Why Do Poland & Russia Not Have to Give Back Territory...

[Bob]

Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Poland on the confirmation of the frontier between them, 14 November 1990

Thats why.

So as long as we sign an agreement things will be fine? An agreement is only as good as the signatories' commitments to upholding their obligations. Do you think the Palestinian met their commitments under the Oslo accords (particularly with respect to incitement and terrorism)? No, they didn't.

[Bob]

No, it is not ridiculous. It is a view that can be defended. I know it is a long complex story, one that can entangle us in arguments for years. But you see, there's only a few basic differences in how we see things. I refuse to get into the muck that tries to fix blame on either Jews or Palestinians, as the reason a priori. Palestinians are reactionary. They responded to a perceived invasion of what they considered their territory. Most likely that any nation would respond in a similar manner, under similar circumstances. Can anyone disagree with that? Is there another country that would make room or willing annex part of their land for millions of refugees to take permanent residence? Let alone, the Jews... Jews had no where to go so it is not even a question in my mind. They were refused even in lands where they had lived for generations, for centuries. Places like Romania, Bulgaria, even in Belgium and the Netherlands. After much deliberation in parliament Canada accepted one child refugee, I understand. Just one! And we all know what happened on the S.S. St Louis.

Simon Weisenthal org still has a lot of work to do Bob, why are you wasting time bothering us here? The real criminals are the ones who are vetted by the establishment.

It is not an anti-establishment rant, it is based on historical fact. Shame on you for implying it were not the case! If you don't know about history, why do you come here?

Look, the Palestinians are responsible for their own perceptions of history and contemporary events. We cannot take responsibility for their views.

More importantly, this suggestion that "any nation would respond in a similar manner" is wrong. That's just conjecture. Had these Arabs been different, current events and history would have been much different. Their hostility to our return and national aspirations, manifested via mass murder, war, and terrorism, is the reason things are as they are. If they had been open to our return, they could have been a much bigger part of the reestablishment and ongoing development of Israel.

[WIP]

You have me confused with someone else. Nowhere have I portrayed them, or any other group, as "subhuman". Certainly, many of the actions that the Palestinians have collectively taken have been stupid and violent, but that does not make them "subhuman".

In fact, I did have you confused with someone else!

Err, it's perfectly reasonable to blockade a territory into which people are constantly smuggling in weapons and launching them against you. No nation should be expected to sit idly by while rockets are amassed and fired at its people.

Like I said before, I don't have the answer to solve the Middle East, and there may be no solution aside from the one that's developed over the last decades - Israel becoming a modern day Sparta. But, there are costs to being permanently at war, and I object to pro-Israel backers portraying Israel as the nation in the Middle East that is just like us....free, secular, democratic etc. That may have been true before 1967, when the Israeli Arab population was a manageable 10% of the total; but the modern State of Israel has seen an exodus of secular Jews hoping for an end to hostilities, while having an influx of Orthodox Jews who want a theocracy, and an expulsion of all Arabs from occupied territories. My primary objection is that under a Harper Government, we are finding that Canada is making the same mistake as the U.S. -- writing blank cheques for whatever policies Netanyahu or other Israeli governments want to carry out.

All not much unlike today's US conviction to "spread democracy". That too is a secular construct.

I think the claim of "spreading democracy" by the Neocons has been thoroughly revealed to be a shallow ruse to hide the real agenda: the plundering of resources by U.S. backed corporations. It's ironic that conservatives in the U.S. are running away from the word "democracy" when it's applied to domestic politics...they insist on using the term "representative republic" instead. Funny that they would want democracy for others, but not for their own people!

So long as the territory remains unclaimed by any other sovereign state (a sovereign state of Palestine does not yet exist and Jordan has relinquished its claims to the West Bank), what else would you expect?

I recall that at least since the time the Likud first took over, under Menachem Begin, they were declaring that they would never give up any of the West Bank, and the policy of building settlements, and encouraging immigrants to settle the West Bank became government policy. So, was there ever a serious attempt by previous Israeli governments to reach a peace agreement? Or did they calculate many years ago that peace would be too costly, compared to a policy of delay and building up military superiority. The "Peace Process" has been revealed in the Wikileaks cables as a ruse for Western consumption.

