Higgly

I'd say the WHO and UNHCR, among others, are doing a pretty decent job.

The Israeli laws of abandonnment were passed in 1950 - less than two years after the Palestinians were driven off of their land by Jewish forces. Israel has refused since 1948 to allow Palestinian refugees to come back and re-claim their land. You make it sound as though they stayed away voluntarily. They did not. The Geneva Conventions forbid settling on conquered land. In fact Jordan has done so. The Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian. You also need to understand that many Palestinian refugees refuse to accept citizenship in another land because they believe that the land they were forced to leave still belongs to them.

I seriously doubt there will be intense efforts to go after every major politician and military leader. I do agree that Kissinger might have something to worry about. Bush junior as well. In any event, cases would have to be ratified by the World Court before any action were taken. The US position on the World Court us just one of its many foreign policy "Do as I say and not as I do"-isms. It's hard not to laugh when I see Bush talking about freedom and justice. If Harper signs on to this, it's just another piece of Bush Brown on his nose; it's really starting to show.

You are talking about deposing a democratically elected government because they did something that upset a commercial corporation. There are legal ways to go at this sort of issue. For example, you sue the foreign government and if you win, you take compensation by confiscating any assets held or flowing through the international banking system - or at least those parts which will co-operate - the the US, Britain, what have you. Deposing the government on behalf of a commercial enterprise sort of sets a bad precedent, don't you think? The British were the ones who put Faisal in, by the way and they did it because they knew he would make a good yes-man. The resources belong to the country, not the corporation that developed them. This is a well-established principle of international law and it is why companies pay royalties to governments. I personally don't believe that nationalizing an industry is the right, nor even a smart thing, for any country to do. But I do not accept that deposing a democratically elected government is justified on that count. Well how about democracy? In any case, I didn't say capitalism is bad. My point is that it is not a sufficiently good reason to depose a democratically elected foreign government. All the flag-waving about democracy and freedom as a cover-up is BS. OK so I won't respond to your non-response.

Hilarious. Would one of those values be tolerance? Somehow I don't think a real Canadian is someone who goes around telling other people whether or not they are real Canadians. Sorry I missed your musings on Canadian values. As you can see, I am a new member so I wasn't around when you were coining your gems of wisdom. Perhaps you would consider bringing them out in book form? I'd use the search feature, but from what I have seen here, I doubt the effort would be rewarded. Thanks for your post though. A hearty laugh after breakfast is good for the digestion.

We live in a country full of people who came from somewhere else. We call ourselves Canadian, but remember where we came from. In fact, this is the way it works all over the world. The Jews who founded Israel were Europeans. If a Canadian who is descended from Polish roots emmigrates to Australia, he is considered a Canadian, not a Pole. Well sure. That's what they believe. Expecting everyone else to clear out because of it is an extraordinarily arrogant position to take. Your reference to Jews being descended from the aboriginal peoples of the Middle East conveniently ignores the fact that the Arabs enjoy the same status. The Jews were dominant in Palestine for a total period of 300 years and during that time they were not the only ones who lived there. It is a bit far-fetched, after 2000 years have passed, to say that this gives them the right to show up and kick every one else out. I guess you missed the Ahmadinejad interview on CNN. And before you go off on a rant - no I do not agree with his ideas about Israel, the Holocaust, and Jews in general. I am citing this because I don't think you can label him a trendy left winger although he stated a number of times during the interview that he considered the Jews of Israel to be Europeans. Here is a link to the Wikipedia definition of dhimmi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi . There is nothing in there about Jews and Christians being forbidden to own land. In any case, it is pointed out that the Dhimmi laws were most often unenforced. So what? I think he's just making this stuff up, folks. If you take the trouble to do a little reading you will find that King Abdullah of Jordan as well as King Faisal made agreements to support the existence of Israel. Faisal with Chaim Weitzmann, the head of the Zionist Council (this was before Israel came into existence) and Abdullah with Golda Meier who went to Amman to meet with him in Amman immediately prior to the 1948 war. Most of the European Jews who went to Palestine and created the state of Israel went there before the Holocaust in the period between 1920 and the start of WWII. Much of the infrastructure which was to become the state of Israel was already in place. The entire city of Tel Aviv had been completely built up from almost nothing in that period, for example. Yes the Jews were persecuted. But which country refused to allow them to own land? What is your reference for this? Name those countries. Yes and if Israel would allow the Palestinians to have their 'tiny little country'? And you are saying this is a point in their favour? A country that is run by and for the benefit of one particular part of its population is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy. Israel is a democracy in the same way that ancient Greece was a democracy. In a true democracy, immigration and housing policies would not be made to favour one group with the stated goal of ensuring that group's numerical superiority in the electorate. Oh brother.

