Harper blames Israeli stance for UN snub

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually the thing about Israel is that the Balfour Declaration only granted parts of Transjordan to Israel - and Israel violated the agreements by smuggling over the immigration limits. More or less there were wars where Israel annexed other territories contrary to the Balfour Declaration.

I'm sure we can dig up still more British Empire declarations for Canada, India, South Africa, etc., and they would be equally meaningless in the context of a nation state that not only instantiated itself with force, but continues to do so. Are you prepared to challenge US territories and possessions in the same manner?

Israel although I don't question anyones right to independence as we are all individuals sharing the same planet - has done various questionable acts including violations of international law that would constitute war crimes.

The only mistake was not doing so in the same century as Canada or the United States, when their "PalestIndians" were thoroughly subjugated.

I'm not advocating for the complete annihilation of Israel, and I have nothing against Jews or Israelis personally, I've actually been somewhat amiable with them, much like I've been amiable with Palestinians - I honestly want to see peace, but i understand both sides to the situation - and it honestly is brought on by minority groups, many of the "people effected" really do want things to be better, but those minority groups destabilize things - but it is the Palestinians who have it worse because they are in a ghetto.

These are croc tears....there are far more millions suffering far worse in SubSaharan Africa, but there is no Jew baiting fun in that.

I'd just like to state (almost no state is legitimate on a full basis of law) most are rule by force.... Israel both has arguments for and against it, so does Canada, so does the US, so does most of the world.

No nation has the right to land....only the right to defend possession. Israel will act in its own interests just like Canada or the United States...it is not a third world basket case subject to the whims of feel-good groups or protesters with a cause. Nobody here has accepted the legitmacy of rocket attacks or suicide bombers from First Nations to fight unsettled land claims in Canada.

[ToadBrother]

I'm sure we can dig up still more British Empire declarations for Canada, India, South Africa, etc., and they would be equally meaningless in the context of a nation state that not only instantiated itself with force, but continues to do so. Are you prepared to challenge US territories and possessions in the same manner?

William, in general, has some very odd ideas on these sorts of things, that may or may not have anything to do with reality. He's awfully good at typing a lot of words, but as to whether those words mean much beyond his fevered imagination can be hard to tell. But he does make grand proclamations, defending them vigorously with ever increasing inanity and illogic.

Edited November 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DogOnPorch]

No thats not even close to true. The people living in the occupied terrority today have almost nothing to do with the cause that conflict. They have not a thing to do with the dispute between Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syrica, Lebanon, and Israel which lead to the occupation. Most of them werent even alive yet.

Theyre behaving about how one would EXPECT an occupied people to behave.

Other than rejecting the Partition and going to war with Israel...yeah...nothing.

I declare a Holy War, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all.

--- al-Husseini, 1947

[dre]

Other than rejecting the Partition and going to war with Israel...yeah...nothing.

When was the partition plan rejected genius?

[DogOnPorch]

1947...why thank-you, btw.

The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.

---Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha, September 16, 1947

[dre]

1947...why thank-you, btw.

Right. Now look at the statement you were replying to super-brain. Only about 5% of palestinians were even ALIVE when that happened. Only about 2% were over age 10.

Most palestinians were BORN into the occupation and had absolute NOTHING to do with "causing" it which is what Argus claimed.

Edited November 12, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Right. Now look at the statement you were replying to super-brain. Only about 5% of palestinians were even ALIVE when that happened. Only about 2% were over age 10.

Most palestinians were BORN into the occupation and had absolute NOTHING to do with "causing" it which is what Argus claimed.

Ummm...so? The conflict lives on.

Edited November 12, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

Ummm...so? The conflict lives on.

Reading isnt your forte is it super-genius? (nor is having a forte).

[ToadBrother]

Right. Now look at the statement you were replying to super-brain. Only about 5% of palestinians were even ALIVE when that happened. Only about 2% were over age 10.

Most palestinians were BORN into the occupation and had absolute NOTHING to do with "causing" it which is what Argus claimed.

