Canada rejects Palestinian Statehood

[Chippewa]

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.

Well there are about 250 Thousand Aboriginals enlisted in the Armed forces in the U.S, and 70% of the Canadian Army Rangers are Aboriginal, along with only 15000 full time Canadian soldiers. With 600 First Nations reserves, thats about 22 soldiers per reserve from the Canadian Armed Forces. And to convince the U.S military to perticipate, would be out of the question since nobody would shot there own people.

If anything, I think the First Nations are entering any negotiations on good faith.

A U.S general once said "If we gave the Palestinians the same resources, as Isreal, they might be double effective then Isreal is".

[bush_cheney2004]

Well there are about 250 Thousand Aboriginals enlisted in the Armed forces in the U.S...

No, you are off by one order of magnitude. The number is closer to 25,000. There are not enough active and reserve US armed forces members to make your number credible. However, a significant percentage of "aboriginals" are US veterans.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/onap/veterans

[Chippewa]

No, you are off by one order of magnitude. The number is closer to 25,000. There are not enough active and reserve US armed forces members to make your number credible. However, a significant percentage of "aboriginals" are US veterans.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/onap/veterans

I added an extra 0.

Canadians have to remember also, that no treaty was ever signed with a Country called Canada, but rather the BRitish Crown. So none of the Treaties recogize Canada as a country. Thats the fundimental difference.

[Saipan]

Canadians have to remember also, that no treaty was ever signed with a Country called Canada

Exactly. We are wasting tax money. It's the Queen's business.

[bloodyminded]

Of course, and I've said it many times before. Any Jew, not the least of which a convert to Judaism, has as much claim to this land than anyone else, including a hypothetical tenth-generation "Palestinian".

I thought you said they had far more claim to the land than any "hypothetical [sic] tenth-generation 'Palestinian.'"

Didn't you? Or did I misread that comment in its original?

[Bob]

I thought you said they had far more claim to the land than any "hypothetical [sic] tenth-generation 'Palestinian.'"

Didn't you? Or did I misread that comment in its original?

I may have said that before, but I believe that on an independent level a non-Jewish person who lives in Israel has the same rights as a Jewish person in this country, which includes "claims to land". A non-Jewish person can live here with full rights, which obviously include property rights. On a collective level, though, it's something entirely different. This is the land of the Jewish people. So if I said "more claim" in an earlier post in reference to a returning Jew as compared to an Arab with deep roots in the land, I meant it in a collective context.

[bloodyminded]

I may have said that before, but I believe that on an independent level a non-Jewish person who lives in Israel has the same rights as a Jewish person in this country, which includes "claims to land". A non-Jewish person can live here with full rights, which obviously include property rights. On a collective level, though, it's something entirely different. This is the land of the Jewish people. So if I said "more claim" in an earlier post in reference to a returning Jew as compared to an Arab with deep roots in the land, I meant it in a collective context.

How so?

Any Jew, not the least of which a convert to Judaism, has [more] claim to this land than anyone else, including a hypothetical tenth-generation "Palestinian".

Edited July 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

I added an extra 0.

Canadians have to remember also, that no treaty was ever signed with a Country called Canada, but rather the BRitish Crown. So none of the Treaties recogize Canada as a country. Thats the fundimental difference.

Well, aside from the sozens of treaties signed by ottawa between 1867 and 1950....not to mention treaties signed on a provinical level like the james bay

[Bob]

How so?

What do you mean "how so"?

[Bob]

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.

What agreements are being treated in bad-faith by Israel? This is your cue to run to Google to try and save face and pretend you know what you're talking about....

Edited July 12, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

What do you mean "how so"?

???

If a Jew has more rights to the land than a tenth-generation Palestinian....then how is it in a "collective context," and why does this matter?

You're saying that, individually, the tenth-generation Arab has as much right to the land as Jewish person who has never been to Israel...but a whole bunch of tenth-generation Arabs don't have the same right as a whole bunch of (for example) Jewish people from St. Urbain Street?

I understand the narrative of Israel as the homeland for Jewish people. I don't understand how Jewish emigrants have more claim to the land than an Arab family who has been there since 1801. "Collectively" or otherwise.

