and the aboriginal peoples have avoided violence in confrontations. Aboriginal people could have and have never engaged in terrorism. Please do not confuse taking a stand with terrorism. See you really need to meet face to face with the warriors you call terrorists. If you knew who they were and put a person and face to them, you would realize, if they wanted to kill you and engage in indiscriminate violence they would have done it long ago. "Where does this belong in a democratic equal society? " The Supreme Court of Canada already clearly answered that question and said in a democractic society we must learn to tolerate and respect one another and to do that means taking responsibility for treaties we entered into then broke. Your use of the word "equal" is selective. For you its "equal" as long as aboriginals give up their right to be equal. Well it aint going to happen. Aboriginals understand the law, they understand how it works, and they know if they wait long enough, the very laws you do not like, will prevent you from making them unequal. "The answer is simple. It doesn't belong." The answer for you of course is simple, as long as aboriginals know their place and don't try enforce what we promised them in treaties, everything will be o.k. Well that is wishful thinking. Ignoring treaties we entered into and are obliged to honour, will not solve this problem. The fact that you don't want to accept legal responsibility won't make it go away. Our moral responsibility to obey the treaties we entered into of course belongs. It's who we are. It is what we stand for. If we break our treaties, that makes us liars and I am not interested in being a liar and living a lie. Aboriginals do not scare me-breaching treaties does. If my country's word means nothing, in my opinion, I mean nothing. Maybe you want to be part of a social vision where we lie and cheat, I do not. Aboriginal warriors do not worry me. You do. Aboriginal warriors don't threaten my identity-you do. Aboriginals are simply asking we remember who we are. You are basically saying ignore what we don't like. I truky believe we have to honour laws and treaties, even those we don't like. It makes us who we are. Our word is all we have when all is said and done.

And if your parents didn't have a will, you would recieve them based on your DNA.The problem with indian rights is they are paid for by people who did not agree to the contract. IOW, how would you feel if your parents bought a car by promising that their children would be responsible for making the payments? In that situation the contract would be unenforceable because it tried to bind people would did not agree to it. Someone who sold a car to your parents with those terms would not be entitled to anything after your parents die. Your above analogy makes no legal sense. You are comparing a civil contract between two parties with administrative law that deals with contracts between collective groups not individuals. The laws are not the same at all and so for you to try suggest the constitutional and administrative laws governing the interpretation of treaties made with aboriginals are the same as a contract entered into by two individuals is absurd. You are comparing apples to oranges. You seem to completely ignore how the law operates, and when you are told you keep making the same arguement that if you don't like the law, you can just ignore it and start again with laws or rules you like. That is called wishful thinking and I can't respond to it other then to say your wishful thinking does not and can not change how the legal system works.

Well now, I waited until what seems to be the end of this post to make my real comment. What this post shows is that some people desperately need to believe in conspiracies. It helps them come up with a system to define who they think are the elites and sinisters and bad guys, so they can then blame them for everything ranging from war, to economic destruction to world social conspiracies. The true agenda here is not that there is a 9-11 conspiracy, but that there are bad guys we should blame things on. So who are the bad guys? Well gosh that's easy, just ask Lyndon Larouche. See if its not 9-11 it will be something else, and Lyndon can tell us all who the bad guys are and why we should follow him instead. Now me, I find there are just so many Lyndon Larouches and conspiracy theories to follow out there. There's no shortage of prophets and their followers. I personally am part of the Paris Hilton Group and Lindsay Lohan Group. These new think tanks are at the cutting edge in conspiracy theories and how aids and herpes are being spread and who is behind it. Its the Olsen Twins of course.

I just read the above idiocy. You are talking about a subject you do not understand and have completely misrepresented the situation as to which Jews find themselves. That would be the subject of another thread. As for your comment that "people don't like Zionists because of what they have done in Palestine" you are again showing your complete lack of knowledge of the Middle East conflict. The hatred is not just about Zionists, its about Jews world-wide and for that matter Christians, Bahaiis, Hindus, Buddhists, Gays, feminists, Zoroastreans, communists, and so on. Your attempt to simplify it as simply being a misunderstanding with Zionists is ridiculous and again the source for another thread. Your comment about it being a water war is actually bang on. Its always been about water.

