"Disappearing Palestine" bus ads anger Jewish groups

[Guest American Woman]

ROFLMAO. The media stops reporting on and the world stops focusing on events that end. Gee... [....]

Not sure why you have a hard time understanding that. The focus on conflicts ends when the conflicts end. Theres not a lot of talk about desert storm anymore but there sure as hell was when it was happening.

There's a helluva lot of talk about - and focus on - events that have ended; it's just very selective. Which has been my point. Perhaps if you spent less time ROFLYAO and more time paying attention, you'd be aware of it.

[dre]

There's a helluva lot of talk about - and focus on - events that have ended; it's just very selective. Which has been my point. Perhaps if you spent less time ROFLYAO and more time paying attention, you'd be aware of it.

Wow. THAT is your reply to my post?

[dre]

More cries of racism from dre.

Not really "cries" per say. Had they been "cries" I would have capitalized, bolded, italicized, underlined or possibly employed some sort of character function such as the exclamation mark.

I would describe it more as just a sober and dettached comment on the positions you contantly take.

Edited September 15, 2013 by dre

[Bonam]

Your argument is this: the Jews bought land that nobody else wanted, took really good care of it and the Muslims are just a bunch of rabid anti-Semites for rejecting a Jewish nation thereafter.

If statehood should naturally follow if migrants buy land that nobody wants, surely you wouldn't mind if (insert whatever nationality you want here) bought tones of uninhibited land in Canada, fixed it up real nice and then declared a *country*?!?

No, the real argument is that Jews comprised a significant ethnic group within the British Mandate of Palestine. Like many other ethnic groups throughout history, many Jews desired self-determination. This desire for self-determination, for a nation of their own, gained greater urgency after the events of WWII. With viable amounts of lawfully and peacefully acquired contiguous land, a strong political will to attain statehood, and a desperation and willingness to fight born out of the horrors of WWII, the Jews in Israel declared their independence.

It is my position that all people's, if they desire it, should be able to attain statehood. There is no reason in today's world to forcefully prevent a people from doing so. It is the very same reason why I support a separate and sovereign state for the Palestinians. The Kurds are another example of a people that should have the right to form their own state. It is also the reason why I would not oppose Quebec separation, if they decided to do so.

The relevance of DoP's comments regarding Jews buying land is to show that they did not acquire the land on which they eventually declared statehood through aggression. Rather, over the course of many decades, they moved into a specific area peacefully, and when they became a majority and having suffered extensive persecution, they sought sovereignty.

As for your example in Canada... yes, if a population in a certain part of Canada no longer wanted to be part of Canada, and followed through with democratic means to show that that is indeed the will of the large majority of the people in the area, then they should be allowed to separate. That would be true whether the area was populated by people whose ancestors had been in Canada for many generations (like Quebec) or people that were relatively new to Canada, as all Canadians should have the same rights. To date, a secession process has been contemplated only on the provincial level, but there is nothing to say that it could not be contemplated on a municipal or regional level, if that was the will of a majority of the people there.

[Guest American Woman]

Not really "cries" per say. Had they been "cries" I would have capitalized, bolded, italicized, underlined or possibly employed some sort of character function such as the exclamation mark.

I would describe it more as just a sober and dettached comment on the positions you contantly take.

"Not really "cries" per say."

Yeah, DoP. Dre makes "sober and dettached comments," don't 'cha know. Those who disagree with him, while doing the same thing he claims to be doing, are the "dorks" who are always "whining" in "outrage" and "crying like a bunch of retards;" and of course they are racist, as opposed to the clearly unbiased holier-than-thou "positions he constantly takes."

Edited September 15, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

"Not really "cries" per say."

Yeah, DoP. Dre makes "sober and dettached comments," don't 'cha know. Those who disagree with him, while doing the same thing he claims to be doing, are the "dorks" who are always "whining" in "outrage" and "crying like a bunch of retards;" and of course they are racist, as opposed to the clearly unbiased holier-than-thou "positions he constantly takes."

Hey! Cute rant!

[Guest American Woman]

Hey! Cute rant!

Not really "rant" per se. Had it been a "rant" I would have capitalized, bolded, italicized, underlined or possibly employed some sort of character function such as the exclamation mark.