Yeah, evil Jews displacing and oppressing poor black Africans. That would have flown so much better than evil Jews displacing and oppressing poor Palestinian Arabs. Not. There is no unclaimed hospitable land left on Earth. I mean, I'd be fine with colonizing Antarctica, but somehow I don't think too many Jews would have been drawn to immigrate to a New Jerusalem built on the south pole.

I guess the Mormons were lucky when they found Utah! It was mostly empty territory at the time they arrived. I just took a glance at the British Uganda Program. It would have presented similar problems as the taking of Palestine, but I'm surprised that England at that time, with its vast colonial empire, couldn't have found something more suitable....Australia was mostly empty at that time...but the British may have been more concerned with losing control of territory.

[bush_cheney2004]

But, there are costs to being permanently at war, and I object to pro-Israel backers portraying Israel as the nation in the Middle East that is just like us....free, secular, democratic etc....

Why do you object when such a portrayal is fairly accurate given the current state of Canadian (or American) domestic and foreign policies? How do you reconcile the obvious with an ideology that condemns Israel for taking identical measures when faced with "existential threats"?

[jbg]

Like I said before, I don't have the answer to solve the Middle East, and there may be no solution aside from the one that's developed over the last decades - Israel becoming a modern day Sparta. But, there are costs to being permanently at war...

You may have hit the nail on the head here. The neighboring peoples are nto going to allow Israel to exist in peace, ever. There is some perceived advantage to trying to push them peacefully back to non-defensable borders. But after that the result is more war.

...and I object to pro-Israel backers portraying Israel as the nation in the Middle East that is just like us....free, secular, democratic etc. That may have been true before 1967, when the Israeli Arab population was a manageable 10% of the total; but the modern State of Israel has seen an exodus of secular Jews hoping for an end to hostilities, while having an influx of Orthodox Jews who want a theocracy, and an expulsion of all Arabs from occupied territories.

Israel is more like the U.S. and Canada than any other country in the area. And the differences are imposed by the strictures of dealing with their neighbors, not by the influx of Orthodox Jews. Dealing with those "rats on two legs" is a different problem.

My primary objection is that under a Harper Government, we are finding that Canada is making the same mistake as the U.S. -- writing blank cheques for whatever policies Netanyahu or other Israeli governments want to carry out.

Unless you want Canadian forces on the ground in Israel what choices do you have?

I think the claim of "spreading democracy" by the Neocons has been thoroughly revealed to be a shallow ruse to hide the real agenda: the plundering of resources by U.S. backed corporations. It's ironic that conservatives in the U.S. are running away from the word "democracy" when it's applied to domestic politics...they insist on using the term "representative republic" instead. Funny that they would want democracy for others, but not for their own people!

How much oil has Iraq pumped in the last 8 years that was plundered by U.S. corporations? And remember they developed the oil in the first place.

I recall that at least since the time the Likud first took over, under Menachem Begin, they were declaring that they would never give up any of the West Bank, and the policy of building settlements, and encouraging immigrants to settle the West Bank became government policy. So, was there ever a serious attempt by previous Israeli governments to reach a peace agreement? Or did they calculate many years ago that peace would be too costly, compared to a policy of delay and building up military superiority. The "Peace Process" has been revealed in the Wikileaks cables as a ruse for Western consumption.

Peace would be desirable and not costly if it were a two-way street.

[Saipan]

Israel becoming a modern day Sparta. But, there are costs to being permanently at war

Jews were peaceful for centuries - and paid for it dearly. Nearly exterminated. FINALLY they learned their lesson.

THOSE WHO BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES PLOW FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T.

[Bonam]

THOSE WHO BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES PLOW FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T.

That's if they're lucky. More likely, they get plowed.

[Bob]

In fact, I did have you confused with someone else!

Like I said before, I don't have the answer to solve the Middle East, and there may be no solution aside from the one that's developed over the last decades - Israel becoming a modern day Sparta. But, there are costs to being permanently at war, and I object to pro-Israel backers portraying Israel as the nation in the Middle East that is just like us....free, secular, democratic etc. That may have been true before 1967, when the Israeli Arab population was a manageable 10% of the total; but the modern State of Israel has seen an exodus of secular Jews hoping for an end to hostilities, while having an influx of Orthodox Jews who want a theocracy, and an expulsion of all Arabs from occupied territories. My primary objection is that under a Harper Government, we are finding that Canada is making the same mistake as the U.S. -- writing blank cheques for whatever policies Netanyahu or other Israeli governments want to carry out.

