Prime Minister Harper confirms ‘no’ vote on Palestine at UN

[Fletch 27]

Right so you cant read english I guess then?

Yes, you win.... Masterer of the written word! LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited November 30, 2012 by Fletch 27

[eyeball]

I look at the entire conflict...from 1920 on. You do not.

Why would such a self-styled history buff restrict his view to a span that is more like an eye-blink compared to the world's oldest land-claim - you're really just in it for the thrill you get from military porn aren't you?

Pass the popcorn.

Edited December 1, 2012 by eyeball

[jbg]

Well clearly based on precedent, various other Israeli political parties were unable to stem the violence perpetrated by the Palestinian people………Golda Meir was a quasi socialist, but I suppose it was her parties fault for the PLO attack on athletes at the Munich games………

No. But it was her party's fault for not preempting the 1973 attack the way Israel did the 1967 attack.

[Bonam]

Its hard to say, and I dont have a crystal ball that will answer your tenth rate, rhetorical questions. But if militant organizations like Likud and Hamas start losing political support that will certainly be a step in the right direction.

Likud is not a "militant organization".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The entire world grows weary of the troubles in the middle east. Reason and goodwill will always be absent functional concepts in negotiations regarding everybody's favorite "Holy Land", The opinions of the peoples of the west and of the east are not relevant. What is relevant is the opinions of those that live there.

The UN has opened the door and are now required to accept responsibility for all that transpires within. I have yet to hear from any credible source how in the world a nation can be created out of Gaza and the West Bank. A two part country? What of the "Holy City" A three part country.

I think the only feasible solution is for both sides to bite the bullet and compromise themselves, place their trust and their faith, even their very lives at stake in the quest for peace. Israel loses Gaza and it becomes Palestine, that is the only solution. Israel and Palestine both lose the "Holy City", because the city and its people must be respected and protected by all. Palestine must lose the West Bank.

Palestine must become a state, a nation in its own right. There will be no peace without that becoming a reality. Israel must be a state, a nation in its own right as well. There will be no peace outside of that reality. Gaza is the place to build a nation for Palestine. Its a sea port, it borders Egypt and it is expandable from either side. It is Egypt and Israel that can make this happen, nobody else. Egypt is the largest nation in the area, the most influential, and between Egypt and Israel there has always been Palestine. That is the reality that all need to accept. This isn't just about Palestine, or Israel, or even Egypt. Its about the humans that live in those places. They all have the right to live, that is reality. That is the whole story, wrapped up and put in a nutshell. Nobody deserves to die, and everyone deserves to live.

It is a fools dream to believe in a win/win situation here. How about a reality check, we are looking at everybody losing in order to make possible anyone winning. This is the middle east, it ain't Kansas Dorthy. The long and harsh history of the region should lead all to believe that lives have, are, and will continue to be lost until peace is realized.

When there is conflict everyone loses, all the time. It always has been that way and it always will be that way.

[PIK]

Once the authority gains back the power from hamas and other evil doers, then real talks can happen, how do you talk when one side wants you all to die or leave?

[dre]

Likud is not a "militant organization".

Thats exactly what they are. THey organize violent attacks against their neighbors, authorize the settlement of foreign lands by military force, and have it in their constitution to never make peace with the Palestinians.

Just look how they responded to what you described as a peaceful diplomatic move by the palestinians by authorizing more settlements.

This is the party that forced Ariel Sharon out for not being hawkish enough

[dre]

Once the authority gains back the power from hamas and other evil doers, then real talks can happen, how do you talk when one side wants you all to die or leave?

Simple, you have separate negotiations with the west bank. But no real talks can happen while Likud is in power, because negotiating a peaceful solution would violate their constitution/charter. Making peace with the palestinians is the complete opposite of what they stand for.

Edited December 1, 2012 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Thats exactly what they are. THey organize violent attacks against their neighbors, authorize the settlement of foreign lands by military force, and have it in their constitution to never make peace with the Palestinians.

Just look how they responded to what you described as a peaceful diplomatic move by the palestinians by authorizing more settlements.

This is the party that forced Ariel Sharon out for not being hawkish enough

I just read through an abridged English version of the Likud party constitution...yawn...can you point me to the part of their constitution where it says 'never make peace with the Palestinians'? I found the bit where it says that Arab refugees are an Arab problem since they created them...

[Bonam]

Thats exactly what they are. THey organize violent attacks against their neighbors, authorize the settlement of foreign lands by military force, and have it in their constitution to never make peace with the Palestinians.

Just look how they responded to what you described as a peaceful diplomatic move by the palestinians by authorizing more settlements.