We all have to live with the sins/mistakes of our fathers. I mean, sure I'd love to throw those goddamned Normans out, but my Anglo-Saxon ancestors buggered it up right good in 1066.

No one gets a completely fresh slate just because their forefathers screwed things up. Do you think the Confederacy should rise again just because the descendants of its soldiers and politicians feel their ancestors didn't give it a good enough go? Do you think we should reunited the Austro-Hungarian Empire because, well, you know, the Franz Joseph I royally screwed things up with the Serbians?

Edited November 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DogOnPorch]

Reading isnt your forte is it super-genius? (nor is having a forte).

You just hate being scored on...lol.

[dre]

We all have to live with the sins/mistakes of our fathers. I mean, sure I'd love to throw those goddamned Normans out, but my Anglo-Saxon ancestors buggered it up right good in 1066.

No one gets a completely fresh slate just because their forefathers screwed things up. Do you think the Confederacy should rise again just because the descendants of its soldiers and politicians feel their ancestors didn't give it a good enough go? Do you think we should reunited the Austro-Hungarian Empire because, well, you know, the Franz Joseph I royally screwed things up with the Serbians?

We all have to live with the sins/mistakes of our fathers.

Fine. But to say that palestinians who live there (or jews for that matter) are the "cause" of the conflict is false. 96.5% of the palestinian population is under 65. 40% is under 16.

[dre]

You just hate being scored on...lol.

THe only way youre ever going to score is with a dead chick or younger sibling.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Did you know that over 20,000 French civilians were killed during the D-Day invasions, mostly as a result of allied bombing and shelling? War doesn't leave a lot of room for safety for civilians. It's unfortunate, but that's not the same thing as deliberately planning, organizing, and arranging for a naive, guileless young man to go into a pizza shop full of teenagers and blow himself and them up.

1) The indiscriminate (and sometimes deliberate) killings of civilians during the world wars should have constituted war crimes. 2) Last time I checked the Israel/Palestine conflict wasn't a total war. (Total war being a horrible notion to begin with)

[DogOnPorch]

THe only way youre ever going to score is with a dead chick or younger sibling.

Do I hear a loser?

He shoots...he scores!!

[William Ashley]

I'm sure we can dig up still more British Empire declarations for Canada, India, South Africa, etc., and they would be equally meaningless in the context of a nation state that not only instantiated itself with force, but continues to do so. Are you prepared to challenge US territories and possessions in the same manner?

Let's just say this - information is only as applicable as we would like it to be. (as it is)

In regard to challenges: we face common challenges. I have no need to challenge the US they are doing quite fine on their own. I am more than willing to provide advice, and this I have done, but it is not a challenge, just a generalized statement. I'm a whole person, not an offensive person.

Also I am personally a person of faith, so I don't feel the concept of the nationstate fully encapsulates or overrides the right to self recognition. At this point it is is more so a series of interpersonal situations.

I have ancestral ties to territories in the US also, my family line goes back to the times of British Governor Hunter 1700's before the US was the US and into the US formative era http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Robert_Hunter in Catskill New York http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catskill_%28town%29,_New_York, I also have United Empire Loyalists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Empire_Loyalist who fled from persecution in the US. My family fought with Americans in WWII, my family was in southern ontario in the war of 1812, I've travelled in the US, been removed from the US, had american room mates. People can think and self identity as they'd like. It is just a matter of respect, when it matters all you can do is offer advice and support for the best possible outcome for us. That is based on ideals and standards not nationstates. It is a big reality, that is not confined to any one groups borders or peoples, or organizations of those peoples. They are utensils of communication and mutual endevour. People work in those frameworks for purposes of order, it doesn't alienate a more egalitarian reality - based on the three principles of the state: self recognition, communication, existence. Politics might come after that, and so to division of ideals and values. Whether a commonwealth or otherwise, this is where nation states come from as representive of the political landscape - of political states. There are many ways to approach the concept. Most tend to see things through the political landscape of rights, rather than broader identities - it is how it all fits together, what works for what group. it is fairly well represented. Anyone not working for a common good, just isn't seeing the big picture in an aspect of faith, and yes I believe in universal faith.