I would describe it more as just a sober and acurate comment on the responses you constantly make.

Edited September 15, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

Not really "rant" per se. Had it been a "rant" I would have capitalized, bolded, italicized, underlined or possibly employed some sort of character function such as the exclamation mark.

I would describe it more as just a sober and acurate comment on the responses you constantly make.

Dont you gotta pay me royalties or something for doing that?

[DogOnPorch]

"Not really "cries" per say."

Yeah, DoP. Dre makes "sober and dettached comments," don't 'cha know. Those who disagree with him, while doing the same thing he claims to be doing, are the "dorks" who are always "whining" in "outrage" and "crying like a bunch of retards;" and of course they are racist, as opposed to the clearly unbiased holier-than-thou "positions he constantly takes."

Seeing that I'm drawing on historical events while folks throwing the race card make outrageous claims like the Khartoum Resolution having nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East, I stand vindicated.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22987-disappearing-palestine-bus-ads-anger-jewish-groups/page-13#entry919482

Meanwhile, the end of the conflict in Viet-Nam stands as a perfect example of the UN's duplicity. One rule for Israel...another rule for others regarding military outcomes. Most people are unaware of the nearly half a million South Vietnamese that died at sea. Preferring instead to think that once the Americans left, peace and love broke out.

Edited September 15, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

No, the real argument is that Jews comprised a significant ethnic group within the British Mandate of Palestine. Like many other ethnic groups throughout history, many Jews desired self-determination. This desire for self-determination, for a nation of their own, gained greater urgency after the events of WWII. With viable amounts of lawfully and peacefully acquired contiguous land, a strong political will to attain statehood, and a desperation and willingness to fight born out of the horrors of WWII, the Jews in Israel declared their independence.

It is my position that all people's, if they desire it, should be able to attain statehood. There is no reason in today's world to forcefully prevent a people from doing so. It is the very same reason why I support a separate and sovereign state for the Palestinians. The Kurds are another example of a people that should have the right to form their own state. It is also the reason why I would not oppose Quebec separation, if they decided to do so.

The relevance of DoP's comments regarding Jews buying land is to show that they did not acquire the land on which they eventually declared statehood through aggression. Rather, over the course of many decades, they moved into a specific area peacefully, and when they became a majority and having suffered extensive persecution, they sought sovereignty.

As for your example in Canada... yes, if a population in a certain part of Canada no longer wanted to be part of Canada, and followed through with democratic means to show that that is indeed the will of the large majority of the people in the area, then they should be allowed to separate. That would be true whether the area was populated by people whose ancestors had been in Canada for many generations (like Quebec) or people that were relatively new to Canada, as all Canadians should have the same rights. To date, a secession process has been contemplated only on the provincial level, but there is nothing to say that it could not be contemplated on a municipal or regional level, if that was the will of a majority of the people there.

Thanks, Bonam.

It's a lot easier to say: "the Jews stole the land". Plus, it puts a certain warmth in the belly of those actively trying to see Israel dissolved. If Israel is viewed as a criminal enterprise, it justifies their hatred. For these same folks don't (wish to) view themselves as monsters.

Edited September 15, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[Guest American Woman]

Seeing that I'm drawing on historical events while folks throwing the race card make outrageous claims like the Khartoum Resolution having nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East, I stand vindicated.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22987-disappearing-palestine-bus-ads-anger-jewish-groups/page-13#entry919482

Meanwhile, the end of the conflict in Viet-Nam stands as a perfect example of the UN's duplicity. One rule for Israel...another rule for others regarding military outcomes. Most people are unaware of the nearly half a million South Vietnamese that died at sea. Preferring instead to think that once the Americans left, peace and love broke out.

Oh, absolutely. It's so obvious that there's a different standard for Israel. The proof is documented in history, as you have pointed out.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh, absolutely. It's so obvious that there's a different standard for Israel. The proof is documented in history, as you have pointed out.

And you managed not to call me a racist....

