ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND CANADA

[MightyAC]

No I think the point was Mr. Chuckman wrote a lecture posing opinions as if they were facts. Now of course we know where Figleaf stands on such efforts. He enjoys doing the same thing. However in your case, read what Mr. Chuckman said before you defend. With due respect to your opinions, you are defending something not worthy of your defence.

I didn’t defend Mr. Chuckman or the validity of the details in his post. I wrote an angry couple paragraphs about a common problem within political message boards. More and more often people seem to have trouble reading anything longer than a paragraph but sill feel the need to make a partisan comment about it. The two posts I quoted were perfect examples. The posters actually said they didn’t read it, yet still called it biased, drivel, etc. If a post is “not worth reading” fine but then it’s probably not worth making partisan comments about either.

So my question is for you is why do you single out Israel and somehow make it seem unusual they would have supported a group that would come to bite them in the ass-for what point? What does it prove other then at one point Israel saw Hamas as a way to keep the PLO neutralized just as the Americans found the Mujadeen to their liking when they fought the Soviet Union?

What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting Israel is the only country in the world to form an alliance with someone who would later come to fight them?

First of all I didn’t single out Israel; I mentioned popular US examples as well. There are hundreds of examples and you provided many yourself. My point was simply that “Maybe it’s time to challenge ridiculous Western imperialistic foreign policy”.

I’ll expand.. I realize that our security sometimes requires that we get involved in foreign conflicts and it is preferable to have someone else do the dirty work…especially if we’d like to see that someone else dead too. However, I’m sure we are all aware that nations don’t always get involved in foreign conflicts for security or humanitarian reasons. We attempt to secure resources, affect commodity prices, install Western friendly leaders, etc. In the process we provide money and weapons to some very unstable groups who tend to do some very bad things to their own people and their neighbours. That doesn’t seem wise to me, in fact it seems quite stupid, unless of course the ultimate goal is really to keep a region unstable for an extended period of time. That’s why I think we should challenge Western imperialistic foreign policy.

I also said that I do not support Canada’s decision to unequivocally back Israel. Harper has said that Hezbollah and Hamas are listed as terrorist groups so we will always side against terrorism. Terrorist is simply a label. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'm not defending Hezbollah or Hamas but I can understand why locals support them.

All nations have the right to defend themselves but Israel goes far beyond defense. In the 06 conflict with Hezbollah roughly 7 Lebanese (mostly civilian) died for every 1 Israeli (mostly soldiers). Israel also devastated the infrastructure of Beirut and killed their tiny, fragile economy. That’s not defending itself, that’s taking revenge.

It seems counter productive to me to kill civilians and create even more poverty if the goal is to someday create peace. From the point of view of the Lebanese Hezbollah builds hospitals, schools and provides money while Israel kills parents, children, relatives, destroys buildings and bridges, and eradicates jobs. It seems to me that Israel is the ultimate Hezbollah recruiting tool. Why not support the Lebanese economy and give the people something to loose. Also support the Lebanese army and intelligence forces so that they can keep Hezbollah at bay. In time, much time, people will start see Israel as a trading partner and meal ticket rather than an aggressive murderous regime. Also, as the economy improves people have something to loose and are less likely to give their lives for a cause.

If a country is responsible for killing some of my friends, family, etc and then an election comes along a party vows to get revenge they’d likely get my vote. If I had no job, no money, no hope, relatively little to live for and religious fanatics telling me I will be honoured in the afterlife I may give my life to seek revenge.

[Figleaf]

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages ...

That is a sickeningly bigotted and basically depraved comment. If the rules of the forum did not prohibit it, I would say the same of you.

Depraved? How can it possibly be "depraved"? Do you even know what the word is?

I know exactly what it means and I used it quite appropriately. For YOUR information, here's a definition:

Depraved [adjective]

1: immoral, perverse, perverted, reprobate

2 : unreformable, unregenerate

3: evil, vicious

Source: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/depraved

It fits your situation perfectly.

As a people - there is great sickness with the Palestinians' culture.

Yes, its called Israeli Occupation.

[Rue]

Irrelevant.

Why can't Israel obey international law and stop oppressing the Palestinians?

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages who love killing Jews. Israel being a Jewish state, well, I can see where they'd have a problem with that.

Sorry Palestinians are not murderous savages who love killing Jews. That is an unfair generalization. I might use that to describe Hamas or Hezbollah but I think its unfair to blanket an entire people just as I do not like it when certain people write in posts making blanket generalizations about all Jews or Israelis.

Argus I respect you and you know better then to defame an entire people. Hating Palestinians will not resolve this conflict.

[Rue]

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages ...

That is a sickeningly bigotted and basically depraved comment. If the rules of the forum did not prohibit it, I would say the same of you.

Depraved? How can it possibly be "depraved"? Do you even know what the word is?

I know exactly what it means and I used it quite appropriately. For YOUR information, here's a definition:

Depraved [adjective]

1: immoral, perverse, perverted, reprobate

2 : unreformable, unregenerate

3: evil, vicious

Source: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/depraved

It fits your situation perfectly.

