"Disappearing Palestine" bus ads anger Jewish groups

[DogOnPorch]

How about rather than giving your take on it, you 'show one word or reference where DoP has asked or demanded anyone agree with him or think like him,' as requested?

dre's personal attacks against me speak for themselves. Often the ones calling folks racists have a few race issues of their own that they project onto others. A mollification of their own conscience, as it were.

[dre]

dre's personal attacks against me speak for themselves. Often the ones calling folks racists have a few race issues of their own that they project onto others. A mollification of their own conscience, as it were.

I honestly never meant that as an Insult... But when you use statements like "they are all arabs", and claim that "palestians" are the same as "Hezzbolah", theres just no other logical conclusion.

These kind of generalizations are the hallmark of racism, in fact they are the literal meaning of it. You reject the right of self determination for an entire group, and you provide as justification things that happened when they were not even alive yet. And when thats pointed out to you, you say "who cares".

It doesnt necessarily even make you a bad guy, but its pretty clear that you have an unfavorable opinion of palestinians and arabs as a general group based on your understanding of the actions of a small subset of it.

Ethnocentric, and zealous just happen to be the words that the english language provides to describe your positions.

Edited September 11, 2013 by dre

[BC_chick]

You realize that the Jews bought the land fair and square from the Ottoman Empire...right? Probably not.

This is not a logical argument either. Declaring nationhood doesn't naturally follow when you buy lots of land.

Lots of Chinese are buying property in Canada 'fair and square' but somehow I don't see Canadians rolling over and saying no worries if China decided to declare nationhood here because of their land.

Heck, I can even some Canadians being capable of terrorism and dragging Chinese migrants behind motorcycles. Gasp, the savages! We're just a bunch of Chinese-haters at heart, I suppose.

[DogOnPorch]

This is not a logical argument either. Declaring nationhood doesn't naturally follow when you buy lots of land.

Lots of Chinese are buying property in Canada 'fair and square' but somehow I don't see Canadians rolling over and saying no worries if China decided to declare nationhood here because of their land.

Heck, I can even some Canadians being capable of terrorism and dragging Chinese migrants behind motorcycles. Gasp, the savages! We're just a bunch of Chinese-haters at heart, I suppose.

The Middle East post WW1 wasn't Canada in the 21st century. The Ottoman Empire controlled the area for centuries. In 1918...it was all gone. Many nationalist movements wanted a chunk of the corpse. Both Arab and Jewish alike. But, if we go by the revisionist propaganda of today (like yonder maps), evil Zionists arrived on the scene and stole peaceful olive farmer's land...oh...and sheepherders...of course. Yup...stole it, the b*****ards did.

The reality is that in 1858, the Sultan enacted the Ottoman Land Code which allowed private ownership as well as land speculation in the Empire. Jews bought the land at exorbitant rates from speculators...mostly crappy land at that...unsuitable for agriculture. Once the contiguous land was all purchased, individual plots were sought after and bought. The Arabs were free to buy land as well, but rarely did as it meant serving in the Ottoman Army and paying property taxes. Jews, due to paying an additional head tax...the Jizya...were exempt from military service.

But, you and the rest of the new age historians can keep believing the bus ads if it make you feel warm inside.

[dre]

The Middle East post WW1 wasn't Canada in the 21st century. The Ottoman Empire controlled the area for centuries. In 1918...it was all gone. Many nationalist movements wanted a chunk of the corpse. Both Arab and Jewish alike. But, if we go by the revisionist propaganda of today (like yonder maps), evil Zionists arrived on the scene and stole peaceful olive farmer's land...oh...and sheepherders...of course. Yup...stole it, the b*****ards did.

The reality is that in 1858, the Sultan enacted the Ottoman Land Code which allowed private ownership as well as land speculation in the Empire. Jews bought the land at exorbitant rates from speculators...mostly crappy land at that...unsuitable for agriculture. Once the contiguous land was all purchased, individual plots were sought after and bought. The Arabs were free to buy land as well, but rarely did as it meant serving in the Ottoman Army and paying property taxes. Jews, due to paying an additional head tax...the Jizya...were exempt from military service.