[Rue]

No, the real argument is that Jews comprised a significant ethnic group within the British Mandate of Palestine. Like many other ethnic groups throughout history, many Jews desired self-determination. This desire for self-determination, for a nation of their own, gained greater urgency after the events of WWII. With viable amounts of lawfully and peacefully acquired contiguous land, a strong political will to attain statehood, and a desperation and willingness to fight born out of the horrors of WWII, the Jews in Israel declared their independence.

It is my position that all people's, if they desire it, should be able to attain statehood. There is no reason in today's world to forcefully prevent a people from doing so. It is the very same reason why I support a separate and sovereign state for the Palestinians. The Kurds are another example of a people that should have the right to form their own state. It is also the reason why I would not oppose Quebec separation, if they decided to do so.

The relevance of DoP's comments regarding Jews buying land is to show that they did not acquire the land on which they eventually declared statehood through aggression. Rather, over the course of many decades, they moved into a specific area peacefully, and when they became a majority and having suffered extensive persecution, they sought sovereignty.

As for your example in Canada... yes, if a population in a certain part of Canada no longer wanted to be part of Canada, and followed through with democratic means to show that that is indeed the will of the large majority of the people in the area, then they should be allowed to separate. That would be true whether the area was populated by people whose ancestors had been in Canada for many generations (like Quebec) or people that were relatively new to Canada, as all Canadians should have the same rights. To date, a secession process has been contemplated only on the provincial level, but there is nothing to say that it could not be contemplated on a municipal or regional level, if that was the will of a majority of the people there.

Just read above. Well stated. This is my personal bias Bonam-in the case of Quebec I believe to separate, the province would run into serious legal issues with their claim to sovereignty over the majority of the province as native peoples have superior land claims particulary to the Ungava Peninsula. I do not see the native peoples ceding their rights to a Quebec sovereign nation. As well Montreal would opt out and so would Hull. Using the exact same arguments the Parti Quebecois argues now,Monteal,Hull, the Eastern Townships, probably Hudson, and most certainly the native peoples of Quebec would cede out of Quebec and probably back into Canada.

President Pauline Marois. Her first act could be to send her culture police to round up anyone with a kerchief, hat and/or beard.

Good luck to the dummy trying to tell nuns they can't be nurses. I know some Jesuit nuns that will have her for lunch. No on second thought that would not be kosher or halal. Forget I said that.

[dre]

Oh, absolutely. It's so obvious that there's a different standard for Israel. The proof is documented in history, as you have pointed out.

Like i said, to know if theres a different standard for Israel you would have to have some other caparable situation where a different standard has been shown.

From my standpoint the international community has given Israel an almost complete pass. Lots of talk, but no real action to uphold international law or take Israel to task for an endless stream of flagrant violations.

[dre]

No, the real argument is that Jews comprised a significant ethnic group within the British Mandate of Palestine. Like many other ethnic groups throughout history, many Jews desired self-determination. This desire for self-determination, for a nation of their own, gained greater urgency after the events of WWII. With viable amounts of lawfully and peacefully acquired contiguous land, a strong political will to attain statehood, and a desperation and willingness to fight born out of the horrors of WWII, the Jews in Israel declared their independence.

It is my position that all people's, if they desire it, should be able to attain statehood. There is no reason in today's world to forcefully prevent a people from doing so. It is the very same reason why I support a separate and sovereign state for the Palestinians. The Kurds are another example of a people that should have the right to form their own state. It is also the reason why I would not oppose Quebec separation, if they decided to do so.

I agree. Jews living in the British Mandate had as good of a case for statehood as you are ever going to get. Same goes for Palestinians today.

As for your example in Canada... yes, if a population in a certain part of Canada no longer wanted to be part of Canada, and followed through with democratic means to show that that is indeed the will of the large majority of the people in the area, then they should be allowed to separate. That would be true whether the area was populated by people whose ancestors had been in Canada for many generations (like Quebec) or people that were relatively new to Canada, as all Canadians should have the same rights. To date, a secession process has been contemplated only on the provincial level, but there is nothing to say that it could not be contemplated on a municipal or regional level, if that was the will of a majority of the people there.

I agree, but I think it should have to be a huge majority vote required. 90% or there abouts. The worry is you could get a lot of Balkanization if the process was too easy, and that might result in a lot of conflicts.

