Canada rejects Palestinian Statehood

[William Ashley]

The statement is clearly a non populus based position, as I recall reading that the people of Canada have a slight polling edge to support of Palestine over Israel.

I think really this whole thing is highly important now since the United States favors a return to Israel's 1967 lines or an approximation there of.

Israel is in an odd position of being between the sea and Arab States.

Personally I do recognize that the Arabs have more claim to Palestine than Israel does.

It was predominantly western interference under the Balfour Act that started the whole mess.

I think however Israel could have resolved the issue long ago, way back when they gave "Palestine" internal autonomy. The problem however was in turning it into a failed state, rather than helping create "normalcy".Instead they got a HAMAS government and it hasn't fully recovered, since I don't see how internal autonomy can be inclusive in the various incursions in those territories including murder and war crimes.

I can recognize how rocket attacks are a problem, but Israel could have spent all the money it had on killing and invading, on border defences, patriot, thels and other systems that could have just as easily defended again the odd rocket. They aren't trying to "correct" the errors. They time and time again such as building settlements in occupied territories, and other actions have more or less maintained an occupiers stance, when they stated they gave autonomy. Isreal very much renigged on its promises from Camp David.

I think that it is way to late to go back to 1945, but Israel's continued limiting of Palestine is causing it more long term problems than if it had normalized Palestine. There is nothing better to create sympathy than a battered confined orphan rather than a young adolescent hoodlum.

Harper's government is clearly prozionist but that isn't a surprise. I think very much what this amounts to is that it is the responsibility of individual Canadians to support independence and freedoms for all people of the world, and to denounce those who oppose human rights and freedom of humankind such as Stephen Harper and his band of thugs.

Edited July 11, 2011 by William Ashley

[Guest American Woman]

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

You think you ever were??

[jacee]

Of course a negotiated solution is stronger than one imposed by a UN vote. I hope this is the rationale for Harper's position. Given recent history of animosity and violence from both sides, the concept of Arab 'right of return' or 'one state solution' just doesn't seem viable. In fact, I see it as significant progress that Palestinians proposed seeking a 'two state solution' through the UN, possibly paving the way for a negotiated solution. Obama's position of 1967 borders as a starting point seems reasonable to me.

Since there doesn't seem to be ability on either side to 'live amongst each other in love and peace', a more practical solution is needed and there seems to be some hope of that now. Thus, while Harper's position seems one sided rather than neutral, I guess I'm willing to tolerate it on balance, or at least see where it goes.

The current position of Gaza, blockaded by Israel, simply isn't tenable and a solution that clarifies Palestinian sovereignty would be an improvement, imo. Of course, the suggestion that it be a 'non-militarized' state is a non-starter: independent states have the right to defence.

[William Ashley]

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

Not true. Palistine was settled long long ago by various groups, and was heavily in the Egyptian/Babylonian spheres --- also so the Persians and Greeks and others.

The Natufians are a well known early group. - Groups from Sudan and other subsaharan areas may very well have mixed with the last neandrethals- as the first modern human peoples. There were however many groups that had more ancestory to the area than the Chaldean Jews.

Do you recall that Joshua "fought"the battle of Jericho, they didn't "build" the city.

Also Abraham (a common father of both the Muslims and Jews) was Chaldean (Babylonian/Sumerian etc..) Sound nomadic much? Ask yourself the first cities "built by the jews?

Tel Aviv was "founded" in 1909 AD.

Jerusalem --- is a little more complex. (Shem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek )

http://bibleencyclopedia.net/index.php/Melchizedek

"the children of El"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion

"Then you crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho. The citizens of Jericho fought against you, as did also the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites, but I gave them into your hands."

Understand.. the Jews ... conquered this land from those peoples.. and those lands were later liberated. The jews didn't live there from time immemorable.

They commited genocide against the Amorites... other groups meanwhile may have a different background.

Isreael is a "religious state", it isn't representative of all Jewery, but it is a Jewish state. It was founded by the United Nations... in 1948. Understand 600AD is way older than 1948. But the non Jewish people have been there a lot longer - its their homeland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek <--- this is very important to understand -- how the law unfolds.

