Canada rejects Palestinian Statehood

[DogOnPorch]

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

Israel has no enemies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Israel has no enemies.

Israel has a lot of dead enemies!

[Black Dog]

Israel has no enemies.

Are you always this intellectually dishonest or is it only on this subject.

[Bob]

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.

Spare us the doubletalk. You would never accept the UN defining Canada's affairs, specifically with respect to defining her borders. Nevermind the fact that the example you gave about Canada's northern territories is completely irrelevant to the UN's take on the 1967 lines in Israel - you might as well be comparing apples and oranges.

If you would, however, abrogate vital Canadian interests to the UN, you really are the enemy within.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Bob

[DogOnPorch]

Are you always this intellectually dishonest or is it only on this subject.

Are you?

[Oleg Bach]

Forest Hill calling: "Steve....Steve Harper? - I just want to let you know ...our community is important and we have some influence _ this Palistine thing - quash it .....

Steve: "Okay - done...don't worry about it...we will do the "don't recognize the terrorists routine..it worked before it should fly again.....what's that name again of that orgainization...? Amus ...amous...humis...oh yea Hammas"

[Bob]

Israel has no enemies.

See, we're not allowed to defend ourselves until we're put back into the camps. Only then can we say we're facing an existential threat. Thousands of victims murdered by terrorism, thousands more injured, and many more thousands murdered and injured by Arab wars of aggression against us.... nope, not yet serious enough to be qualified as "existential".

Iranian nuclear threat? That's not an existential threat, that's just a nuisance. Anti-Semitic Arab/Muslim identity politics on the rise in Egypt, with its American-built military from decades of aid averaging about two billion dollars a year? No problem, whatsoever. Hezbollah in the north firing rockets into Israel as a proxy of Syria/Iran? Just a headache, at most. The fact that the majority of Israelis (not Arabs, of course) have to give years of their life to the military? That's an overreaction to overexaggerated threats.

[Black Dog]

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

The idea of a Jewish nation was practically unknown until the 19th Century with the rise of political Zioniosm at a time when ethnic nationalism and self-determination along those lines became de rigueur.

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.

Your slogans are the slogans. Bumpersticker politics.

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.

So the recognition or lack thereof is totally meaningless. Just another cudgel for you to beat people over the head with.

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.

Oh fuck this is so hilarious. I'm seriously laughing out loud. You're hysterical, and I don't mean that in the comedic sense.

[Bob]

The idea of a Jewish nation was practically unknown until the 19th Century with the rise of political Zioniosm at a time when ethnic nationalism and self-determination along those lines became de rigueur.

Although the italicized portion is simplistic and largely untrue, the lack of unity among us was a product of being fragmented and stateless... in effect, oppressed and subjugated. Much to your chagrin, we're not in that position anymore and will never go back.

[Black Dog]

Although the italicized portion is simplistic and largely untrue, the lack of unity among us was a product of being fragmented and stateless... in effect, oppressed and subjugated.

So you're now saying political Zionism is an omnipresent phenomenon and not the product of people like Herzel et al?

Much to your chagrin, we're not in that position anymore and will never go back.

I wonder, do you think these drive by ad hominem slurs are helpful to your position? because really it just makes you come off like a whiny little bitch.

[Black Dog]

See, we're not allowed to defend ourselves until we're put back into the camps. Only then can we say we're facing an existential threat. Thousands of victims murdered by terrorism, thousands more injured, and many more thousands murdered and injured by Arab wars of aggression against us.... nope, not yet serious enough to be qualified as "existential".

Iranian nuclear threat? That's not an existential threat, that's just a nuisance. Anti-Semitic Arab/Muslim identity politics on the rise in Egypt, with its American-built military from decades of aid averaging about two billion dollars a year? No problem, whatsoever. Hezbollah in the north firing rockets into Israel as a proxy of Syria/Iran? Just a headache, at most. The fact that the majority of Israelis (not Arabs, of course) have to give years of their life to the military? That's an overreaction to overexaggerated threats.

Clearly you don't understand what the word "existential" means.

[Machjo]

Spare us the doubletalk. You would never accept the UN defining Canada's affairs, specifically with respect to defining her borders. Nevermind the fact that the example you gave about Canada's northern territories is completely irrelevant to the UN's take on the 1967 lines in Israel - you might as well be comparing apples and oranges.

If you would, however, abrogate vital Canadian interests to the UN, you really are the enemy within.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

George Washington.

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto"

Thomas Jefferson

"I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Thomas Jefferson

As you can see, my position on neutrality is shared by many great and respected thinkers in history.

"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."

Thomas Paine (Rights of Man, 1791)

"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,

Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,

Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;

Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew

From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;

Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,

With the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunder-storm;

Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,

And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapped in universal law."

Lord Tennyson (Locksley Hall, 1835)

"We must make the United Nations continue to work, and to be a going concern, to see that difficulties between nations may be settled just as we settle difficulties between States here in the United States. When Kansas and Colorado fall out over the waters in the Arkansas River, they don't go to war over it, they go to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the matter is settled in a just and honorable way. There is not a difficulty in the whole world that cannot be settled in exactly the same way in a world court."

Harry Truman

As you can see, my position on the rule of law extending beyond national boundaries is likewise not unique to myself, but common among many great thinkers.