But, you and the rest of the new age historians can keep believing the bus ads if it make you feel warm inside.

Trying to make a legal case for Israels ownership of the occupied territories is beyond silly. Even Israel does not assert such a claim, and not one single country on earth recognizes Israeli ownership of ANY of this land including Israels closest allies.

Legally, its a military occupation. Even Israeli law and their high court considers the occupied territories to be just that. occupied territories.

But all of that is quite irrelevant because theres millions of people living there that already own it and were born on it.

Edited September 12, 2013 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Trying to make a legal case for Israels ownership of the occupied territories is beyond silly. Even Israel does not assert such a claim, and not one single country on earth recognizes Israeli ownership of ANY of this land including Israels closest allies.

Legally, its a military occupation.

But all of that is quite irrelevant because theres millions of people living there that already own it and were born on it.

My post you quoted had zero to do with the so-called "occupied territories". Occupied, btw, due to Nasser's war mongering in 1967. No 6 Day War...no 'occupied territories'. But, the Arabs are all blameless olive farmers...naturally.

[dre]

My post you quoted had zero to do with the so-called "occupied territories". Occupied, btw, due to Nasser's war mongering in 1967. No 6 Day War...no 'occupied territories'. But, the Arabs are all blameless olive farmers...naturally.

The events in 67 were the result of years of provocation by both sides. Israel had already bombed its neighbors in 65 which kicked off a chain of hundreds of individual skirmishes along the border. But you dont count THAT as war mongering... Clearly those bombs were peace offerings, full of yamukas and dredles and medicine and delicious snacks for the Arab children!

You simply ignore the events that dont fit your revisionist view of history, and pretend that this is a one sided conflict where one side has acted horribly and the other perfectly. The conflict that lead to the war in 67 was started by competing water diversion projects and provocative acts by both sides.

But, the Arabs are all blameless olive farmers...naturally

.

Im not saying that. Youre the one trying to blame one side exclusively for the whole mess. Theres a difference in that Im not consumed with hatred for one of the ethnic groups involved. Im a little sick of both of them, but I at least recognize people on both sides as human beings.

Edited September 12, 2013 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

The events in 67 were the result of years of provocation by both sides. Israel had already bombed its neighbors in 65 which kicked off a chain of hundreds of individual skirmishes along the border. But you dont count THAT as war mongering... Clearly those bombs were peace offerings, full of yamukas and dredles and medicine and delicious snacks for the Arab children!

You simply ignore the events that dont fit your revisionist view of history, and pretend that this is a one sided conflict where one side has acted horribly and the other perfectly. The conflict that lead to the war in 67 was started by competing water diversion projects and provocative acts by both sides.

If you wish to chose that route, why stop at 1965? A state of war existed between Israel and all its neighbours since 1948. Another war the Arabs started but the Israelis finished. The West Bank and Gaza were both in Arab hands but, oddly enough, nobody wanted to grant the Nazi Mufti his own private fiefdom from 1949 to 1967. Hmmmm....buyer's remorse? You're an expert on the situation. Perhaps tell those interested WHY the 'Palestinians' weren't granted their homeland? It was all Arab controlled....all of it.

What caused the Six Day War was Nasser's own fiery rhetoric which he used to paint himself into a corner. He had been publicly calling for war in the region and now the people expected it and demanded it. Not only in Egypt but throughout the 'Arab World'. He cut the sea links, mobilized the Egyptian army (freshly supplied by the Soviets) and moved to the border in what he thought would be a limited and easy war. I've read that he hoped to have the Israeli reserves called-up and then keep them in the field for as long as possible creating an economic crisis in Israel. But, I've also read that he wanted to simply attack when he had enough power bearing on Israel from all sides. Either way, the Israelis weren't playing that game. Bam!