Edited September 16, 2013 by dre

[jbg]

The relevance of DoP's comments regarding Jews buying land is to show that they did not acquire the land on which they eventually declared statehood through aggression. Rather, over the course of many decades, they moved into a specific area peacefully, and when they became a majority and having suffered extensive persecution, they sought sovereignty.

As for your example in Canada... yes, if a population in a certain part of Canada no longer wanted to be part of Canada, and followed through with democratic means to show that that is indeed the will of the large majority of the people in the area, then they should be allowed to separate. That would be true whether the area was populated by people whose ancestors had been in Canada for many generations (like Quebec) or people that were relatively new to Canada, as all Canadians should have the same rights. To date, a secession process has been contemplated only on the provincial level, but there is nothing to say that it could not be contemplated on a municipal or regional level, if that was the will of a majority of the people there.

There is something egregiously missing from all of these arguments.

"Independence" should require two things: 1) ability to control real estate and prevent insurgencies emanating from those areas; and 2) some form of viable economic activity. Palestine fails both tests and Quebec the second one.

No state should be able to claims "independence" and then demand economic support from the world. Can you picture Washington or Adams, or Macdonald, doing that?

[dre]

There is something egregiously missing from all of these arguments.

"Independence" should require two things: 1) ability to control real estate and prevent insurgencies emanating from those areas; and 2) some form of viable economic activity. Palestine fails both tests and Quebec the second one.

No state should be able to claims "independence" and then demand economic support from the world. Can you picture Washington or Adams, or Macdonald, doing that?

Both their economic viability and their ability to deal with security issues will be improved when the occupation ends. Neither of these things should be preconditions for statehood. And they are already getting economic support from the world as things stand now.

[Peter F]

It is my position that all people's, if they desire it, should be able to attain statehood. There is no reason in today's world to forcefully prevent a people from doing so. It is the very same reason why I support a separate and sovereign state for the Palestinians. The Kurds are another example of a people that should have the right to form their own state. It is also the reason why I would not oppose Quebec separation, if they decided to do so.

The relevance of DoP's comments regarding Jews buying land is to show that they did not acquire the land on which they eventually declared statehood through aggression. Rather, over the course of many decades, they moved into a specific area peacefully, and when they became a majority and having suffered extensive persecution, they sought sovereignty.

As for your example in Canada... yes, if a population in a certain part of Canada no longer wanted to be part of Canada, and followed through with democratic means to show that that is indeed the will of the large majority of the people in the area, then they should be allowed to separate. That would be true whether the area was populated by people whose ancestors had been in Canada for many generations (like Quebec) or people that were relatively new to Canada, as all Canadians should have the same rights. To date, a secession process has been contemplated only on the provincial level, but there is nothing to say that it could not be contemplated on a municipal or regional level, if that was the will of a majority of the people there.

Its agreed then that Palestinians can also seek thier own independent state...say the west bank for example. Would also be reasonable for the state of Isreal to support the setting up of jewish settlements in that state?

[Bonam]

There is something egregiously missing from all of these arguments.

"Independence" should require two things: 1) ability to control real estate and prevent insurgencies emanating from those areas; and 2) some form of viable economic activity. Palestine fails both tests and Quebec the second one.

I agree that the ability to control extremist groups and economic viability would ideally be something that every sovereign state possesses. Unfortunately, the reality is that there are a great many states that are economically non-viable, that pretty much describes most third world countries. Additionally, many currently sovereign states are unable to adequately control insurgents, and insurgents/rebels/revolutionaries have existed throughout the history of almost every major state. Given that this is the case, that many sovereign states exist which satisfy neither condition, I don't see how this can be set as a requirement for a formation of a new state.

Now, I agree with you that the world does not owe any economic support to new states. I certainly do not support the use of taxpayers dollars to prop up failed third world regimes. However, some individuals and charities, as well as many governments despite the wishes of some of their constituents, contribute to foreign aid, and such aid would likely flow to any newly created states struggling with their economic viability. Not much you or I can do to change that.

As for insurgencies and their effect on surrounding states... anyone who is targeted by insurgents has a right to defend themselves as befits the situation. However, the existence of insurgents should not automatically disqualify all the rest of the people from having a state. However, said people may quickly find themselves in a war zone if the insurgents provoke other nations.