As a people - there is great sickness with the Palestinians' culture.

Yes, its called Israeli Occupation.

Argus is wrong to generalize, you are equally wrong to respond accepting this generalization and trying to rationalize for it.

The fact is neither you or Argus or correct when you generalize on behalf of all Palestinians.

The fact also remains that a belief in ending the state of Israel and anti-semitism are wide spread beliefs in Palestine taught to the people in school and broadcast in the media and in their houses of worship. To pretend anti-Israeli and anti-semitic hatred is not wide spread is pointless.

What is also pointless is being shocked at it. Palestinians have come to their anger and violence just as Israelis have come to theirs.

The point is when there is a long festering conflict that remains unresolved, cycles of violence continue until we find peaceful ways to find a compromise. Violence and hatred expressed by anyone from either side

is equally as repugnant.

I myself prefer to focus my attention on the people of both Palestine and Israel who refuse to give into violence and hatred and work for peace.

I do not like you Figlead engage in absurd exercises in trying to deny or rationalize violence and hatred just as I do not condone Argus or anyone else if they only emphasize the negative cultural beliefs of a people.

I choose to point out many Palestinians despite their climate and Hamas' imposed cultural of violence choose to reject violence and look for alternative peaceful solutions.

[Figleaf]

Argus is wrong to generalize, you are equally wrong to respond accepting this generalization and trying to rationalize for it.

? I presume he meant what he said. And I note he hasn't disavowed it.

The fact is neither you or Argus or correct when you generalize on behalf of all Palestinians.

I don't know what statement of mine you are refering to.

I do not like you Figlead engage in absurd exercises in trying to deny or rationalize violence and hatred ...,

Again, I'm mystified by what you are refering to in regards to anything I've ever posted.

Most of your post seemed sensible, however.

[Remiel]

"Our government believes in a two-state solution -- in a secure democratic and prosperous Israel living beside a viable democratic and peaceful Palestinian state."

Without getting into the rest of the debate (I didn't read much because I have to clean up in a few minutes.), I would like to submit that those two statements are not equal, thought they might have been intended to be (and might not have been).

Secure and peaceful are two entirely different things. One might have said the Tibetans were peaceful. As we all know, they certainly weren't secure.

Viable and prosperous also have completely different connotations. Viable is rather lukewarm. Worthwhile, but not particularly well off. Prosperous does mean well off.

I think that the replies to the original statement concerning that quote could of used a little more consideration. It is a common fallacy of perhaps everyone to reply to an entire argument based on a single feeling, instead of really thinking about each point individually.

[Argus]

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages ...

That is a sickeningly bigotted and basically depraved comment. If the rules of the forum did not prohibit it, I would say the same of you.

Depraved? How can it possibly be "depraved"? Do you even know what the word is?

I know exactly what it means and I used it quite appropriately. For YOUR information, here's a definition:

Depraved [adjective]

1: immoral, perverse, perverted, reprobate

2 : unreformable, unregenerate

3: evil, vicious

Source:

It fits your situation perfectly.

Sputtering, infantile drivel.

As a people - there is great sickness with the Palestinians' culture.

Yes, its called Israeli Occupation.

Israel didn't give them a death cult to worship. They created that themselves.

[Argus]

Irrelevant.

Why can't Israel obey international law and stop oppressing the Palestinians?

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages who love killing Jews. Israel being a Jewish state, well, I can see where they'd have a problem with that.

Sorry Palestinians are not murderous savages who love killing Jews. That is an unfair generalization. I might use that to describe Hamas or Hezbollah but I think its unfair to blanket an entire people

Hamas was elected by the majority of Palestinians, was it not? Don't the majority of Palestinians continue to support suicide bombings? Do they or don't they trade suicide bomber cards, and shower gifts and honour on the proud parents of the suicide killers?

What other people would celebrate at blowing up a pizza parlor full of teenagers?

[normanchateau]

Irrelevant.

Why can't Israel obey international law and stop oppressing the Palestinians?

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages who love killing Jews. Israel being a Jewish state, well, I can see where they'd have a problem with that.

Sorry Palestinians are not murderous savages who love killing Jews. That is an unfair generalization. I might use that to describe Hamas or Hezbollah but I think its unfair to blanket an entire people

Hamas was elected by the majority of Palestinians, was it not?

Hamas was not elected by a majority of Palestinians. Hamas received between 44% and 45% of the vote, Fatah received 42% and smaller parties accounted for the remainder of the popular vote.

You might want to read the following link:

http://www.fairvote.org/media/pep/Palestine.pdf

[Remiel]

Sorry if you saw that, I also had the CBC thread open, which is what I meant to reply to.

[normanchateau]

Irrelevant.

Why can't Israel obey international law and stop oppressing the Palestinians?

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages who love killing Jews. Israel being a Jewish state, well, I can see where they'd have a problem with that.

Sorry Palestinians are not murderous savages who love killing Jews. That is an unfair generalization. I might use that to describe Hamas or Hezbollah but I think its unfair to blanket an entire people

What other people would celebrate at blowing up a pizza parlor full of teenagers?