Im not saying that. Youre the one trying to blame one side exclusively for the whole mess. Theres a difference in that Im not consumed with hatred for one of the ethnic groups involved. Im a little sick of both of them, but I at least recognize people on both sides as human beings.

There you go playing the Oprah card again. I do not hate Arabs.

Edited September 12, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[BC_chick]

The Middle East post WW1 wasn't Canada in the 21st century. The Ottoman Empire controlled the area for centuries. In 1918...it was all gone. Many nationalist movements wanted a chunk of the corpse. Both Arab and Jewish alike. But, if we go by the revisionist propaganda of today (like yonder maps), evil Zionists arrived on the scene and stole peaceful olive farmer's land...oh...and sheepherders...of course. Yup...stole it, the b*****ards did.

The reality is that in 1858, the Sultan enacted the Ottoman Land Code which allowed private ownership as well as land speculation in the Empire. Jews bought the land at exorbitant rates from speculators...mostly crappy land at that...unsuitable for agriculture. Once the contiguous land was all purchased, individual plots were sought after and bought. The Arabs were free to buy land as well, but rarely did as it meant serving in the Ottoman Army and paying property taxes. Jews, due to paying an additional head tax...the Jizya...were exempt from military service.

But, you and the rest of the new age historians can keep believing the bus ads if it make you feel warm inside.

Gotcha. So you think Chinese migrants who own so much of Canada would deserve nationhood only if they were taxed at a higher rate than non-Chinese Canadians.

No not really. Still doesn't flow naturally to think that statehood should be accepted by the locals.

[DogOnPorch]

Gotcha. So you think Chinese migrants who own so much of Canada would deserve nationhood only if they were taxed at a higher rate than non-Chinese Canadians.

No not really. Still doesn't flow naturally to think that statehood should be accepted by the locals.

The real China is called Taiwan. It was reduced to that by a brutal civil war at the hands of Mao and his pack of murderers. The fellows still in charge to this day. The ones we do business with. All is forgotten as long as money is involved. And so much time has passed that folks such as yourself don't know any different.

That aside, your comparison is a red herring and a strawman. I didn't make-up the Ottoman Land Code just to win an argument with you. It just is. That Zionists bought Ottoman land is a matter of history.

[Black Dog]

Back to the actual topic at hand (don't feed the troll y'all), Ottawa Transpo is facing some questions after running 9-11 truther ads on their buses.

New York-based Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is trying to rally public pressure for a new official inquiry into whether the World Trade Center towers and neighbouring WTC Building 7 were actually toppled by shadowy U.S. forces using controlled demolitions.

Though the group is careful not to blame anyone in particular, the implication is that elements allied with the former administration of president George W. Bush needed to manufacture sufficient reason to justify planned military assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq.

...

Ottawa councillor Diane Deans, head of the transit commission, first saw the ads Wednesday. She said the campaign is inconsiderate and wants the commission to review the city’s advertising policy.

“Two thousand, nine hundred and ninety six people lost their lives on 9/11 12 years ago, including 24 Canadians. It does appear insensitive to me, especially today on the anniversary,” she said.

“The challenge always is, where do you draw the line? You have to balance the constitutional right of free speech with the likelihood that the ads are offensive to our residents.”

Methinks the Councillor should review the Charter. There's no right to not be offended.

[Rue]

Trying to make a legal case for Israels ownership of the occupied territories is beyond silly. Even Israel does not assert such a claim, and not one single country on earth recognizes Israeli ownership of ANY of this land including Israels closest allies.

Legally, its a military occupation. Even Israeli law and their high court considers the occupied territories to be just that. occupied territories.

But all of that is quite irrelevant because theres millions of people living there that already own it and were born on it.

Legally it is not a military occupation. In every day plain language and from a practical perspective it is. In law, to militarily occupy a land, that land had to first be part of a sovereign empire. That is why the Palestinian Authority asked the UN to change international law that defines what a military occupation is to treat them as a sovereign land even though they are not yet a state.

However the UN can not create international law, only non binding guidelines.