The only mistake was not doing so in the same century as Canada or the United States, when their "PalestIndians" were thoroughly subjugated.

I don't agree with your assessment, but I understand where you are speaking from. Subjection is a personal choice, and the emancipation of some classes of peoples, presented a potential change to that context. It should be noted that even in German history, German's had their own slaves from their own people and rival tribes, other indoeuropean groups much the same, native americans also. The idea of subjection is not per se tied to any specific group but once again is more reflective of the current identity of peoples to one another - one that may not align from both groups, self and subject. One must recognize that subjection is not one way it is a contractual relationship that confers certain rights on a subject such as duty of protection or potentially other duties, if those duties are forfieted then the subject status may be alienated - there are also different types of subjugation - none more real than ones willingness to take part in the contract, free will is an unalienable human right. Use of force is merely a way of restraining free will contrary to someones wishes. In Canada for instance free will includes thought belief and actions within life liberty and security not property - certain acts define relationship of property between classes of persons - but the constitutional basis only holds as much as the constitution. Sovereignty is complex, but exercisable at ones wishes. Unilateral acts can often create criticism or responses from those groups not inclusive to the unilateral group

No nation has the right to land....only the right to defend possession.

I'd like to here more on that statement.

Israel will act in its own interests just like Canada or the United States...it is not a third world basket case subject to the whims of feel-good groups or protesters with a cause. Nobody here has accepted the legitmacy of rocket attacks or suicide bombers from First Nations to fight unsettled land claims in Canada.

And what rights do you think they have to assert in regard to use of their lands, especially those where one would like to use them for natural ecosystem processess, and another for heavily destructive and exploitative processes?

Edited November 13, 2010 by William Ashley

[Argus]

No thats not even close to true. The people living in the occupied terrority today have almost nothing to do with the cause that conflict.

They have almost nothing to do with the original territorial dispute. True. However, prior to the intifada, things were looking a lot better for Palestinians. More than a third of Palestinians worked inside Israel, and the movement of goods back and forth was large and growing. In addition, there was Israeli private sector investment in the territories. All of that disappeared with the intifada and the indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians which polls showed had enormous support among Palestinians.

So they certainly can be held responsibility for the massive deterioration in their quality of life over the last fifteen or twenty years.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In regard to challenges: we face common challenges. I have no need to challenge the US they are doing quite fine on their own. I am more than willing to provide advice, and this I have done, but it is not a challenge, just a generalized statement. I'm a whole person, not an offensive person.

Two points here....not only do you accept the status quo of the United States (and Canada), but also the history and means to get there. Why would you seemingly deny Israel the right to do the same in the face of real threats?

I have ancestral ties to territories in the US also..... Whether a commonwealth or otherwise, this is where nation states come from as representive of the political landscape - of political states. There are many ways to approach the concept. Most tend to see things through the political landscape of rights, rather than broader identities - it is how it all fits together, what works for what group. it is fairly well represented. Anyone not working for a common good, just isn't seeing the big picture in an aspect of faith, and yes I believe in universal faith.

Nevertheless, sovereign nation states and requisite borders are the existing framework sanctioned by force and legal precedent. The United States was born in just this way. Perhaps some feel that Israel can totally subjugate Palestinians and their land in a more "civil" fashion as was the case in Canada.

As for Faith, clearly it comes to the fore in the destruction of one's enemies...even more so.

I'd like to here more on that statement.

The concept of "owning" land is quite recent in human development...the concept of conquering land is much older. Owning land was largely a silly foreign concept to Native Americans....like owning the wind.

And what rights do you think they have to assert in regard to use of their lands, especially those where one would like to use them for natural ecosystem processess, and another for heavily destructive and exploitative processes?