Well, Israel is largely free, secular, and democratic. So there's nothing wrong with characterizing this country in such a way and drawing real parallels between Israel and certain other Western democracies. So you can "object" to this accurate description all you want, it'll just illustrate your ignorance and/or dishonesty. The rest of your description of Israeli society and internal dynamics is so off the mark and loaded with ignorant assumptions so as not to warrant a serious reply.

What I found particularly rich was your statement that Canada is "writing blank cheques" to Israel? Really? Since when? When's the last time Canada sent Israel a shekel? I find it so repulsive when a Canadian like yourself masquerades as being concerned about Canada - as if your hostility to Israel and constant misrepresentations of contemporary events and history is the product of you wanting to operate in Canada's best interest. You mask your politics as some sort of deluded patriotism, where you feel like Canada is being harmed because Harper is assertively supporting Israel on the political stage.

I think the claim of "spreading democracy" by the Neocons has been thoroughly revealed to be a shallow ruse to hide the real agenda: the plundering of resources by U.S. backed corporations. It's ironic that conservatives in the U.S. are running away from the word "democracy" when it's applied to domestic politics...they insist on using the term "representative republic" instead. Funny that they would want democracy for others, but not for their own people!

I have strong reservations about the worldview of the so-called neo-conservatives, but you're greatly mischaracterizing them. Rightly or wrongly, they sincerely believe that aggressive democratic reform is in the best interests of America, and the broader Western world.

I recall that at least since the time the Likud first took over, under Menachem Begin, they were declaring that they would never give up any of the West Bank, and the policy of building settlements, and encouraging immigrants to settle the West Bank became government policy. So, was there ever a serious attempt by previous Israeli governments to reach a peace agreement? Or did they calculate many years ago that peace would be too costly, compared to a policy of delay and building up military superiority. The "Peace Process" has been revealed in the Wikileaks cables as a ruse for Western consumption.

Every sentence in this ridiculous paragraph is packed with false assumptions and misrepresentations. It would take too much effort to really address this stupidity. Primarily, though, you act as if the Six-Day War was the start of the conflict rather than a significant event in the broader context. More specifically, the events of the Six-Day War were a consequence of... what exactly? Everything was fine and dandy before June 5th of that year? Clearly you like to arbitrarily pick starting points for historical analysis, as if the capture or Gaza and the West Bank is when and where it all started.

[Sir Bandelot]

Look, the Palestinians are responsible for their own perceptions of history and contemporary events. We cannot take responsibility for their views.

Ok fine. I will not excuse them or try to defend the indefensible.

More importantly, this suggestion that "any nation would respond in a similar manner" is wrong. That's just conjecture. Had these Arabs been different, current events and history would have been much different. Their hostility to our return and national aspirations, manifested via mass murder, war, and terrorism, is the reason things are as they are. If they had been open to our return, they could have been a much bigger part of the reestablishment and ongoing development of Israel.

We live in a world of great hostility. In rare cases, refugees have been tolerated, even when they arrive in large numbers. But when that happens they're usually confined to camps and have minimal rights. More often than not, they are persecuted. That certainly was the case for the Jews, who were rejected unanimously, worldwide. Not to forget what also happened to thousands of Gypsies, Roma and other so called unter-mensch. It's a typical reaction especially from people are not well educated or come from a culture that accepts violence, where tolerance toward others is not held in high regard.

Having said that, how can we then excuse the west? Are we not supposed to be enlightened, Christian nations?

[Bonam]

Having said that, how can we then excuse the west? Are we not supposed to be enlightened, Christian nations?

No, we're not supposed to be "Christian nations".

[Sir Bandelot]

No, we're not supposed to be "Christian nations".

Yes I know but if you can get the point- we certainly were in WWII.

[Bob]

Ok fine. I will not excuse them or try to defend the indefensible.

We live in a world of great hostility. In rare cases, refugees have been tolerated, even when they arrive in large numbers. But when that happens they're usually confined to camps and have minimal rights. More often than not, they are persecuted. That certainly was the case for the Jews, who were rejected unanimously, worldwide. Not to forget what also happened to thousands of Gypsies, Roma and other so called unter-mensch. It's a typical reaction especially from people are not well educated or come from a culture that accepts violence, where tolerance toward others is not held in high regard.