Supporting the troops is not the same thing as supporting the mission. I support the troops fully. I am distressed that young Canadians are being killed on foreign soil. The mission is a political issue. That has nothing to do with supporting the troops. It's like the difference between supporting Firefighters and supporting firebugs.

O so true. Nice post.

On the other hand, we could negotiate land settlements with the Cree. And in fact, we damned well should. And the rest too. Consider the wealth that is being generated by the James Bay power project. We provided the technology. They provided the land. As far as I am concerned, this is like a farmer who owns land on which oil is discovered. And now is a damned good time to come to terms, when we are flush with cash. Carpe Diem! On both sides. Peace and respect if it is done right.

I guess I messed this up somehow, because I can't get the quote feature to work properly for this many quotes. Anyways, I added my responses in bold. I'm with you there. Well no. In fact, according to Israeli historian Tom Segev (One Palestine Complete. Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate"), the Brits themselves came to the conclusion that the Balfour Declaration was a mistake. Also I think it is important to elucidate exactly what the Balfour Declaration was... It was a letter written by Lord Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, to Lord Rothschild. It was not an act of Parliament. The Zionists had decided very early on (Ze'ev Jabotisnky: The Iron Wall) that the only way to deal with the Palestinian Arabs was through the brute force of superior military might. Even Ben Gurion acknowledged that if he were a Palestinian Arab, he would have revolted as well (ibid:Segev) The Hagganah drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians off of their land. Shortly after, Israel passed the Laws of Abandonment which give it the right to all lands abandonned in a very short period of time. They then closed the borders to all Palestinians so they couldn't come back to reclaim their land. This did not happen over a period of 50 years, but less than 2 years. I guess I am having a problem figuring this one out. The UN passed a resolution defining partitioned states for both the Jews and the Arabs. After the war, Israel ended up with considerably more than that. O my. The Arab League went to war over this. And now, they are the culprits? Well in fact Israel did just pop up out of nowhere. Not really. The Hagganah (soon to become the IDF) along with the Irgun and the Stern Gang drove many of them off of their land. Ben Gurion gave the instructions himself. (ibid: Segev; Shalim, Avi, The Iron Wall) Not true. The Syrians offered to take half of the Palestinian refugees and house them in northern Syria in exchange for half of the Sea of Galilee. This is the same water agreement that Canada now has with the US on the Great Lakes. Israel refused. I any case, my Aunt who recalls the atmosphere in Canada at the outbreak of WWII in Europe, tells this tale: her ma (my gran) said, "Well at least son (my old man) won't have to go." It was commonly held at the time that the war would not hold more than a few weeks. Three years later, he was on a ship crossing the North Atlantic. We are all lucky we got him back. They did a hell of a lot more than the Americans or, for that matter, we did, to accommodate Jews fleeing the Holocaust. Jordan has made every effort to assimilate the Palestinians. The Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian. King Abdullah of Jordan was the first. He worked out a secret agreement with Golda Meier (before she became PM) that if Israel would let Jordan Annex the West Bank, Jordan would respect Israel's borders. They were, in the words of the Israelis themselves, "The Best of Enemies". Unfortunately, the Israelis later broke the agreement. What is your point of reference here? Which Arab countries are they despised in? Please name them all. OK. And what do you call extra-judicial execution? OK. And under whose system of justice are you defining criminals? There is not a single Arab League country in the Security Council, where all the power lies. Maybe that's the problem. It is now agreed by historians that the supposed radio broadcasts advising Arabs to flee Palestine never occurred. Interviews with Palestinian refugees all agree that they were forced to flee by shelling from Jewish forces. This is in keeping with the Iron Wall strategy of the Zionists from the years of the British Mandate. Not at all. Egypt has done a lot, although I would agree, that it has not doneall that it can. Despite this, Anwar Sadat was assassinated for signing a peace treaty with Israel. Jordan is poor as a churchmouse. Lebanon has been under constant attack from Israel and has little to spare. You kow, I am wondering why it is that guys like you see Pat Robertson, The Pope, Billy Graham and the Archbishop of Canterbury as distinct parts of the whole and yet you see the Moslem world as monolithic. Can you enlighten me? Yes and a lot of ounces of the US economy! I agree that the PLO has been a corrupt. The Palestinians agree. It's really a toss of the dice isn't it? The Brits tossed the dice in India and they got Gandhi and Jinnah. And still, lakhs were put the sword on both sides. The Israelis tossed the dice in Palestine and they got Arafat. [/b] I guess we agree on that.

This is a terrific point. What are those values?

Please vote on whether you feel MapleLeafWeb could benefit from a Canadian Arts Issues Forum Thank you

OK. So I think you are talking about Voodoo. Actually Voodoo is based in ritual and the interpretation of spirits. It descends from the animistic religions of Africa. The Moslem religion is based on principle and thought and descends from the monotheistic religions of the Middle East.