Rue, you are making no sense. Section 25 was added to the 1982 constitution because many constitutional experts feared the charter would override aboriginal treaty rights. Section 25 would not have been necessary if these rights were really unchangeable."I have no idea what point you are trying to make legally by referring to s.25 and the 1982 Consitution Act. I never suggested existing aboriginal and treaty which are protected in Canada’s Constitution, were absolute. However what you fail to understand or choose to ignore is that any law passed by a provincial, territorial or federal legislature and/or any decision of a provincial, federal or municipal government that could be construed to either interfere or ‘infringe’ upon aboriginal/treaty rights can be judicially held to be of no effect. Yes legislative assemblies could continue to enact legislation and representatives of the Crown could continue to make decisions within their respective jurisdictional areas that infringe aboriginal and treaty rights, but to be able to succeed they would have to be able to properly argue the infringements were justified and the onus is on them not the aboriginal peoples to show they are justified. To show ample justification there would have to be compelling and substantial public-policy reasons, i.e., public safety, conservation or appropriate development of a natural resource. Even then aboriginal interests would still have to be compensated. It is conceivable an n infringement of an aboriginal or treaty right could be justified if it was also consistent with the special fiduciary relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples, but that would be highly unlikely. It is a fact the Supreme Court of Canada has created a legal test to determine if a specific aboriginal or treaty right can be infringed by legislation or other governmental action. This legal test has 2 questions; i-would the contemplated action constitute an infringement?, ii- if yes to i, can the infringement be justified by the Crown? So with due respect, I have no idea why you are quoting s.25 because it has nothing to do with what I was talking about our what aboriginal people on these posts have tried to explain to you and others time and time again but no one wants to listen to. "Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that law is nothing more than what society agrees on. This means any society ultimately has the right to create whatever laws it wants and the intent of long dead kings and the text of archaic doc" Now that is just downright silly. Law is not just about what society wants. It is a tad more complex then that. We have an entire system of laws that has nothing to do with society but deals with laws between individuals. Society does not have the ultimate right to create whatever laws it wants. Try use some common sense. There are limits to all laws. This is precisely why we have a Charter of Rights, a Constitution and have subscribed to legal treaties from the United Nations or other international conventions that supercede our domestic laws. There are limits to all laws. Your comments show a crude simplistic idealization of what law is. Law is not simply about majority rule. Never was, never will be. You are confusing the creation and application of law, with political will and political interests. "Let's put it another way: assume the SCC ruled that Six Nations was entitled to $1.5 trillion in compensation for lost land. Do you honestly believe that majority of Canadians would accept "we can't change the constitution because of the magna carta" as an answer? " You of course completely missed the point and are therefore making a faulty analogy. I raised the Magna Carta Act, because legally it set the precedent that still prevails to this day that aboriginal rights preceded the current Canadian government system of law and were never extinguished by the preceding Canadian laws and ran and still run parallel to them. The Canadian Legal System contrary to what you may believe can not and has never attempted to try suggest legally that aboriginal rights from legal treaties no longer exist. "The constitution can be changed and if we can add in a charter of rights that outlaws discrimination but allows for affirmative action and aboriginal rights then we can write a constitution that extinguishes old treaty rights.: Again you have completely missed the point. To change the constitution and delete aboriginal rights, you would need to have the unanimous agreement of all 12 provincial governments, the three territories and the federal government. Neither the federal government, territorial governments, or the majority of provinces would ever agree to that because as I repeated at the beggining of my response, such an attempt would never make it pass the Supreme Court of Canada test. More to the point if the Supreme Court of Canada suddenly decided to ignore its test and look the other way, Canada would then have to remove itself from the United Nations and become an outlaw state as it would violate numerous international human rights conventions it now voluntarily subscribes to. So no, your simplistic belief that all anyone has to do is ignore aboriginal rights and they go away is ludicrous not to mention absurd. "You don't have to be lawyer to understand this - this is just common sense." Uh not its as far from common sense as it gets for the above reasons I have explained. This idea that if you cover your eyes and ears and mouth, aboriginals will simply go away is far from common sense and with due respect I will go so far as to say is idiotic. "I am surprised that your have bought into this peice of aboriginal propoganda. " Your last comment is racist in nature. Why is it "aboriginal propaganda". I am Jewish. If anything its Jewish propaganda as I am not aboriginal but Jewish. More to the point I am Canadian first and foremost and the last time I looked aboriginal peoples were Canadian if not more Canadian then me. So why do you feel the need to classify my response as "aboriginal". The fact that I stated what I did is based on the fundamental applications of Canadian law. As I have tried to explain to you and others in the past, you may have distinct opinions about aboriginal rights but your opinions are not based on the law. I think you would love to use the political system to over-ride the law, precisely because the aboriginal peoples have a legitimate legal arguement and you can't beat it legally. I have long since given up the notion people like you will ever respect the moral arguement in the aboriginal position as to their rights. That aspect of it seems to have been trampled in this resentment against aboriginals for having the nerve to ask for what they are morally entitled to. However from a purely legal point of view, I would expect you to understand you can't ignore the law, simply because you don't like how it works. For myself, as a lawyer and a Canadian, I see both moral and legal arguements that prevail in favour of the aboriginal peoples. It is not a matter of buying into any propaganda. In fact if anything I think you have bought into this propaganda that aboriginal people are asking for something unfair by asking our legal system to be applied and not ignored because your political agenda conflicts with the law. No on this one, I am sorry, I think you are way off base.