Interestingly when Israel agreed to the Oslo Accords, they stated they would voluntarily consent to treat the Palestinian Authority as a

government of a state in waiting and to respect its authority to collect taxes and enforce sovereignty over the West Bank where its people lived and the Palestinian Authority agreed to that, then ripped up that agreement.

So we are back to the fact the West Bank is a disputed territory that has never been part of a sovereign nation and that means Israel has as much right to assert claims on the West Bank as Palestinians do. Neither side has an automatic right to own it.

In international law if you live on a land that is undisputed for more than 10 years you can establish the right to keep that land.

Palestinians again asked the United Nations to exempt them from that law and when it comes to them recognize their unchallenged right to the West Bank and this is why we have people who are not Palestinian coming to the West Bank as temporary workers and then claiming they are Palestinians with unquestionable rights to the West Bank. This is why the PLO blew up their land title offices on the West Bank. They realized the vast majority of people claiming to be Palestinian on the West Bank were not descended from the Palestinians allegedly displaced by Israel's creation but foreigners who moved there and displaced these Palestinians.

As a result there was an internal civil war between older Palestinians and newer self pro-claimed ones over the same land.

Arafat did not want to deal with that as it would have undermined his legal arguments as to what a Palestinian is.

Arafat ripped up Oslo and blew up the Land Titles Office because he would have never been able to get consensus among Palestinians as to who had more legitimate land rights between them and thought this would stall matters and steer it back to focusing on Israel and Jordan. Arafat had a much easier time saying what he did not like as opposed to what he was when he called himself Palestinian. Arafat by the way was an Egyptian but hey who cares.

Now as for Israel they have violated an international law and its not military occupation. Its administering Israelis on the West Bank with the Israeli civil government and Palestinians with their military governor. The moment they did that they broke international law. Its not the occupation that is illegal, its the inconsistent governments.

If you occupy a non sovereign land which Israel did, if you govern all people on that land the same way-its not illegal.

However if you only govern some with the military then it crosses the line.

Most people can not understand that. They think the soldiers on the ground are the illegality.No its the kind of dual governorship on the land.

When Jordan occupied all of the West Bank there was never a peep. They annexed it. Not one BC Chick existed to protest that.

When Jordan lost the 1967 war after amassing troops on the Israeli border, it surrendered the West Bank to Israel. In fact Israel offered it back but Hussein said no thanks because Arafat had tried to kill him and he wanted nothing to do with Arafat and Palestinians on the West Bank and revoked their right to automatic Jordanian citizenship. To this day though Jordan's coat of arms and constitution refer to it as the Palestinian state and its Jew free.

The West Bank has serious issues. Israel does not want to annex it because then the Palestinians would become Israeli and soon outnumber the Jews of Israel and would then be able democratically to turn the state from a Jewish one to a Muslim one.

So this is why they only want to govern certain areas of the West Bank.

Problem is if they kept all the settlements as they are now, Palestinians could not practically live in a state on the West Bank. It would be too full of Israeli pockets interfering with transportation and movement of people and dividing land.

Israel knows that. They first sent settlers in giving them tax free incentives and bonuses such as free homes and jobs so they would serve as early warning posts and defences against incoming terrorists.

As Israel moved to satellite technology and sophisticated ground surveillance people became expendable as security posts but Israel had no place to return them to Israel as hundreds of thousands of Russians came, 20,000 Ethiopian Jews came, and the existing population grew sufficiently to pretty much make the rest of Israel too occupied to take the settlers back.

Its a problem now. One third of the settlers are moderate and apolitical and would move back to Israel if assisted. One third believe they should not have to go and would put up a huge fight to leave. Of those refusing to leave about 10% of those could become

extremist in that their version of Judaism believes all of Israel, Jordan and the West bank form Judea and Somaria illegally stolen from Jews by the Arab peoples. So they feel this notion they have no right to this land is b.s. and they claim its always been their land.