Edited July 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

It's because the Jewish olim are part of the nation to whom this land belongs. That's how they have "more claim" in a collective sense.

[William Ashley]

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

Yeah the failing Economy of those warring nations is sure working for them.

Oh wait Israel isn't in recession like Canada and the US... it is however thinking about taxing non Israeli's 24% to help stave off problems (would that mean Gaza's goods will be increased in cost by 24% due to Israel's control of customs and duties in Gaza?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-06/israeli-tax-on-foreigners-interest-may-not-be-enough-to-halt-shekel-surge.html

Edited July 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah the failing Economy of those warring nations is sure working for them.

Dude...your own nation is currently bombing Libya....get a clue.

[g_bambino]

Canadians have to remember also, that no treaty was ever signed with a Country called Canada, but rather the BRitish Crown. So none of the Treaties recogize Canada as a country.

The British Crown became the Canadian Crown 80 years ago. The courts, in Britain and Canada, have recognised that, for First Nations in Canada, their treaties are now with the Queen in her Canadian Council (the Canadian Crown) and not the Queen in her British Council (the British Crown).

[bloodyminded]

It's because the Jewish olim are part of the nation to whom this land belongs. That's how they have "more claim" in a collective sense.

A non-response.

[William Ashley]

Dude...your own nation is currently bombing Libya....get a clue.

I don't support the bombing. The decisions made by others is their choice. I am a global citizen.

Also I am not a supporter of nationality I think it is divisive. I think humans need to find common ground as humans in a global world. Not one of majority choice but one guided by rational discourse and consent of those involved in a process.

Issues such change of natural state are ones that should be based on need not greed.

My comments on the Canadian Federation on this board are related to my opinion on the federation, not as Canada as a nation or state.

Individually I see myself as being a sovereign individual, with equal rights, and guided by just cause and faith.

I am not Stephen Harper or others.. they make their choices... their choices effect them. I owe nothing to the people bombing Libya. I can only offer my advise in opposition of war to resolve a foreign domestic issue. Escalation of the war does not quicken its resolution, it only entrenches and increases the magnitude of destruction.

I support sovereignty, there is nothing about my nation that supports the bombing of Libya.

My nation is more than Canada, it is more than the world, it is beyond the universe, it is the whole of my reality, and those who work to our common goals. Bombing Libya is not one of those goals.

Canada is little more than a construct, and place holder. It is something to learn from, and to mediate, but the national identity is one that isn't a place holder, it is organic and progressive.

People have the right to make their own decisions, and live to the benefits or consequences of those actions.

I have a strong sense of where my family and ancestors come from, whether it be Nova Scotia, Manitoulin Island, other parts of Ontario, New York State, the Palatinate, Netherlands, France, Somerset, Bristol, or thousands of others places on our way to here and now. I live my life as an individual, I don't impose my authority over individuals I mediate with the misguided, I am a civil individual, and a person of faith.

The whole thing in part is a disservice to tarnish the "good name" of Canada and Canadians - perhaps part of the agenda to weaken national identity before US takeover.

Libyan's weren't under house arrest, they could freely come and go from Tripoli. They were enfranchised to voice their opinion or leave. They disobeyed public order laws, they took up arms. That is their choice, but I don't see wrong in Gaddafi to try to put down an uprising against civil order. I don't see wrong in the people who oppose the government that is their right to self determination. I do think that NATO is issued in continued bombings of Libya though. Increased governance will only lead to reduced freedoms and less reliance on mediation and will lead to police state rule rather than freedom and liberty.

Libya was opening up and disarming under Gaddafi. The people shared in the wealth of its oil industry. Now that wealth is going to death and destruction, to arms and basic humanitarian goods, and rebuilding. It has hit Libya heavily, and that is unfortunate.

There is always the whatif.

It seems though that the September deadline will see the situation take change over the next month and a half.

Perhaps you can keep things on topic with Palestine rather than directing a line of discourse that seems to open myself to ad hominem.

Edited July 12, 2011 by William Ashley