If you read about the holocaust you find out that so many Jews were just like you - ignoring the obvious. Its that aspect of human nature that allows these things to happen. Governments have actually done horrible things throut history. 911 being an inside job is far from the worse. Governments allowing children to be tortured is up there, but that seems OK with you. I guess just because they allow children to be tortured in law doesn't mean they should not be trusted. Yah it was only a matter of time until we got around to the holocaust. Why is it every wack job feels they can use the holocaust for their arguements. Let me be very clear. Equating how Jews went into denial in certain societies prior to and leading up to the holocaust should not be bastardized to prop up or intellectualize or try justify the belief in unsubstantiated beliefs. Its odious. This is like saying since people have died of cancer we all must sit and spend our time worrying about dying. Its absolute piffle b.s. and its fear mongering not to mention an insult to Jews, Jewish history and the holocaust and trivializes the holocaust. If Jews did not understand the signifigance of the potential of hatred towards them and how it would culminate in the holocaust, one has to properly analyze how people react and go into denial yes. However equating unsubstantiated b.s. conspiracy theories as to 9-11 to Nazism and equating those of us who don't buy into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as Jews prior to the holocaust is disgusting. It suggests because Jews went into denial, this denial led to their deaths. That is absolute simplistic b.s. and a false analogy. Do you really think these conspiracy theories shedding light on insights that will prevent a Hitler from gassing 6 million? Give me a break. Your self-righteousness is unbelievable. No you don't own the truth, nor do you have the write to sully Jewish memory to try puff up your belief in conspiracy theories and portray yourself as a misunderstood saviour ignored by the unwashed masses (or if I follow your analogy the foolish ignorant non believing Jews). Next you will start a religion and tell us we are all going to hell if we don't believe you. Been there done that. Its boring and its unoriginal.