This is the party that forced Ariel Sharon out for not being hawkish enough

Authorizing more settlements may not be a good move, but neither is it a militant action. They "organize attacks against their neighbors" only to the extent that any other national government would do so: in response to attacks on their citizens. Nor does their "constitution" say anything about "never making peace" with the Palestinians. Sorry but trying to present Likud as some kind of counterpoint to Hamas is simply not a valid line of argument. Likud may be less moderate than some other Israeli parties, may have stances you or I disagree with, but that does not make them a "militant organization".

[login]

Likud is not a "militant organization".

Funny that Ben Gurion was a terrorist by modern standards.

http://www.wsws.org/.../isr2-j23.shtml

Although Likud does commit acts of terrorism by the definition of terrorism.

It is state sponsered terrorism though so it is no different than wha some NATO members do. All 8 of them right.

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

I don't see the line. You may call it war, then what rules apply right, what humanity is necesary. just unleash the beast but don't say there are two sides unless it is one with the living and the other for the dead.

Edited December 2, 2012 by login

[dre]

Authorizing more settlements may not be a good move, but neither is it a militant action. They "organize attacks against their neighbors" only to the extent that any other national government would do so: in response to attacks on their citizens. Nor does their "constitution" say anything about "never making peace" with the Palestinians. Sorry but trying to present Likud as some kind of counterpoint to Hamas is simply not a valid line of argument. Likud may be less moderate than some other Israeli parties, may have stances you or I disagree with, but that does not make them a "militant organization".

Authorizing more settlements may not be a good move, but neither is it a militant action.

It absolutely is. Colonizing foreign lands using military force is about as militant as it gets.

Nor does their "constitution" say anything about "never making peace" with the Palestinians

Yes it does. By clearly stating that it will never allow an arab state west of the jordan, and that that land should be settled as part of the zionist dream is says exactly that.

Militant organization fits perfectly. Thats what they are.

Sorry but trying to present Likud as some kind of counterpoint to Hamas is simply not a valid line of argument

It absolutely IS a valid argument. One of the things people attack Hamas over is that they dont recognize Israels right to exist in their charter. They think the whole place should belong to Arabs. Likud has the exact same thing in their charter... They dont recognize the right of a palestinian state to exist, and think the whole place belongs to Jews.

The main difference is that Likud has nicer weapons. They kill with planes, tanks, and missles so they dont get labeled "terrorists". Trust me... your average suicide bomber would much rather deliver their ordinance from a shiny fighter jet at 20 000 feet too.

Like I said... these are the scumbags that forced Ariel Sharon out for being too moderate. They are not pleasant people at all, and they have absolutely ZERO interest in making peace with palestinians.

Edited December 2, 2012 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

...The main difference is that Likud has nicer weapons. They kill with planes, tanks, and missles so they dont get labeled "terrorists". Trust me... your average suicide bomber would much rather deliver their ordinance from a shiny fighter jet at 20 000 feet too.

Well...yeah...just like the ruling parties in Canada. Not any surprise there.

[jbg]

I think the only feasible solution is for both sides to bite the bullet and compromise themselves, place their trust and their faith, even their very lives at stake in the quest for peace. Israel loses Gaza and it becomes Palestine, that is the only solution. Israel and Palestine both lose the "Holy City", because the city and its people must be respected and protected by all. Palestine must lose the West Bank.

Generally great idea but a few quibbles:

1. Since June 7, 1967 or whatever date Israel took control the Holy City has been open to all, equally;
   
2. There is no "peace" agreement that turns over any part of Jerusalem to international or Arab control;
   
3. Parts of the West Bank could become part of "Palestine." Kaliningrad (formerly Danzig) is detached from its mother country, and Pakistan and Bangladesh were once West and East Pakistan; and
   
4. Hell will freeze over before Jerusalem is turned over.
   

[punked]

Generally great idea but a few quibbles:

1. Since June 7, 1967 or whatever date Israel took control the Holy City has been open to all, equally;
   
2. There is no "peace" agreement that turns over any part of Jerusalem to international or Arab control;
   
3. Parts of the West Bank could become part of "Palestine." Kaliningrad (formerly Danzig) is detached from its mother country, and Pakistan and Bangladesh were once West and East Pakistan; and
   