Do you not see a contradiction here?

Nor when the Bush started to holler about regime change. And look where that went!

Well all right then. Just what did you mean? And why do you have to put everything in a bigger font than everyone else? Are you having trouble with your eyesight?

You mean like Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile? Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader who threatened to nationalize the oil industry (controlled at the time by what was to become the British American Oil Company), Allende the copper industry (Kennicott). Yeah that went really well. Iran ended up with the Shah and Chile with Pinochet. Both star pupils from the CIA school of torture. Anybody who swallows the Bush doctrine about freedom and democracy is naive. It is all about capitalism baby, and don't you forget it. I don't see Chavez as being any less of a fruitcake than Bush with his "Axis of evil." crap. Just a lot less dangerous.

So in a perfect world everybody would have the same attitude towards sex as you do? My concern about Afghanistan is that the Afghanis themselves lack the fundamental educational basis upon which strong democracies are built. Not to say they can't attain that, but what might have been there has been destroyed. This is going to be a long, long, long haul. We're not talking about rebuilding just infrastructure and institutions, but reshaping an entire people. I was disappointed none of the press threw this out at Karzai, because it would be interesting to hear what he would have to say on the issue. I see Pakistan is now being made out to be the bad guy. This should get interesting. Finally, I think it is important to point out that the Taliban were not the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center. That was Al Quaida. The Taliban let Al Quaida hide out in Afghanistan, but are not known to have conducted terrorist operations outside of Afghanistan. Are references to the Taliban as terrorists justified? Maybe if you were a Russian soldier once upon a time...

Another aspect of this which I find particularly disturbing is that, once Arar was able to get himself back to Canada and seek justice for what was done to him, the RCMP started a smear campaign against him. This is an ugly little secret in Canadian police work, and it has gotten much worse with the widespread use of the internet.

The right wing media made a big deal out of McGuinty breaking his promise on taxes. His mistake was believing the budget Flaherty prepared in the run-up to the election. Ol' Jimbo knew damned well the Conservatives were not going to get in again so what did he care if the budget wasn't worth the paper it was printed on?. How much bigger a mess can you make than Harris did? The federal Liberals were bad but at least they didn't kill anybody. Balanced budget my ass. McGuinty got into power and found out just how balanced Flaherty's budget really was. And now this liar is Federal Minister of Finance. If you are looking for liars, look no furtehr than Flaherty. If you didn't see that, then your intelligence would not be too hard to mock.

My my. That many. Imagine how many they would have saved by dropping it out in the middle of the harbour where it would have killed few but given a good demonstration of their power.

So the story is now out and it has been ruled that the RCMP provided false information to the CIA. Arar has been completely cleared. Whoever it was that said Arar contributed 100% to his own predicament is wrong. The reason that Arar was fingered by CSIS and the RCMP was because he met with a guy in a coffee shop to talk about buying some sort of second hand item. Something people do all the time. Apparently the other guy was part of an investigation. Pretty flimsy evidence for extradition and torture. At the very least it would put the onus on every Canadian citizen to know whether anyone they deal with, even in the most casual manner, is a suspected terrorist. Hardly a reasonable test.

OK. Here is the difference. The Moslem world does not have an identifiable leader who speaks for hundreds of millions of people and has the power of the Prince of Rome. I believe that it is the responsibility of the leaders of the world to find harmony and peace. I believe, like Robert Fisk, that war is a failure of the human spirit. I have few heroes in the Moslem or the Arab world. Certainly not **cough**jackjass**cough**Osama , nor **cough***moron**cough**Ahmadinejad, nor **cough**clown**cough**Arafat... I believe that we are currently very badly served by a collection of half-wits, scoundrels, and cowards. On all sides. I believe we are particularly badly served by people who shoot their mouthes off without having made any serious effort to understand what the hell they are talking about. It is our civic reponsibility to monitor our governments and speak out about what we see happening. When that ends, we will no longer have a democracy.

This has been discussed before, but it is currently a topic of the Liberal leadership race...

Oh man. I missed this thread. There is just so much rich material here. So first of all, let's do talk about Chomsky. Messing with minds through words. Hmmmm. Now why would we possibly want to hear from a linguist on the subject of world politics? Messing with minds through words. Hmmmm... Oh wait. Isn't that what politics is all about? Are you familiar with the spewings of Scott McLelland and Tzipi Livni? How about Comical Ali? Spiro Agnew? And then we have Tony Blair. And let's not forget Checkers! And who could forget Goebbels? .... Hoo hah. Messing with peoples' minds through words. I love it. Noam! Bring it on baby!