Canada rejects Palestinian Statehood

GostHacked · July 11, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/11/canada-palestine-state.html

Well it clearly shows that we have taken a side in this whole decades running debacle.

Canada is rejecting a Palestinian effort to win recognition at the United Nations as an independent state.
The move is not surprising given that the Harper government has forcefully highlighted its loyalty to Israel and the United States. Both oppose the Palestinian initiative.

The Palestinian Authority, which controls most of the West Bank, launched a campaign last month that will see it pursue a vote on statehood at the United Nations General Assembly in September — an effort borne out of its frustration over a peace process that is stalled.

The top Palestinian diplomat in Canada says her official delegation will still push hard for the support of Ottawa.

We are not promoting peace in the area by not recognizing that the Palestinians deserve their own nation.

"Our government's long-standing position has not changed. The only solution to this conflict is one negotiated between and agreed to by the two parties," said Chris Day, the spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.
"One of the states must be a Jewish state and recognized as such, while the Palestinian state is to be a non-militarized one."

I really don't know what to say. We are no longer neutral in this conflict.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 11, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/11/canada-palestine-state.html

Well it clearly shows that we have taken a side in this whole decades running debacle.

We are not promoting peace in the area by not recognizing that the Palestinians deserve their own nation.

I really don't know what to say. We are no longer neutral in this conflict.

You could say that our government has acted foolishly. We have no interest in the state of Israel, nor should we. They are an independent nation, recognized as such at the U.N. Internal issues within the nation are cause for civil, not international actions. For this nation to stand and speak on any side of the question is to detract from our own best interests and will do little to assist in rectifying the current situation.

Chippewa · July 11, 2011

Canada says it is apart of the United Nations, but fails to be apart of the United Nations Declaration. If that is Canada's stance on Palestine, then it is no different then Canada saying its a Country on First Nations territory. So it makes sense as to why they oppose, because First Nations are in the same situation. No treaty ever said anything about land sales, setting up a country, immigration, Indian Act or resource sales.

eyeball · July 11, 2011

This is just part and parcel of our enculteration of the values that our new natural governing party has informed us now defines Canada.

I think what has to happen now in Canada is an end to the neutral tones that the Opposition has used to describe what's happening.

It should be pretty clear to just about any rational thinking person that the Conservative Party of Canada really has been taken over by a religious cult of Armageddonists and End Timers with a justice and social-economic worldview that is barely out of the dark-ages.

This is really what the majority of Canadians voted for? I don't believe it for one second.

TimG · July 11, 2011

No treaty ever said anything about land sales, setting up a country, immigration, Indian Act or resource sales.

Lots of treaties exist and have been upheld by the SCC. There are cases where no treaties exist but they are the minority.

Wild Bill · July 11, 2011

It should be pretty clear to just about any rational thinking person that the Conservative Party of Canada really has been taken over by a religious cult of Armageddonists and End Timers with a justice and social-economic worldview that is barely out of the dark-ages.

This is really what the majority of Canadians voted for? I don't believe it for one second.

Not the majority. Just more Canadians than the number that agreed with YOU! :lol:

eyeball · July 11, 2011

Not the majority. Just more Canadians than the number that agreed with YOU!

I trust you got what you wanted then.

Chippewa · July 11, 2011

Lots of treaties exist and have been upheld by the SCC. There are cases where no treaties exist but they are the minority.

The problem with a entire justice system, is the PC's, and SCC are politically oppointed judges, and judicial system. In alot of cases, some of these politicians and there internal aspirations, superceed any rights and treaties that may exist. This has been the case for decades. First Nations have been asking for International Court to hear the cases, but Canada rejects. So another alternative may be to do the same kangaroo court system by setting up PC's and SC of First Nations. The response may be mutual.

Machjo · July 11, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/11/canada-palestine-state.html

Well it clearly shows that we have taken a side in this whole decades running debacle.

We are not promoting peace in the area by not recognizing that the Palestinians deserve their own nation.

I really don't know what to say. We are no longer neutral in this conflict.

In my opinion, by taking a unilateral stance on this, Canada is interfering is reaching beyond its jurisdictional boundaries. A more neutral approach would be for Canada to simply say that it shall abide by all appropriate UN resolutions. Should the UN deny Palestinian statehood, will too. Should the UN recognize Palestinian statehood, then so will Canada.

Canada is free to share its ideas on the subject at the UN General Assembly, but at the end of the day it's not up to us to dictate national boundaries beyond our borders. We did not appreciate it when De Gaule announced "Vive the Quebec libre", and so we should not do the same, or it could come and bite us in the rear later when we try to negotiate northern boundaries.

Bob · July 11, 2011

In my opinion, by taking a unilateral stance on this, Canada is interfering is reaching beyond its jurisdictional boundaries. A more neutral approach would be for Canada to simply say that it shall abide by all appropriate UN resolutions. Should the UN deny Palestinian statehood, will too. Should the UN recognize Palestinian statehood, then so will Canada.