deleted redundant post

"This is now 13 years after Oslo, 13 years for waiting for the Palestinians to recognize Israel and renounce violant takeover of Israel. Should Israel be "Waiting for Godot"?" No I do not think Israel can wait forever and obviously if it became obvious there is no way to arrive at peace Israel would be forced to unilaterally declare borders. I am hoping it will not come to that. Call me naive but I do believe the moderate Arab world may have already realized Shiite fundamentalist terrorist inspired Islam in Iran is now seen astheir biggest threat to stability in their countries NOT Israel and this will require many Sunni countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and yes even Syria, Israel's no.2 enemy next to Iran, to seek peace with Israel. Egypt, Lebanon, Saui Arabia and Jordan will never admit it but they are more worried about Islamic extremism in their midst then Zionism. Yah I may be a naive twit, but I believe it is entirely possible for Israel to arrive at some sort of agreement with the PLO that will be able to freeze out or supercede Hamas and Intifada and Hezbollah and Iran. Look would you have believed a week ago Israel would have looked the other way and allow Egypt to send weapons to the PLO and clear money to be sent to the PLO? Probably not. Things happen quickly. Not withstanding my strange theory of Coke and Big Macs, in the short-term I would hate to see Israel alienate the potential allies it needs. I personally do not see the Shiite backed fundamentalist terrorists taking over the Arab world without some sort of Sunni Muslim response. Yes the Americans have been hit hard and will retreat into a post Iraq shell similiar to post Vietnam but I also believe the Iranian economy is collapsing not withstanding the Iranian petro-chemical relationship with China and this will cause internal upheaval in that country and a rebound effect by pro-Western Iranians anxious for more democracy and freedom. The disasterous centralist economic policies of Iran which funds Shiite terrorist organizations and nonsensical government bureaucratic structures while starving the common Iranian is doomed to failure the same reason Stalinist economics failed. It just is not working. Its not distributing the wealth and the infrastructure of Iran is crumbling. You remember after the Americans lost the Vietnam War, they in fact went on through Coca Cola and Nike and to turn Vietnam into yet another financial market-place? I think this is alsohappening in the Middle East. Just as Marxism became a moot point in Vietnam so will radical Shiite fundamentalism. As much as we feel the fundamentalist Muslim terrorists are in control, I personally think they are no different then the Marxists who had a choke hold on Vietnam or China. Yes Al Quaeda and anti-semitism dominate their air-waves and media. At one point Lenin and Mao Tse Tung dominated the Chinese and Vietnamese airwaves as well. Maoism and the Red Book in China was as strong as the fundamentalist Muslim ideology we all seem to be fearing at the present time. However Nixon and that seductive, corupting free enterprise and its contaminants or pathogens such as MacDonald's and Coke and Nike did what the US Army could not do, and that was to seduce the masses and their governments. This same virus has also already infiltrated the Muslim world and is spreading like wild fire. It is precisely the reason Muslim fundamentalists like the Taliban and Al Quaeda need to resort to terror because their austaire lifestyle can't compete with Nike and Coke. They have already begun to lose. The MacDonalds-Coca Cola virus has already crept into the psyche of the same young Arabs who to terrorism when they can't find a job. One these terrorists or potential terrorists get a taste of Nike and Coke, just like the Chinese or Vietnamese or any other radical militant movement, they will succumb. Nothing blunts extremist ideology like a steady job and a taste of affluence. The only problem in the Middle East is that the affluence until now has been kept to an elite group of sob's but it is only a matter of time, until the masses taste it. Call me a naive fool and a cynic at the same time because I believe Islamic extremism is a symptom of rampant poverty and unemployment and nothing a redstribiton of jobs and wealth can't offset. In the short-term, yes there is danger but in the long term I see Big Macs and Coke doing what no American soldier or Israeli soldier or Arab moderate to date has been able to do. Do not underestimate the Big Mac syndrome. Look at China. Look at Russia. It took down two of the mightiest empires supposedly in our day without a bullet just high cholesterol and saturated fat. I appreciate by Big Mac theory imight sound foolish but I believe in the end, Beyonce Knowles and Hip Hop, greed and financial corpution will dictate the consequences of the future in the Middle East not Islamic fundamentalism. In any event I would hate to see Israel alienate potential allies is all I am saying.