" Samuel's wrath for leaving some of the people and livestock alive (1 Samuel 15:8-9) against God's command. Saul and the tribal leaders also hesitated to kill Agag, so Samuel himself executed the Amalekite king (1 Samuel 15:33)."

"As the Jewish Encyclopedia put it, "David waged a sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites,"[4] who may have subsequently disappeared from history. Long after, in the time of Hezekiah, five hundred Simeonites annihilated the remnant "of the Amalekites that had escaped" on Mount Seir, and settled in their place (1 Chr. 4:42-43)."

"Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed, and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed.

ut Moses’ hands grew weary, so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it, while Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side. So his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. 13 And Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” 15 And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The Lord is my banner, 16 saying, “A hand upon the throne of the Lord Jacob! The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17)

"

Jehovah Nissi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah-nissi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton

(Of course one must question how recording something blots it from memory unless you fail to read it)

This gets more complex with revelations being serials of 666 111 616 etc..

Yodh "Y"

ה He "H"

ו Waw "W" or placeholder for "O"/"U" vowel (see mater lectionis)

ה He

WAW is a repeated element but it also devolves.

He has special meaning... it gets complex and I won't get off track from the topic

but Israel wasn't there first. So don't use that as a basis of claim.

There are only two strong claims.

1 - the boundaries the UN set (and the UN mandate guidelines)

2 - the land YHWH "gave" to them. -- but under the covenant rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(biblical)

Israel is only theres in freedom of humankind, but for eye to eye they cannot deny it to another, else war.

There are a lot of varying cultures involved. The New Covenant doesn't apply to the Jews.

You can read the freaken bible to get a grasp of the situation as it plays out for the Christians but we arleady know Christianity will be more or less eradicated according to John.

----------

Other stuff:

'Ilu is King of the pantheon, Co-Creator of the Universe, kind and benevolent father. He is compassionate and merciful, and he often appears in dreams to offer guidance and assistance to humans. Ilu lives in Mount Ks at the source of two rivers, and in a palace that has seven doors. Because he lives so far away, 'Ilu often uses Shapshu as a messenger. 'Ilu known for his great wisdom and cares a great deal for the plight of human beings. The Hebrew called this god El; both 'Ilu and El mean "God." A bunch of grapes is offered to 'Ilu on the new moon of the month of Ra'shu Yeni ("New Wine"). 'Ilu often holds a marzichu, a feast, in honor of the Rapi'uma (the shades of the deceased). In this Ugaritic image, he is seen in benediction or blessing pose.

Ilu fashions Shataqat, the dragon, from mud in order to free King Kirta from an illness. In order to complete his creation, Ilu holds up his cup of blessing to her and names her "Shataqat." Shataqat then flies to King Kirta and, using a wand, releases the illness from his body

http://mathbatu.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/myth-retelling-king-kirta/

“Despite his status as El’s adopted son, Kirta was still a mortal; he had to die, and he should not yearn [to become a god or have a god's powers]. For the Canaanites, unlike the Egyptians with whom they had commercial contacts and by whom they were influenced, did not believe that the king was a god; to be a son of god was to remain human.” (Coogan, 56-57)

Edited July 11, 2011 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

You think you ever were??

LOL! A free trade agreement with Israel says.....NO!

The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of Canada:

DESIRING to strengthen their economic relations and to promote economic development;

WISHING to create a framework for promoting investment and cooperation;

RESOLVED to foster the development of their trade with due regard to fair conditions of competition;

RECALLING the mutual interest of the Government of the State of Israel and the Government of Canada in reinforcement of the multilateral trading system as reflected in the WTO;

RECALLING that the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of Israel entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on September 27, 1976 which established a Joint Economic Commission, which was continued under a Memorandum of Understanding on Economic Cooperation entered into on August 5, 1993;

WISHING to establish a free trade area between the two countries through the removal of trade barriers;

DECLARING their readiness to explore other possibilities for extending their economic relations to other fields not covered by this Agreement;

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/israel/part-1.aspx?lang=en

[M.Dancer]

I'm glad you've put to rest the argument that Israel's right of return is no different than that of any other country which allows descendants of citizens to come back to the land of their forefathers. Unlike most "nations", there's no common language, ethnicity, or historical state to support the Zionist claim to the land. Your argument is that the Jews are special, deserving of special consideration above and beyond that of lesser nations and races.