A unilateral stance? What is Canada doing besides declaring its position on this issue prior to casting its vote in the UNGA? What is this talk of "neutrality"? Aside from the farce that is the UN, which many in this thread seem to regard as some sort of sacred calf, Canada is entitled to casting its vote on this issue the way it chooses to. Your statement is so monumentally stupid - is Iran acting "unilaterally" when it votes in favour of "Palestinian" statehood based on the 1949 armistice lines? Is voting in support of such a ridiculous proposition a "neutral" position?

Canada is free to share its ideas on the subject at the UN General Assembly, but at the end of the day it's not up to us to dictate national boundaries beyond our borders. We did not appreciate it when De Gaule announced "Vive the Quebec libre", and so we should not do the same, or it could come and bite us in the rear later when we try to negotiate northern boundaries.

Who ever thought Canada could dictate anything regarding this issue?

Regarding the OP, good for Harper for taking the moral position and rejecting this meaningless proposal at the UN. Moreover, the thread title is misleading, as it drops relevant context. Canada's official position isn't a rejection of "Palestinian" statehood, as the thread title suggests. Rather, it is a rejection to recognize a "Palestine" state based on the 1949 armistice lines.

Bob · July 11, 2011

Canada says it is apart of the United Nations, but fails to be apart of the United Nations Declaration. If that is Canada's stance on Palestine, then it is no different then Canada saying its a Country on First Nations territory. So it makes sense as to why they oppose, because First Nations are in the same situation. No treaty ever said anything about land sales, setting up a country, immigration, Indian Act or resource sales.

You have everything upside down. If anything, Israel is the epitome of modern rejection of colonialism and imperialism. It is a reclamation of national rights in our land. It's funny how some Aboriginals and their supporters show some sort of misplaced affinity with the "Palestinians", as if they are somehow "indigenous", with the Jewish people being foreign invaders akin to the Europeans who arrived to the America in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Bob · July 11, 2011

We are not promoting peace in the area by not recognizing that the Palestinians deserve their own nation.

You really aren't the bright, are you? Canada's official position is one that seeks to establish a Palestinian state. It is quite telling that you cannot discern between voting against a "Palestinian" declaration of statehood on all territory past the Green Line, and outright rejection of the legitimacy of statehood for these Arabs.

I really don't know what to say. We are no longer neutral in this conflict.

Yeah, since accepting "Palestinian" sovereignty over all the territory is the "neutral" position. Let's rewind the clock back forty years and rip apart Jerusalem and make it a tiny strip a few kilometres deep.

GostHacked · July 11, 2011

You really aren't the bright, are you? Canada's official position is one that seeks to establish a Palestinian state. It is quite telling that you cannot discern between voting against a "Palestinian" declaration of statehood on all territory past the Green Line, and outright rejection of the legitimacy of statehood for these Arabs.

You support genocide and mass murder of the Palestinians, so you have no interest in seeing a Palestinian nation-state, no matter what it looks like.

Machjo · July 11, 2011

A unilateral stance? What is Canada doing besides declaring its position on this issue prior to casting its vote in the UNGA? What is this talk of "neutrality"? Aside from the farce that is the UN, which many in this thread seem to regard as some sort of sacred calf, Canada is entitled to casting its vote on this issue the way it chooses to. Your statement is so monumentally stupid - is Iran acting "unilaterally" when it votes in favour of "Palestinian" statehood based on the 1949 armistice lines? Is voting in support of such a ridiculous proposition a "neutral" position?

Canada is free to cast its vote as it sees fit at the UNGA, just as Iran is. My point is though that since the UNGA represents the majority of of nations, it therefore represents more widely the will of the international community and so does have more legitimate authority than just one country on that front. Canada can certainly vote as it sees fit, but in the end, it shoudl abide by whatever decision the international community decides.

This is not to say the UN isn't in need of reform, but merely that it's the best we have at the moment.

Machjo · July 11, 2011

You have everything upside down. If anything, Israel is the epitome of modern rejection of colonialism and imperialism. It is a reclamation of national rights in our land. It's funny how some Aboriginals and their supporters show some sort of misplaced affinity with the "Palestinians", as if they are somehow "indigenous", with the Jewish people being foreign invaders akin to the Europeans who arrived to the America in the 15th and 16th centuries.

There is something to consider here as an aside. One study had found that many Palestinians have many cultural and genetic traits shared between them and Jews, suggesting that while other Jews had chosen to leave Palestine, their ancestors chose to remain and over time adopted Islam.

Remember too that as per Israeli law, to become an Israel citizen you need to prove you're a Jew, not necessarily a Hebrew. Considering that Judaism has always been a proselyte religion, even if less so than Christianity or Islam (though it has always welcomed converts), many Jews imigrating to Israel may be descendants of Jewish converts who have had nothing to do with the land of Israel.