Neither of those documents is a treaty. Nor do those documents include any hint of the natives maintaining any kind of sovereignty. In fact, both documents go in the other direction. The Royal Proclamation says outright that the King's dominion extends over all territories, including lands inhabited by natives. The Haldimand Proclamation is implicit and Canadian courts have interpreted it as the Six Nations owed allegiance to the Crown via that document and therefore are subjects of the Crown. Today the Crown is embodied in Canada and her provinces. Of course, the British never intended the Haldimand Proclamation to allow the Six Nations any kind of sovereignty. No I would have to disagree 100% and simply say three word Magna Carta Act. Read it before you make the assumption the Crown intended to supercede native sovereignty. King John was not that ignorant contrary to what you might think.

You can hypothesize all you want but it is really nothing more than "wishful" thinking. Your theory has no basis in law. However the fact that native rights supercede the constitution is entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a ) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and (b ) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired..(15) 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. (2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada. (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. You should note that the Charter has no authority or prescription over any First Nations. It applies to Canadian citizens only and in essence limits your rights and freedoms while telling Canadians that aboriginal rights and treaty rights preempt (cannot limit) any limitation contained in the Charter. I'll call your bluff as it is evident you haven't read any treaties. Try starting with legal documents including the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. No where in any treating is there an agreement for any sovereign First Nation to accept the laws of the Crown. Canada has no legal jurisdiction over First Nations, except those acquired through treaty. A treaty can only be made between two sovereign entities...... I concur with your legal summary 100%. Excellent summary.

" Are you in denial that the' Ten Commandments' have a direct influence in laws around the world?" The key word you used was "influence". In case you haven't noticed we have modified the 10 commandments since they were brought down from Sinai. "The preamble to the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms', reads: " Canada is founded upon the PRINCIPLES that recognize the SUPRAMACY of God and the RULE of LAW" and not the rule of HOMOSEXUALS. " So of course you assume God is not bi-sexual or gay. Can you show me where in the Bible or in your learned teachings it says God is NOT gay or bi-sexual?

The bottom line is that when Israel entered into the Oslo Accord with the PLO its intention was to create a two state solution to the peace process and the West Bank would be the basis for the second Palestinian state. Israel since the Oslo Accord, has gone against the spirit of the accord by allowing settlements on the West Bank. Here is the bottom line. Jordan was illegally created by the British and took 78-85% of Palestine out of the equation by setting up the puppet state of TransJordan. The West Bank technically was what was left over, after Jordan was created illegally by the British and Israel through war, established the 1949 to 1967 de facto borders of Israel. The West Bank technically is a stateless entity. The point is though, when Israel signed the Oslo Accord it said they were willing to give it to the PLO to use to create a second Palestinian state in return for the recognition of Israel and the end to the conflict. Yes Israel can argue it needs safe borders, but let's be real, placing settlers on the West Bank is not about safety for Israel, its about taking land to try force a larger border for Israel. I know people in the IDF. They have no interest in having to go into the West Bank to protect settlers. They have enough problems hunting down and preventing terrorists from attacking without having to police disputes between Jewish settlers and non terrorist Paletsinians angered by their presence. Mubarak of Egypt is about to come and have a summit with Israel. Abbas is on the hot seat and needs Israel's support against Hamas and this settlement is announced. It makes Abbas look bad. It embarasses Mubarak and it alienates those people in Palestinian who would be potential allies of Israel. Its not a good move even if it is only a settlement of 40 or so and Hamas or the PLO really could care less. Its optics. Its the politics of optics where appearances and timing are crucial. Just as Israel has a chance to take the moral high ground and forge an alliance with Abbas and have Mubarak pressure Hamas, it does this and gives Hamas the ammunition it wants. Look at the timing. Intidada has launched 60 missile attacks into Israel since the cease-fire in Gaza. Hamas sits back snickering that it has nothing to do with Intifada and is obeying the peace treaty while it allows Intifada to deliberately break the treaty. Israel could have exposed the Intifada-Hamas connection and shown Hamas for what it was. Instead it allows this settlement which embarasses Abbas. gives Hamas ammunition to say Israel is just a land grabbing bunch of liars, and it fuels the b.s. terrorists need to justify their terror. No Israel has to show a bit more maturity and sophistication and make some hard decisions about the future and realize any settlements will have to be pulled in any event if and when the two state option comes about, because there is no other choice. So sorry while I believe Israel has a right to defend itself militarily against terrorists including hunting down and killing terrrorists I believe allowing settlers on the West Bank is a totally different issue and like many people in the IDF I think its ridiculous to ask the IDF to have to try and defend settlements when the best solution to peace is giving the West Bank to the PLO for a second Palestinian nation and forging an economic alliance with it and Jordan. As for what China or those sob's in Sudan do, Israel can not justify what it does by saying China or Sudan is worse. That is besides the point. I think polls have shown the majority of Israels agree with the two state solution. As well in a recent survey 63% of West Bank Jewish settlers said they would be willing o go back to Israel if compensated properly for their move. Trying to expand to absorb the Jordan Valley is more of an issue about control of fresh water than anything else. Israel has to make a bold initiative and believe it can create peace with a second Palestine state as it has relatively speaking with Jordan. I do believe a Palestinian state on the West Bank as an ally in a common market federation with Israel and Jordan is the key to its survival. It needs to think of creating allies to provide a tangible alternative to Arabs who support Hamas , Intifada and Hezbollah.