The same rights as enjoyed by Canada or the United States. This is my main point here...to evaluate Israel's actions and policies in the same context as a developing Canada or United States (particlularly when faced with existential threat(s)). Hell, Canada and the USA attack other nationals when no such threat even exists. Concern for the plight of Palestinians rings hollow in the face of a violent (and failed) resistance strategy and the far more abject "poverty" of others, many within alreadyy established nation states.

Edited November 13, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

They have almost nothing to do with the original territorial dispute. True.

If dre wishes to go down that road, the same can be said re: the Israelis. But that, of course, is silly, as Israelis of 2010 are put at fault for the past all the time. May 15th is Nakba Day, afterall. The day Palestinians celebrate going to war with Israel and losing.

Meanwhile, the kids get bombarded with Jew baiting BS everyday...so no wonder it's kill, kill, kill year after year.

Not to mention if there was 'peace'...Hamas and their ilk would be out of a job. So I don't think there'll be real change in the situation...ever. Unless, of course...somebody murders all the Jews...eh?

I declare a Holy War, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all.

--- al-Husseini, 1947

[dre]

They have almost nothing to do with the original territorial dispute. True. However, prior to the intifada, things were looking a lot better for Palestinians. More than a third of Palestinians worked inside Israel, and the movement of goods back and forth was large and growing. In addition, there was Israeli private sector investment in the territories. All of that disappeared with the intifada and the indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians which polls showed had enormous support among Palestinians.

So they certainly can be held responsibility for the massive deterioration in their quality of life over the last fifteen or twenty years.

They have almost nothing to do with the original territorial dispute. True. However, prior to the intifada, things were looking a lot better for Palestinians.

Good point. There was a period of relatively little violence. And what happened? Oh yeah... SETTLEMENT BUILDING INCREASED, and Sharon (a very divisive figure, considered a war criminal by one side) showed up at a sensitive religious site shared by jews and pals, with a shitload of armed police sparking a new round of violence. Think that was an accident?

If the palestinians has never commited a single act of violence against Israel there would be MORE settlements than there is now. Theres no correlation between pal-violence and Israeli settlement activities. Israel is there because they need the west banks resources. That wont change no matter what palestinians do.

You can look at the current situation in the west bank for more proof of this. You have a period of relative peace, the most moderate palestinian authority ever probably and Israels reaction? An increase in settlement activity and thousands of new building permits.

Edited November 13, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

If the palestinians has never commited a single act of violence against Israel there would be MORE settlements than there is now.

Your buddies better get moving and kill more Jews so that settlement building stops altogether, eh?

dre logic: WW2 would have been at lot less violent had we let the Germans keep Europe.

[dre]

If dre wishes to go down that road, the same can be said re: the Israelis.

I already said that, reading expert.

Most jews and arabs were simply born into this conflict and had nothing to do with how it started. And the sordid history is used by hawks on both sides to perpetuate the violence.

Not to mention if there was 'peace'...Hamas and their ilk would be out of a job.

Hawks on BOTH sides would left out in the cold if there was peace.

[dre]

Your buddies better get moving and kill more Jews so that settlement building stops altogether, eh?

dre logic: WW2 would have been at lot less violent had we let the Germans keep Europe.

I have no "buddies" over there, and you simply lied about my position. Settlement building will not stop whether 0 jews are killed per day, or 1000 were. Because settlement building and Israels colonization activities have NOTHING TO DO with the actions of palestinians. They happen because Israel needs resources in the west bank to survive.

[DogOnPorch]

I already said that, reading expert.

I wasn't responding to you.

Hawks on BOTH sides would left out in the cold if there was peace.

More of your relativist garbage.

[DogOnPorch]

I have no "buddies" over there, and you simply lied about my position. Settlement building will not stop whether 0 jews are killed per day, or 1000 were. Because settlement building and Israels colonization activities have NOTHING TO DO with the actions of palestinians. They happen because Israel needs resources in the west bank to survive.

And for the forth time, this conflict isn't about the Jordan River or some dusty well. It's about killing Jews...always has been.

I declare a Holy War, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all.

--- al-Husseini, 1947

[bush_cheney2004]

bump

Edited November 13, 2010 by bush_cheney2004