In regards to Quebec, I was merely using that as an example, I did not intend to veer this thread into a discussion of the intricacies of that issue.

[Bonam]

I agree, but I think it should have to be a huge majority vote required. 90% or there abouts. The worry is you could get a lot of Balkanization if the process was too easy, and that might result in a lot of conflicts.

I agree that a strong majority should be required. Deciding an exact number or process would be difficult, not something I would try to do in this thread.

[Bonam]

Its agreed then that Palestinians can also seek thier own independent state...say the west bank for example. Would also be reasonable for the state of Isreal to support the setting up of jewish settlements in that state?

Of course it's agreed that Palestinians should seek their own independent state. The two state solution is supported by pretty much all reasonable people who have an opinion on the subject.

In regards to settlements, if/when a sovereign Palestinian state came to exist, it would have the power to control its own immigration policy, and presumably keep out any people it did not want entering. However, if the new Palestinian state was to be held to the same standard of human rights that Israel is constantly held to, it would also not be allowed to expel ("ethnically cleanse") its territory of any Jews who were already there and did not want to leave voluntarily, just as Israel cannot expel its Arabs.

[dre]

. However, if the new Palestinian state was to be held to the same standard of human rights that Israel is constantly held to, it would also not be allowed to expel ("ethnically cleanse") its territory of any Jews who were already there and did not want to leave voluntarily, just as Israel cannot expel its Arabs.

Thats a different ballgame. Settlements in the west bank that are part of the occupation. Israel will need to remove any settlements not connected to Israeli proper, and any deal would probably involve trading other land to the palestinians for heavily populated ares near Jerusalem, etc.

Expecting these settlements and their inhabitants to remain intact is a really bad idea on all counts. It would create a nearly impossible security situation for the fledgling Palestinian state.

Besides Israel would never allow it anyways. If this were to happen Israel would dismantle the settlements like it did during the Gaza withdrawal.

Edited September 16, 2013 by dre

[Rue]

I agree that the ability to control extremist groups and economic viability would ideally be something that every sovereign state possesses. Unfortunately, the reality is that there are a great many states that are economically non-viable, that pretty much describes most third world countries. Additionally, many currently sovereign states are unable to adequately control insurgents, and insurgents/rebels/revolutionaries have existed throughout the history of almost every major state. Given that this is the case, that many sovereign states exist which satisfy neither condition, I don't see how this can be set as a requirement for a formation of a new state.

Now, I agree with you that the world does not owe any economic support to new states. I certainly do not support the use of taxpayers dollars to prop up failed third world regimes. However, some individuals and charities, as well as many governments despite the wishes of some of their constituents, contribute to foreign aid, and such aid would likely flow to any newly created states struggling with their economic viability. Not much you or I can do to change that.

As for insurgencies and their effect on surrounding states... anyone who is targeted by insurgents has a right to defend themselves as befits the situation. However, the existence of insurgents should not automatically disqualify all the rest of the people from having a state. However, said people may quickly find themselves in a war zone if the insurgents provoke other nations.

In regards to Quebec, I was merely using that as an example, I did not intend to veer this thread into a discussion of the intricacies of that issue.

I steered the topic to Quebec not you Bonam. Not your fault.

[jbg]

Both their economic viability and their ability to deal with security issues will be improved when the occupation ends. Neither of these things should be preconditions for statehood. And they are already getting economic support from the world as things stand now.

Why should my taxes be going to support some kleptocratic dictator? If that be the case I'd prefer colonialism, mixed with subsidies to keep life decent.

[jbg]

Now, I agree with you that the world does not owe any economic support to new states. I certainly do not support the use of taxpayers dollars to prop up failed third world regimes. However, some individuals and charities, as well as many governments despite the wishes of some of their constituents, contribute to foreign aid, and such aid would likely flow to any newly created states struggling with their economic viability. Not much you or I can do to change that.

What gives any government the right to ship huge quantities of taxpayer money to such entities as the U.N., the I.M.F. and the World Bank, to disappear down ratholes?

If people are upset about the resulting starvation they can contribute food or money aid. As I do.

Politicians should have have the right to obtain bonhomie at political gatherings, using my money. Let them use their own.