Well there is one telling point that separates the jews and other nations.

They can.

as far as no common language...there is hebrew....

[Bob]

Of course a negotiated solution is stronger than one imposed by a UN vote. I hope this is the rationale for Harper's position. Given recent history of animosity and violence from both sides, the concept of Arab 'right of return' or 'one state solution' just doesn't seem viable. In fact, I see it as significant progress that Palestinians proposed seeking a 'two state solution' through the UN, possibly paving the way for a negotiated solution. Obama's position of 1967 borders as a starting point seems reasonable to me.

Since there doesn't seem to be ability on either side to 'live amongst each other in love and peace', a more practical solution is needed and there seems to be some hope of that now. Thus, while Harper's position seems one sided rather than neutral, I guess I'm willing to tolerate it on balance, or at least see where it goes.

The current position of Gaza, blockaded by Israel, simply isn't tenable and a solution that clarifies Palestinian sovereignty would be an improvement, imo. Of course, the suggestion that it be a 'non-militarized' state is a non-starter: independent states have the right to defence.

First of all, the UN can't "impose" anything. Suppose the UN votes in favour of this state, which will lead to no practical changes on the ground as Israel will invariably reject this absurdity. Would you support Canadian military intervention in order to "impose" the UN's will against Israel's opposition to "the international community"? Unless you're willing to fight for it, and by that I mean sending in Canadian forces to "impose" the will of the UN, it will be just another empty declaration from the verminous institution that is the antithesis of its mandate.

And no, the "1967 borders" are certainly not a "reasonable" point of departure for negotiations. Not only will we never see a return to those lines, but they won't be used as the basis for negotiations, either.

You talk about the blockade on Gaza... why do you suppose there is a blockade in the first place? Just for the hell of it?

As far as "self-defense" being a "right" of any "state", in the event of the establishment of a 23rd Arab state known as Palestine, it will have to be demilitarized. You say it's a "non-starter", well, in that case, the status quo will remain indefinitely. The Arabs have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted and they must be disarmed. This certainly wouldn't be the first time an aggressor people had their "rights" to "self-defense" reduced. Whether it's placing restriction on the violent ex-cons towards buying guns or the process of denazification, individuals as well as groups can forfeit rights based on breach of trust.

[Black Dog]

Well there is one telling point that separates the jews and other nations.

They can.

Well duh. But that just highlights the ridiculousness of the pro-Israel position which demands recognition of Israel's "right to exist."

as far as no common language...there is hebrew....

Which was basically a dead language up until the 19th Century.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Black Dog

[Machjo]

LOL! A free trade agreement with Israel says.....NO!

The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of Canada:

DESIRING to strengthen their economic relations and to promote economic development;

WISHING to create a framework for promoting investment and cooperation;

RESOLVED to foster the development of their trade with due regard to fair conditions of competition;

RECALLING the mutual interest of the Government of the State of Israel and the Government of Canada in reinforcement of the multilateral trading system as reflected in the WTO;

RECALLING that the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of Israel entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on September 27, 1976 which established a Joint Economic Commission, which was continued under a Memorandum of Understanding on Economic Cooperation entered into on August 5, 1993;

WISHING to establish a free trade area between the two countries through the removal of trade barriers;

DECLARING their readiness to explore other possibilities for extending their economic relations to other fields not covered by this Agreement;

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/israel/part-1.aspx?lang=en

I ctually would be in favour of a free-trade and free-labour-movement agreement between Canada and Israel. I'd even go so far as to have our ministries of education agree to common educational standards in various trades and professions so as to strengthen the free movement of labour. And at least in principle, I'd even be in favour of agreeing to a common currency with Israel and possibly even a shared military force under certain conditions.