We can add Winston Churchill to the list with his Atlantic Charter too.

Who is Canada to decide unilaterally what its boundaries will be? If it had that power, then all of its neighbours, including the US, ought to worry.

[M.Dancer]

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

George Washington.

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto"

Thomas Jefferson

"I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Thomas Jefferson

As you can see, my position on neutrality is shared by many great and respected thinkers in history.

But in fact, those fine quotes didn't amount to a fart in a hurricane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Alliance_(1778)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan-American_Treaty_of_Friendship

[bush_cheney2004]

....Who is Canada to decide unilaterally what its boundaries will be? If it had that power, then all of its neighbours, including the US, ought to worry.

Yea...the US would really be worried about that.

[Machjo]

Yea...the US would really be worried about that.

OK, not worried in a military sense, but merely by the hassle of always having to bicker with Canada over who owns the land as Canada decides every few years to try to argue that it owns this land and that around Alaska, the Northwest Passage, etc.

In the end, if there is disagreement as to whether the waters of the North-West Passage are Canadian or international waters, does Canada resolve it by spending all its money on the military, or does it instead turn to a more neutral tribunal to make a fair decision based on legal precedent?

[bush_cheney2004]

OK, not worried in a military sense, but merely by the hassle of always having to bicker with Canada over who owns the land as Canada decides every few years to try to argue that it owns this land and that around Alaska, the Northwest Passage, etc.

Historically, the Americans do not bicker over such things...they just do it. Canada typically grants permission after the fact (e.g. polar transits).

In the end, if there is disagreement as to whether the waters of the North-West Passage are Canadian or international waters, does Canada resolve it by spending all its money on the military, or does it instead turn to a more neutral tribunal to make a fair decision based on legal precedent?

Existing treaties and conventions (UNCLOS) already cover access and transit. Remember the Great Turbot War!

[Machjo]

Historically, the Americans do not bicker over such things...they just do it. Canada typically grants permission after the fact (e.g. polar transits).

Existing treaties and conventions (UNCLOS) already cover access and transit. Remember the Great Turbot War!

There you go. So in order to avoid war, countries can agree to common principles defining their boundaries, rather than each country randomly just declaring unilaterally what it owns.

[bush_cheney2004]

There you go. So in order to avoid war, countries can agree to common principles defining their boundaries, rather than each country randomly just declaring unilaterally what it owns.

...or they can just go to war, which works too. Has for Canada...the USA...and Israel.

[Machjo]

...or they can just go to war, which works too. Has for Canada...the USA...and Israel.

Sure we can. We can also ignore legitimate land-claims treaties in Canada on the grounds that the First Nations don't have the military clout to take their land back themselves, or we can say that regardless of military clout, if we'd entered into treaties with them in good faith, we ought to honour those treaties.

Why can't the same apply to Israel? Of course in a way Canada is no better with regards to our treaties, but now to make it worse, Canada defends other countries that violate international laws as we do.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure we can. We can also ignore legitimate land-claims treaties in Canada on the grounds that the First Nations don't have the military clout to take their land back themselves, or we can say that regardless of military clout, if we'd entered into treaties with them in good faith, we ought to honour those treaties.

Canada will continue to act as a sovereign nation and defer compliance with any such treaties or obligations when it conflicts with "crown" interests.

Why can't the same apply to Israel? Of course in a way Canada is no better with regards to our treaties, but now to make it worse, Canada defends other countries that violate international laws as we do.

Canada has never been neutral when it comes to Israel. Why would it start now? I wonder if Israel supports Canada's bombing of Libya?

[fellowtraveller]

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

Canada has never been neutral in this 'conflict' or in many others for the last 150 years. Really, you need to forget that nonsense, we are not now and have never been a neutral country. If Canada were to become a neutral country, we'd be obliged to arm ourselves to the teeth at huge expense, like Switzerland or Sweden. To do anything else would be the stuff of gross negligence by any govt of any political persuasion.

Harper is following the course Canada has followed for decades, that Canada will not recognize a Palestinian state that refuses to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. Quite simple, quite consistent. And quite right. I am pleased that our govt for the last few decades has made this quite clear and continues to do so.

[RNG]

Mrs. RNG, the fundie, so supports the Jews because apparently the invisible man in the sky promised them something. What can you do?

[Bob]

Clearly you don't understand what the word "existential" means.

I was mocking the use of the term "existential threat". Why does a threat need to be existential, anyways? We have the right to do whatever is required to defend ourselves from any threat.

[Saipan]

I wonder if Israel supports Canada's bombing of Libya?

Or taking sides in favor of Moslem terrorists in the Balkans.

[Saipan]

We can also ignore legitimate land-claims treaties in Canada on the grounds that the First Nations don't have the military clout

No, on the grounds that indians defaulted on the treaties long ago.

Why can't the same apply to Israel? Of course in a way Canada is no better with regards to our treaties, but now to make it worse, Canada defends other countries that violate international laws as we do.

1) Israel (Jews) have this land many centuries before Arab beduins settled there. Jerusalem was Jewish Holy city centuries before Islam even existed.

2) Canada doesn't support breaking international law like occupation of Tibet.