Another one third are ultra-orthodox Jews who believe Israel should not exist until the Messiah comes back first and so will not go to Israel and wish nothing to do with it and consider themselves anti Israel and live in their own segregated world in the Hebron area.

From a practical perspective Israel knows it can not occupy the West Bank because it can not absorb its Palestinians and remain a Jewish state let alone solvent.

What Israel has always been interested in is a guarantee that the West Bank could not be used as a terrorist site against it.

At this point Fatah Hawks and hundreds of terror cells exist on the West Bank and will never stop fighting until Israel is dismantled and so until they disarm people like Dre who have never been to the West Bank and have no clue what I am talking about will not understand what the real issues are; I-the fear of Israel as to terrorist attacks from the West Bank; II-the same fear shared by Jordan;

III-a lack of water and food for Palestinians which could cause them to riot and try get into Israel and Jordan; III-disagreement as to who should control the holy sites of Jerusalem; IV-the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to recognize the right of Christian church ownership to 80% of the land in Jerusalem; V-the refusal of the Islamic leaders of Jerusalem to recognize Christians or Jews as having full equal rights to holy sites; VI-a refusal by the Palestinian Authority to relinquish control of heroin and hash his drug caravans that cross through Palestine and make them revenue.

The reality is and both Israel and Palestine know it, they need to work together and form an economic union with Jordan. They need to be able to share the same airports, roads, and have access to each others workers, commodities, and most importantly share food, water and social systems.

That can not come about as long as Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah Hawks, and thousands of other terror cells will never allow Palestinians to live peacefully with Israelis. I have witnessed if a Palestinian and Israeli openly get along, the Palestinian gets rubber necklaced-they put a tire on his neck and burn him to death.

Thousands of Palestinians in Gaza were tortured and mutilated for peacefully working in Israel and working with Israelis to build schools, mosques, roads, hospitals in Gaza. Hamas killed and tortured these people and blew up the roads and hospitals, etc.

Currently Mr.Abbas who wrote his doctoral thesis on why the holocaust never happened and states he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state has publically stated, unless Israel agrees to take back any one who self-identifies as Palestinian necessarily turning the majority of Israel into a Muslim population-he will not recognize its right to exist.

[Rue]

that's too long an explanation! jewz wrong,Palestinians ryt.

[DogOnPorch]

that's too long an explanation! jewz wrong,Palestinians ryt.

You have a far greater understanding of the situation than the majority of MLW posters. Much of the responses here are: "You're a racist!" Yet they couldn't tell a Nasser from an Assad in a brightly lit room. As long as you disagree with their particular World View...you'll continue to be a target for their "race card".

[GostHacked]

Palestine is now a recolonized eerrrrr recognized sovereign state. Therefor NOW the notion of military occupation fits.

Edited September 13, 2013 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

Palestine is now a recolonized eerrrrr recognized sovereign state. Therefor NOW the notion of military occupation fits.

Right after the planet gets upset about South Viet-Nam's 'military occupation'...it will fit.

[GostHacked]

Right after the planet gets upset about South Viet-Nam's 'military occupation'...it will fit.

Someone should make a thread about it if they care that much about it.

[Guest American Woman]

Someone should make a thread about it if they care that much about it.

Why? when it's so pertinent to this thread?

[dre]

Palestine is now a recolonized eerrrrr recognized sovereign state. Therefor NOW the notion of military occupation fits.

It already has that legal status. Every single body charged with interperating international treaties including Israels own courts have ruled that is an occupation and that as such palestinians are covered by the fourth geneva convention.

Israels courts ruled in 2004 that the west bank is subject to military administration, and that the legal status is "belligerent occupation".

Same goes for international court of justice, the UN General assembly, and the UN Security council.

Military occupations are not illegal though. It is however illegal though to facilitate the tranfer of citizens from the occupying country into an occupied territory with the exception for personel required for administering the occupying powers responsibilities under the geneva convention. Its also illegal to extract resources like Israel does with its vast network of wells and pumping stations.