4. Hell will freeze over before Jerusalem is turned over.
   

Yah have fun with that both China and Russia call East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine. There has already been a UN vote on EVEN CANADA DIDN'T vote against it. I don't see peace with out Israel giving up East Jerusalem.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is no peace. There never has been a peace in the middle east only a lull between storms. That is the entire point. The only solution is peace, the only question is how to attain it. Israel needs to give up Jerusalem and Gaza, the former to the world, just like the Vatican, the latter to Palestine. Palestine needs to give up the West Bank to Israel and Jerusalem to the world. The key is the "Holy City", if both give the city to its residents, then the high ground in the ideological battlefield is removed. A level playing field exists, enabling the next step in negotiations to take place. Round one of negotiations passes with both sides losing equally and not to each other, a subtle point. Round two of negotiations provides a fair trade where Israel is completely out of Gaza, no presence within established borders, no check points, no towers, no Israelis in Gaza. Gaza borders to be expanded to include equal amount of territory lost from Jerusalem and the West Bank, on the Israeli side of the border with Egypt, new lands for the nation of Palestine. Round three of negotiations would be the desperately needed military/economic alliances needed in the region to maintain and preserve the peace.

All of this is possible with the proper carrot. That carrot is the very lives of those involved in this historic struggle. Those lives depend on peace to survive and the will to live is strong. There is sufficient political will available to achieve this now after the Arab Spring has brought democratic principles to the region in an acceptable form. The will of the people in the region makes all the difference. If peace is what they want they can now have it.

[DogOnPorch]

lol...good luck getting Israel to agree with these plans that involve handing over parts of Israel to its enemies.

[wyly]

There is no peace. There never has been a peace in the middle east only a lull between storms. That is the entire point. The only solution is peace, the only question is how to attain it. Israel needs to give up Jerusalem and Gaza, the former to the world, just like the Vatican, the latter to Palestine. Palestine needs to give up the West Bank to Israel and Jerusalem to the world. The key is the "Holy City", if both give the city to its residents, then the high ground in the ideological battlefield is removed. A level playing field exists, enabling the next step in negotiations to take place. Round one of negotiations passes with both sides losing equally and not to each other, a subtle point. Round two of negotiations provides a fair trade where Israel is completely out of Gaza, no presence within established borders, no check points, no towers, no Israelis in Gaza. Gaza borders to be expanded to include equal amount of territory lost from Jerusalem and the West Bank, on the Israeli side of the border with Egypt, new lands for the nation of Palestine. Round three of negotiations would be the desperately needed military/economic alliances needed in the region to maintain and preserve the peace.

sorry that's absolutely loony, you're alone in the world if you think that's' s a feasible option...

[wyly]

Once the authority gains back the power from hamas and other evil doers, then real talks can happen, how do you talk when one side wants you all to die or leave?

how do you talk when one side claims "god" gave them all the land, they are the chosen people...

[DogOnPorch]

how do you talk when one side claims "god" gave them all the land, they are the chosen people...

The other side claims God's messenger met God on a rock in the same area. The Christians claim their God had a son that was born just down that-a-way.

[GostHacked]

The other side claims God's messenger met God on a rock in the same area. The Christians claim their God had a son that was born just down that-a-way.

As an atheist, why would you care one way or the other? Let them bash each others heads in over their gods. More room for the atheists who just want to live in peace.

[Canuckistani]

It absolutely is. Colonizing foreign lands using military force is about as militant as it gets.

This is where there's really no point arguing. People who don't see that taking land is in every way equivalent to shooting rockets. Land and/or resources are exactly what wars are fought over ,as in this case. One side shoots crude, ineffective rockets, the other side uses high tech weaponry as a threat to continue to steal land.

[DogOnPorch]

As an atheist, why would you care one way or the other? Let them bash each others heads in over their gods. More room for the atheists who just want to live in peace.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21986&st=30#entry859263

[Bonam]

This is where there's really no point arguing. People who don't see that taking land is in every way equivalent to shooting rockets. Land and/or resources are exactly what wars are fought over ,as in this case. One side shoots crude, ineffective rockets, the other side uses high tech weaponry as a threat to continue to steal land.

Sorry but there is very much a difference between stealing something (even if we grant for a moment the idea that Israel is "stealing land") and killing someone (or trying to kill someone). That much is recognized in our legal system, as well as in most systems of morality and ethics.

[DogOnPorch]

Sorry but there is very much a difference between stealing something (even if we grant for a moment the idea that Israel is "stealing land") and killing someone (or trying to kill someone). That much is recognized in our legal system, as well as in most systems of morality and ethics.

And as I've pointed out...if this was all about not claiming land won during a defensive war...what the heck is up with rewarding North Viet-Nam thst invaded Laos, Cambodia and South Viet-Nam with full UN membership? The UN ran that through the Resolution machine without so much as a blink of an eye...Boat People and all...well after the 6 Day War...8 years well after.

It's pretty clear that there's two sets of 'international laws' working here.

Edited December 3, 2012 by DogOnPorch