That does not change the fact though that I also recognize Israel's original borders in 1947, not its current occupied territories.

[Machjo]

Which was basically a dead language up until the 19th Century.

Wrong. It had always survived among some Jews.

[Bob]

Well there is one telling point that separates the jews and other nations.

They can.

as far as no common language...there is hebrew....

Black Dog is a complete waste of time. Of course there is Hebrew, and unfortunately Yiddish is clinging by a thread, as well as some other dialects like Ladino.

Black Dog is engaging in a pathetic attempts to undermine the reality that is the Jewish nation and our connection to this land. As if there is no ethnic component to the Jewish people, or "historical state" (what does that even mean?).

Basically, according to Black Dog and the other anti-Israel detractors who invert morality on its head, the Jewish people have no national rights. We must accept being ultra-minorities living among others and being vulnerable to the sentiments of the masses. I've said it before and I'll say it again - we've had enough pogroms, expulsions, and death camps. We're seizing our independence and we'll continue defending ourselves.

[Bob]

Well duh. But that just highlights the ridiculousness of the pro-Israel position which demands recognition of Israel's "right to exist."

I don't care whether or not you accept our rights. We can defend our rights, this time.

Which was basically a dead language up until the 19th Century.

What's your point? Does the beautiful story of the revival of Hebrew in contemporary Israel bother you? You have such a disturbing opposition towards Jewish reclamation of national identity. Too bad assimilation didn't finish off what Hitler started, I suppose...

[Machjo]

Black Dog is a complete waste of time. Of course there is Hebrew, and unfortunately Yiddish is clinging by a thread, as well as some other dialects like Ladino.

Black Dog is engaging in a pathetic attempts to undermine the reality that is the Jewish nation and our connection to this land. As if there is no ethnic component to the Jewish people, or "historical state" (what does that even mean?).

Basically, according to Black Dog and the other anti-Israel detractors who invert morality on its head, the Jewish people have no national rights. We must accept being ultra-minorities living among others and being vulnerable to the sentiments of the masses. I've said it before and I'll say it again - we've had enough pogroms, expulsions, and death camps. We're seizing our independence and we'll continue defending ourselves.

We recognize your land. We just don't recognize its post-1967 expansion. What? If you got that land legally recognized and then claimed even more land, and we opposed it, then you'd still say we're anti-semites? Continue that way and Israel's borders will just continue to expand.

[DogOnPorch]

We recognize your land. We just don't recognize its post-1967 expansion.

So I must assume you're also against Poland's post-1945 'expansion'. How about North Viet-Nam's destruction of South Viet-Nam? For it? Fait accompli? How do you justify your position on Israel in light of these two examples?

What? If you got that land legally recognized and then claimed even more land, and we opposed it, then you'd still say we're anti-semites? Continue that way and Israel's borders will just continue to expand.

Expanding...lol. Israel is much smaller than it was after the Yom Kippur War. I wonder why?

[Bob]

We recognize your land. We just don't recognize its post-1967 expansion. What? If you got that land legally recognized and then claimed even more land, and we opposed it, then you'd still say we're anti-semites? Continue that way and Israel's borders will just continue to expand.

Who cares what you recognize? Are you going to come fight and try to force us to comply with your wishes?

You're so full of it, speaking about "legalities" of the UN, as if Israel's legitimacy is contingent on the UN's approval. It is particularly dishonest, considering that we all know that you would never accept the UN "imposing" its will on Canada in one way or another. Suppose tomorrow the UN voted against Canada's right to exist and stated that sovereignty over the land belongs to Aboriginals, would you accept that? Does the UN reserve the right to determine which states are or aren't legitimate? Of course not.

You speak with such idiocy, expecting Israel to somehow accept absurdities that Canada would never accept. If the UN reserves the right to determine the legitimacy of states and their border, and it most certainly DOES NOT reserve this right, then it could delegitimize Canada. That's effectively what you're arguing, in principle. A preposterous position, indeed.

[bush_cheney2004]

So I must assume you're also against Poland's post-1945 'expansion'. How about North Viet-Nam's destruction of South Viet-Nam? For it? Fait accompli? How do you justify your position on Israel in light of these two examples?