Having said that, how can we then excuse the west? Are we not supposed to be enlightened, Christian nations?

I'm not sure what your point is. Either way, I really don't care and you're not going to get me to accept the Arab violence against the early Jewish immigration to this land which started in the late nineteenth century. They are responsible for the consequences of their actions, and they will continue to bear responsibility until they change.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Bob

[Bonam]

Yes I know but if you can get the point- we certainly were in WWII.

Depends what you call a Christian nation, and in any case that was certainly not true of all the allies. Anyway, Christianity has little to do with anything. Germany was as Christian as any of the Western nations against which it fought.

[Sir Bandelot]

Depends what you call a Christian nation, and in any case that was certainly not true of all the allies. Anyway, Christianity has little to do with anything. Germany was as Christian as any of the Western nations against which it fought.

The history of Christianity has everything to do with the history of antisemitism.

If you read this discussion, my comments came out of criticism that western nations turned their backs on Jewish refugees. Jews had nowhere to go. Many escaped Europe to go to Palestine. I don't feel like going through it all again, as I've made my point here but suffice to say, we are complicit and have not atoned for the crimes of our past. I admit it angers me tremendously that many people do not know what happened, the greatest crime in history, and coverup and it was just a few decades ago.

[Sir Bandelot]

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/non2many.html

Canadians, sanctimonious defenders of freedom, read it and weep.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/non2many.html

Canadians, sanctimonious defenders of freedom, read it and weep.

That piece of ancient history is apropos to what?

[GostHacked]

That piece of ancient history is apropos to what?

Don't know .. ask the Jews.

[M.Dancer]

Don't know .. ask the Jews.

Any Jews in particular? Jews elected to Parliament?

Dear Sir,

What is the relevance of Canada's pre-war policy of accepting European Jews to the issue's reagrding handing over land captured in the wars against Israel by Israel?

Thanks in advance

[Sir Bandelot]

Any Jews in particular? Jews elected to Parliament?

Dear Sir,

What is the relevance of Canada's pre-war policy of accepting European Jews to the issue's reagrding handing over land captured in the wars against Israel by Israel?

Thanks in advance

Well going back to the OP it indicates Poland and Russia, these are WWII events. No thread drift here.

[Sir Bandelot]

That piece of ancient history is apropos to what?

I see, it is "so yesterday..."

[bloodyminded]

I see, it is "so yesterday..."

When historian Raul Hilberg chose to set upon a detailed and expansive history of the Holocaust (the very first person to do so on any scale), that's basically the response he got, too. "So yesterday, man...like, years ago! Let's move on."

[M.Dancer]

I see, it is "so yesterday..."

More than that, it is irrelevant.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm not sure what your point is. Either way, I really don't care

I am sorry that you don't care. You being a professed Jew I find that rather ironic and eye opening. Or maybe it just says something about your personality and agenda?

Sorry, I don't want to attack you but these things do aggravate me more than usual, and I find your position rather 'curious'.

Getting back to my point, here it is most concisely- No one in the world wanted the Jews. Absolutely no one. And when they went to Palestine, the Palestinians reacted the way the rest of the world did. The Jews were backed into a corner and had to fend for themselves.

So it leads me to raise the most difficult possibility in regards to the question raised by the OP, "Why do Poland and Russia Not Have to Give Back Territory... but the Jews do?" Because they are Jews.

[GostHacked]

Any Jews in particular? Jews elected to Parliament?

Dear Sir,

What is the relevance of Canada's pre-war policy of accepting European Jews to the issue's reagrding handing over land captured in the wars against Israel by Israel?

Thanks in advance

I did not read the article .. nor did I read this reply.

[M.Dancer]

No one in the world wanted the Jews. Absolutely no one. And when they went to Palestine, the Palestinians reacted the way the rest of the world did. The Jews were backed into a corner and had to fend for themselves.

They did? All of them?

Interesting given that there are more Jews in USA than in Israel. Funny also that the non jewish americans aren't planting bombs in Forest Hills falafel shops like the palestinians, who, apparently react the way the rest of the world does...