These are just some points to consider, that some Jews may have no historical link to Israel whereas some Palestinians may have links going back to Ancient Israel. The division here is therefore quite rbitrary.

Consider too the weakness of the religious argument. If God gave that land to Jews, converted or not, then he also required them to stone anyone violating any of the ten commandments, right?

Again, just food for thought.

M.Dancer · July 11, 2011

suggesting that while other Jews had chosen to leave Palestine,

Chosen?

TimG · July 11, 2011

The problem with a entire justice system, is the PC's, and SCC are politically oppointed judges, and judicial system.

Translation: if the judge does not give me everything I want the judge must be baised. The fact is the SCC has been bending over backwards to accomodate native claims and if that is not enough then your expectations are simply too great.

First Nations have been asking for International Court to hear the cases, but Canada rejects.

First nations are not sovereign nations outside of the fevered imaginations of a few activists. All first nations have are some special claims on the sovereign terroritory of Canada. The courts of Canada are the only place where such disputes can be resolved. Edited July 11, 2011 by TimG

Tilter · July 11, 2011

[You could say that our government has acted foolishly. We have no interest in the state of Israel, nor should we. They are an independent nation, recognized as such at the U.N. Internal issues within the nation are cause for civil, not international actions. For this nation to stand and speak on any side of the question is to detract from our own best interests and will do little to assist in rectifying the current situation. /quote]
So I guess we (Canada) should toe the line & vote to incorporate another Terrorist state. Hamas has been declared a Terrorist organization & is the ruling party in the pseudo-state they call Palestine, a name which has never been an actual country.

If the UN is interested in establishing another terrorist state why not ask the Saudis for a few square kilometers of their sand which is exactly what the "Palestinians" (it's hard to be a citizen of a country that doesn't actually exist) were occupying when the State of Israel was reformed and some of the Israeli lands were given back to them.

Remiel · July 11, 2011

If anything, Israel is the epitome of modern rejection of colonialism and imperialism. It is a reclamation of national rights in our land.

Yes, and settlement of Africa by Europeans was not colonialism, as they were just heading back to their homeland. Give me a break.

M.Dancer · July 11, 2011

These are just some points to consider, that some Jews may have no historical link to Israel whereas some Palestinians may have links going back to Ancient Israel.

No the case. Arabs are "recent" arrivals to the area. They came from the arabian peninisula around 600AD

Machjo · July 11, 2011

No the case. Arabs are "recent" arrivals to the area. They came from the arabian peninisula around 600AD

And not one single Jew ever converted to Islam, and not one single non-Jew ever converted to the Jewish Faith? Remember that in the beginning, when Moses was on the Mount talking with God, there was no Jew. It could only have come into being via preaching and conversion. Though it has certainly become far less proselyte in the last few centuries or even thousand years, it has always been proselyte in principle in that people have always been free to convert to the Jewish Faith.

So are you telling me that not a single Palestineian is of historical Jewish descent and that each and every single Jew is of Hebrew Descent?

M.Dancer · July 11, 2011

So are you telling me that not a single Palestineian is of historical Jewish descent and that each and every single Jew is of Hebrew Descent?

I am telling you if the palestinians are arabs, arabs migrated to the region around 600AD...the jews were exiled from the region around 70AD.

Whether or not a few jews or a few arabs intermarried or converted is irrelevant

Machjo · July 11, 2011

I am telling you if the palestinians are arabs, arabs migrated to the region around 600AD...the jews were exiled from the region around 70AD.

Whether or not a few jews or a few arabs intermarried or converted is irrelevant

Many Palestinians gradually integrated into the Arab community, which explains the genetic and cultural similarities that were discovered between them and Jews. Just because they are Arabs today, it doesn't mean their ancestors always were. You're not going to tell me now that their integration into the Arab world therefore denies them the right to their land, are you?

TimG · July 11, 2011

You're not going to tell me now that their integration into the Arab world therefore denies them the right to their land, are you?

So next you are going to be telling us that those nasty Saxons should be giving back all of the terroritory that they stole from the Angles...

There comes a point when historical claims mean squat and the only thing that matters is what is going on today.

Edited July 11, 2011 by TimG

Machjo · July 11, 2011

So next you are going to be telling us that those nasty Saxons should be giving back all of the terroritory that they stole from the Angles...

There comes a point when historical claims mean squat and the only thing that matters is what is going on today.

Er... that was my whole point. Glad you got it. It doesn't matter that some historical Jews lived in that land millennia ago. Let's consider the people who live there now and the current reality. Unless you can present a family tree proving you trace your roots back to Ancient Israel, it means nothing. I'm sure there have been just as many convrts to Judaism in Europe over the centuries as there have been Jews converting to Islam in th eland of Palestine. In the end, religion thus becomes a moot point.