...or unsettled comprehensive and specific land claims in Canada.

[Machjo]

Who cares what you recognize? Are you going to come fight and try to force us to comply with your wishes?

You're so full of it, speaking about "legalities" of the UN, as if Israel's legitimacy is contingent on the UN's approval. It is particularly dishonest, considering that we all know that you would never accept the UN "imposing" its will on Canada in one way or another. Suppose tomorrow the UN voted against Canada's right to exist and stated that sovereignty over the land belongs to Aboriginals, would you accept that? Does the UN reserve the right to determine which states are or aren't legitimate? Of course not.

You speak with such idiocy, expecting Israel to somehow accept absurdities that Canada would never accept. If the UN reserves the right to determine the legitimacy of states and their border, and it most certainly DOES NOT reserve this right, then it could delegitimize Canada. That's effectively what you're arguing, in principle. A preposterous position, indeed.

If it was based on legal precedent, yes. In fact, there are currently disputes over treaties and land claims.

I also oppose Canada trying to solve Northern disputes via military means alone. There are already UN conventions on defining our boundaries there, and Russia for example is already mapping out the oceans to prove its case based on continental plates. At least they're trying to claim land on legal grounds rather than blind muscle-flexing.

So yes, I do hold Canada to the same standards as any other country. Nice try though.

[William Ashley]

First of all, the UN can't "impose" anything. Suppose the UN votes in favour of this state, which will lead to no practical changes on the ground as Israel will invariably reject this absurdity. Would you support Canadian military intervention in order to "impose" the UN's will against Israel's opposition to "the international community"? Unless you're willing to fight for it, and by that I mean sending in Canadian forces to "impose" the will of the UN, it will be just another empty declaration from the verminous institution that is the antithesis of its mandate.

And no, the "1967 borders" are certainly not a "reasonable" point of departure for negotiations. Not only will we never see a return to those lines, but they won't be used as the basis for negotiations, either.

You talk about the blockade on Gaza... why do you suppose there is a blockade in the first place? Just for the hell of it?

As far as "self-defense" being a "right" of any "state", in the event of the establishment of a 23rd Arab state known as Palestine, it will have to be demilitarized. You say it's a "non-starter", well, in that case, the status quo will remain indefinitely. The Arabs have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted and they must be disarmed. This certainly wouldn't be the first time an aggressor people had their "rights" to "self-defense" reduced. Whether it's placing restriction on the violent ex-cons towards buying guns or the process of denazification, individuals as well as groups can forfeit rights based on breach of trust.

I disagree, as soon as you have more than 7 peace keepers in Israel, it ups the stakes, say 5000 UN peacekeepers manning the partition fence... totally different story.. I think Israel would need to seriously question going in again. Then you can have aid organizations go in there.. and distitubution of humanitarian AID... if the UN is receiving the stuff .. then israel shouldn't be worried about chemical weapons get mixed in with the water and rice.

The real failure has been a lack of the UN managing the issues and the placement of peacekeepers along the border.

Instead of turning it over to palistine, they need to first turn it over to the UN.. realize israel exists due to a UN mandate.

The UN still holds the deed more or less in terms of authority in relation to Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253

They need peacekeepers.. the UN should be solving these problems not leaving it up to Palestine and Israel to solve it. It is a major failure on the part of the UN not to.

"(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

( The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;"

recalling:

© The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;

"Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;"

"Appeals to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations, and"

PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION

PART I

Future constitution and government of Palestine

You can continue reading from the link supplied above.

"If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations."

" Settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;"

"Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;"

" Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;"

"Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders."

Have they done it yet.. the mandate is still in place.

Publication error?

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/il.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.svg

Edited July 11, 2011 by William Ashley

[Black Dog]

Black Dog is a complete waste of time. Of course there is Hebrew, and unfortunately Yiddish is clinging by a thread, as well as some other dialects like Ladino.

Black Dog is engaging in a pathetic attempts to undermine the reality that is the Jewish nation and our connection to this land. As if there is no ethnic component to the Jewish people, or "historical state" (what does that even mean?).