1. He provided that loser Chevy Chase with a comedy routine which then went on to make that loser CHevy Chase rich. 2. He was the one who got Canada admitted to the G-8 after Valerie Giscard D'Estang the President of France insulted Canada and called us a bunch of no nothings. 3. He gave birth to a son who starred in a soap opera. 4. He had a wife who made being a celebrity alcoholic and going to rehab. trendy long before Mel Gibson or Nicole Kidman's husband, etc. 5. He was part of the JFK assassinationc over-up. 6. He created a new style of mundane, boring, studdering, public speaking. 7. He proved you could fall constantly but not break your hip. 8. He proved someone was more of a loser then Jimmy Carter.

Yegads I am being credited with a new movement the Ruenegades! Soon I will have everyone hanging Judy Garland and Marlyn Monroe Warhol prints in their living rooms. Beware. And all this time I thought I was conspiring with my Hollywood and banker friends to turn the world into slaves for the Zionist juggernaut.

If it was just between the Jews and the Palestinians it would have been settled years ago but it has never been just about the Jews and the Palestinians. There has always been dozens of countries and groups trying to exploit the situation to their own benefit. It's a tool for them, not a problem to be solved. Funny but I think you are the first poster I ever read to say the above. Finally!

This used to be a military post of the IDF. They used to farm the area around their post. Then 35 Yeshiva students preparing for service in the Israeli Army lived there in a bunch of trailers. Its situated in the Jordan Valley. Now it appeats 40 settlers removed from a settlement in Gaza will live there. The bottom line is its 40 people. In the whole scheme of things it is a minor annoyance. The problem is it is in direct contradiction of a promise Israel made to the U.S. it would not set up any more settlements. It also certainly aggravates the over-all peace agreement of Oslo. I have stated all along that as part of a final peace, Israel will move all Israelis out of the West Bank. There's about 70,000 settlers that will have to be moved and compensated for and that will happen. What Israel is now trying to do is find a way to create a border it thinks it can defend and it feels the Jordan Valley is needed for its defence. I personally think that the cold reality is this-if Israel wants peace, it has to give the entire West Bank back. This settlement is 10 kilometeres into the West Bank. It can be justified right now as a security buffer post but it will be yet another obstacle to peace int he over-all negotiations. Interestingly while Peace Now and the majority of the Israeli press have harshly criticized it, the Arab League and Jordan and the PLO and for that matter Hamas, do not find it to be a priority. For me I believe its a stupid move and not adviseable and not justifiable for defence reasons. I am against it and I am confident before this is all over it is just a bluff move by Olmert. Myata I can not support it and you know I am a strong defender of Israel. I personally believe settlements in the West Bank are a major obstacle to a final peace and are not adviseable. I believe the West Bank should become a second Palestinian nation if there is to be a lasting peace. In a recent survey 65% of West Bank settlers said they would leave if they were compensated so that is something. Interestingly these settlers were promised this post by Sharon before he had his stroke. Olmert said if he can't arrive at an agreement with Palestinians by 2008, he will unilaterally carve out a map in Jordan and move all the Israelis to the West side of the line he draws. I personally think it is a bluff as part of negotiations. I think it would not suprise me that Olmert dismantles this post as part of a dramatic display of support for Abbas to make Abbas look like he has the ability to influence Israel. I don't think this has been played out to its final conclusion.