IF international law was enforced Israel would have to remove all of its settlers from occupied lands, and pay for all the resources it has extracted. It wont be enforced though unless theres big changes in the global balance of power. International law is a little like frontier justice in the wild west... There has to be posse willing to go after the outlaw, and the only real posse that exists to enforce international law is the UNSC and the US will simply veto any enforcement action.

[Guest American Woman]

IF international law was enforced Israel .....

If international law were enforced a whole lotta things would be different in the world, but the focus always seems to be on Israel.

[dre]

Why? when it's so pertinent to this thread?

Its not though... its a completely different scenario. The vietcong became the government of South Vietnam after Saigon fell, and were basically a puppet government controlled by North Vietnam. When vietnam was unified under the current "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" citizens in the south were given the same rights as citizens in the North and for the most part they accepted it.

Thats the big difference, and why the conflict in the middle east continued. If someone wants to trot out a relevant analogy they will need to find a case where a government has maintained military control of a region for decades, and plundered it for resources without attempting to assimilate the population and having at least some degree of success.

Same goes for the other lamebrained attempts to compare the occupied territories to the Kuril islands, or even to indian reserves in Canada and the US. The difference is we assimilated the indians as best we could... If we had not done that we would have the same problem today that Israel has.

[dre]

If international law were enforced a whole lotta things would be different in the world, but the focus always seems to be on Israel.

The focus has been on the Congo, Angola, Mozambique, Somalia, Liberia, Ruwanda, Sierre Leone, Kosovo, Burundi, Sudan, Haiti, Guatemala, Syria, Cambodia, East Timor. Georgia etc. I will concede that there is more discussion about the conflict: dirtfarm in places like this, but thats mostly because unlike other conflicts that come and go, this one never ends! Its the gift to message board idealogs that just keeps on giving.

[DogOnPorch]

Someone should make a thread about it if they care that much about it.

Nobody cares about South Viet-Nam...being the point. But, a far worse tragedy for all involved than the West Bank could dream of. The fact remains it was taken by military force...occupied...pacified...ethnically cleansed...cities renamed...and what have you. The UN passed Resolution 413 which okie-dokied the whole thing. This being 1977...a full ten years post Resolution 242. Places like Canada took in the refugees. Not a word was heard after....

Meanwhile, you wouldn't know the contents of the Khartoum Resolution by chance?

[DogOnPorch]

Its not though... its a completely different scenario. The vietcong became the government of South Vietnam after Saigon fell, and were basically a puppet government controlled by North Vietnam. When vietnam was unified under the current "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" citizens in the south were given the same rights as citizens in the North and for the most part they accepted it.

Thats the big difference, and why the conflict in the middle east continued. If someone wants to trot out a relevant analogy they will need to find a case where a government has maintained military control of a region for decades, and plundered it for resources without attempting to assimilate the population and having at least some degree of success.

Same goes for the other lamebrained attempts to compare the occupied territories to the Kuril islands, or even to indian reserves in Canada and the US. The difference is we assimilated the indians as best we could... If we had not done that we would have the same problem today that Israel has.

Boat People?? What Boat People?

[Guest American Woman]

The focus has been on the Congo, Angola, Mozambique, Somalia, Liberia, Ruwanda, Sierre Leone, Kosovo, Burundi, Sudan, Haiti, Guatemala, Syria, Cambodia, East Timor. Georgia etc.

Yes. Huge focus. The UN is busy with resolution after resolution against all of those places. The media just never quits going on about them.The Bud/dub's, Hudson Jones', and Naomi Glover's have started thread after about all of them. The world focus on those places just never stops. The criticism has been consistantly loud and clear throughout the world.

I will concede that there is more discussion about the conflict: dirtfarm in places like this, but thats mostly because unlike other conflicts that come and go, this one never ends! Its the gift to message board idealogs that just keeps on giving.

"Dirtfarm" comes across as oh-so-intelligent. But you'll concede that, eh? Most likely because the focus is on Israel - just as I said.