Funny: the person who brought up the ethnic and linguistic diversity of the Jewish people was you. And now that that's been turned against you, the compulsion to promote Jewish exceptionalism forces you to backtrack.

Basically, according to Black Dog and the other anti-Israel detractors who invert morality on its head, the Jewish people have no national rights. We must accept being ultra-minorities living among others and being vulnerable to the sentiments of the masses. I've said it before and I'll say it again - we've had enough pogroms, expulsions, and death camps. We're seizing our independence and we'll continue defending ourselves.

Blah blah blah. Same fuckin' slogans every time.

I don't care whether or not you accept our rights. We can defend our rights, this time.

Then why is the recognition of Israel's right to exist even an issue? I can't count the number of times I've heard it said that peace will not be possible until the Palestinians make a statement to that effect. Now its irrelevant. You're just throwing everything at the wall, ain'tcha?

What's your point? Does the beautiful story of the revival of Hebrew in contemporary Israel bother you?

Nope. Merely supporting your point about the lack of a common language among the diverse Jewish "nation".

You have such a disturbing opposition towards Jewish reclamation of national identity.

Not really.

Too bad assimilation didn't finish off what Hitler started, I suppose...

You're really quite a vile piece of shit aren't you?

[DogOnPorch]

...or unsettled comprehensive and specific land claims in Canada.

But wait...that's different...right??? The only flotillas to Canada I've noticed are Tamil Tigers pretending to be insurance salesmen.

[GostHacked]

Well this thread went to shit very fast. I was hoping to talk about Canada's stance on this issue, but what a clusterfuck it turned into.

And it's funny that Bob complained about me crying foul whenever someone pulls the anti-semite card, but yet continues to throw down that card.

Ah well, fuck it. I am done with this thread. You guys can continue the bitch fest.

[bush_cheney2004]

But wait...that's different...right??? The only flotillas to Canada I've noticed are Tamil Tigers pretending to be insurance salesmen.

Yes...very different. Israeli actions to protect itself from actual existential threats are different from Canada bombing Libyans or fragging Talibankis!

Edited July 11, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Black Dog]

Yes...very different. Israeli actions to protect itself from actual existential threats are different from Canada bombing Libyans or fragging Talibankis!

Existential threats like retarded 15-year-olds strapped with C4?

[Bob]

Funny: the person who brought up the ethnic and linguistic diversity of the Jewish people was you. And now that that's been turned against you, the compulsion to promote Jewish exceptionalism forces you to backtrack.

Elements of cohesiveness between Jewish people exist alongside our diversity. I guess that's hard for your one-track mind to understand.

Blah blah blah. Same fuckin' slogans every time.

Yeah, since Jewish independence and self-determination are just "slogans". Of course you refuse to accept the core issues that are play in this conflict.

Then why is the recognition of Israel's right to exist even an issue? I can't count the number of times I've heard it said that peace will not be possible until the Palestinians make a statement to that effect. Now its irrelevant. You're just throwing everything at the wall, ain'tcha?

Peace is certainly contingent on recognition. Well, a meaningful peace that's worth more than the paper upon which an agreement is signed, anyways. But at the end of the day, we're still persevering despite the lack of recognition. That's the point, that we refuse to allow our rights to be determined by the acceptance of others. Our national rights don't depend on you, or anyone else, accepting us. It's great to have acceptance, and it's the moral position to recognize Jewish national rights, but we can't subjugate ourselves to the will of others.

Nope. Merely supporting your point about the lack of a common language among the diverse Jewish "nation".

Well, there's really no point at continuing, is there? When you put quotation marks around the term nation as a description of the Jewish people, in an attempt to call into question the reality of the Jewish nation, there's really nothing more that needs to be said. Don't get me wrong, it's clear you've had this anti-Semitic perspective all along, but this is you expressing it at it most blatant. As if you are in some position to critique our own collective identity.

[bush_cheney2004]

Existential threats like retarded 15-year-olds strapped with C4?

Are explosive "retards" welcome into your home?