Lets cut the bull. Everytime there is a discussion on the legal issue of rights to land based on treaties written with the native peoples that were breached by the Canadian government, one of you always manages to change the subject and turn it into racist dialogue. It is a racist stereotype to suggest aboriginals living on reserves or anywhere else are receiving "bountiful assistance" from the Canadian government. That is patronizing, demeaning clap trap and you do not speak for me or the majority of non native Canadians in this country who know damn well aboriginals do not live a life of luxury in their reserves. Next, how is it racist for aborginals to seek compensation for rights violated by the Canadian government? You even know what the word racism means? Aboriginals through no fault of their own, on the basis of good-will entered into legal treaties with our government. Their right to seek compensation for it being breached is basic, fundamental justice, no more no less. Before you lecture aboriginal people on dna or anything else understand that this is a legal issue and their status as aboriginals is not just racially based, it is legally based. They constitute legal entities with legal rights. The First Nations are a legal entity. You may want to reduce them to a race of people you feel no moral responsibility for or express contempt for (because after all they just sit around in their fantastic lives living off of bountiful hand-outs) but for the majority of us who believe in the law, we understand that for the law to work, we have to honour it. Our responsibility to aboriginal peoples for breached treaties is first and foremost a legal one. Secondly it is a moral one, because as decent human beings, we want to see our fellow human beings given the same chances we have had. What I find racist is this constant suggestion that natives are asking for things unfairly and we should just ignore all the legal breaches and just carry on. The Supreme Court of Canada, hell the Queen of England have made it clear that aboriginal peoples in Canada have independent legal rights. Stop whining about it and trying to revise history and understand if we are to get anywhere in life it is not based on making insulting comments to aboriginals and suggesting they have it easy but to transcend such hatred and deal with the legal issues. Aboriginals will receive just compensation. What the formula will be and when it will be awarded depends on the courts, the particular legal applications and the particular legal treaties that were breached. Whether some of you like it or not, our laws respect aboriginal legal rights and will despite their slowness and bumbling bureaucrats eventually come up with mutually acceptable compensation plans. Aboriginals are not the enemy of this country, they are one of its many natural resources. I will be damned if I get into this native bashing everytime we discuss a legal issue. I wish those of you that make sweeping generalizations about aboriginals and how they live go see how they live before you make such comments. There is plenty of land in this country for everyone. Also can we clear one thing up once and for all. The concept of owning private property is a Western value and it comes from believing in the Queen and the idea that the Queen owns the land which we lease from her. Private property is a legal fiction. It is more artificial and absurd in its creation and practice then the native belief that we all share the land and rights to land are collective not private and are linked to the manner in which we balance our physical human needs with the needs of the environment, rules of nature and other living forms we must co-exist with. we are friggin guests on this planet. None of us own the planet. Yah I have a deed to property. Get real its legal fiction to prevent us from killing each other over where we live. Those treaties we asked aboriginals to enter into with us, count for something. If they do not then none of your deeds mean anything either. You can't have it one way where only your deeds apply. The law does not work that way and never has. This idea you have only one system of legal rights and ignore the other is b.s. and you know it. All law depends on equity and fundamental fairness to work. So you can go bash aboriginal concepts as to land all you want but natives are not the ones who polluted this planet and left it drowning in toxic waste or pollute its atmosphere unless you count smoking Chief cigarettes or farting as part of the global warming factor.