Given that the democratically elected government of Iran provides weapons to Hezbollah with which Hezbollah has targetted and killed Israeli civilians, perhaps some Iranians might satisfy this criterion.

[Higgly]

The problem I have with Harper announcing that Canada is now pro-Israel is that it runs counter to the wishes of the majority of Canadians who have shown a preference for a neutral stance in successive polls. I believe that we can do the most good by not taking sides.

MLW Members who routinely refer to previous governments as being apologists for terrorists or supporters of terrorists are being dishonest - it was the previous government who put Hamas and Hezbollah on the terrorist list.

I am reporting Argus for bigotry. He routinely slags entire groups of people; I don't know how he has gotten away with it for so long.

[normanchateau]

The problem I have with Harper announcing that Canada is now pro-Israel is that it runs counter to the wishes of the majority of Canadians who have shown a preference for a neutral stance in successive polls. I believe that we can do the most good by not taking sides.

I thought Canada was pro-Israel long before Harper was elected. And Canada's next Liberal leader and possible PM, will also be pro-Israel despite Harper's deceitful attempts to characterize the leadership candidates as not being pro-Israel.

[Higgly]

No Canada has always taken pains to remain neutral, although Israel has received generous treatment from Canada - including a free trade agreement, which is remarkable given the fact that this is a small country in North Africa which has steadfastly refused to participate in agreements accepted by the world community - for example, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, and to abide by widely accepted protocols - for example, The Geneva Conventions.

I guess it comes down to how you are defining the term 'pro-Israel'.

[scribblet]

I thought Canada was pro-Israel long before Harper was elected. And Canada's next Liberal leader and possible PM, will also be pro-Israel despite Harper's deceitful attempts to characterize the leadership candidates as not being pro-Israel.

“Frankly, I think, though, this is consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually all of the candidates for the Liberal leadership. And I don’t think it’s helpful or useful.”

-- Prime Minister Stephen Harper

The only deceit here is that of Iggy and the rest of them, Ignatieff's statement that "war crimes" were committed by Israel at Qana were also equal to Rae's who has been defending such words.

Support for Israel should be driven by courage and values, we should be defending freedom while fighting terrorisim, not bending and distorting truth and applying double standards when it comes to the M.E.

Look at Liberals comments: re Israel fighting Hezbollah's kidnapping and rocket attacks on Israeli; Rae called for restraint from Israel but none from Hezbollah. He supported Graham's more 'nuanced' position, rather than Harper's unequivocal support for a democratic ally under attack. The Liberals have never had a clear position, they have waffled and spun for years.

The Liberals deputy foreign affairs critic and supporter of Gerard Kennedy, went on a fact finding tour of the area, and immediately announced that Israel was practicing "state terror"- Nada about Hezbollah's terrorism which started the war.

Liberal MP Denis Coderre, led a "Rally for Peace for Lebanon and Palestine" (more of a pro Hezbollah rally)- no mention of peace for Israel and neither did they include any Israeli or Jewish groups in the rally. Heck the Liberals name was on the org. press release.

Paul Martin called Muammar Khaddafi a man "with a philosophical bent of mind"

John Manley equated the Israel Defense Forces with Palestinian homicide bombers

Jean Chrétien said while in Jerusalem didn't know "North from south or east from west" when asked about Palestine

don't forget the 100s of resolutions against Israel our Liberal ambassadors have voted on, in lock step with despotic regimes

And who said "none is too many" when referring to Jewish quotas ?

We finally have a PM willing to actually take the side of democracy and be against radical Islamist terrorists, so should the Liberals who seem to find it extremely difficult to do so - while trying to play both sides against the middle for votes and power.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I wonder if people realize that by other nations taking sides in the eternal conflict found in the middle east that we are perpetuating their misery.

[normanchateau]

No Canada has always taken pains to remain neutral, although Israel has received generous treatment from Canada - including a free trade agreement, which is remarkable given the fact that this is a small country in North Africa

Generous treatment because we've been pro-Israel for years and Israel is not in Africa.

[Higgly]

Generous treatment because we've been pro-Israel for years and Israel is not in Africa.

Yes you can indeed debate what is and what is not Africa. Wherever you might situate it, Israel is a long way from here.

Here is what I mean by being neutral...

Under Paul Martin's watch, a suicide bomber killed a Canadian Israeli who was living in a West Bank Settlement. The Canadian Jewish community put heavy pressure on the Canadian government to send a diplomatic representative to visit the family of the victim in their West Bank home. The government refused because Canada has agreed with the UN Resolution and Geneva Convention that make the settlements illegal. I have no doubt Harper would have sent someone.

Israel and the Canadian Jewish community have tried to pressure the Canadian government to move its embassy to Jerusalem. Even the US government has refused to do this because Jerusalem is occupied territory. Under Harper, they might just get their wish.

I Agree with Jerry J. Fortin that taking sides just makes things worse.

[normanchateau]

Generous treatment because we've been pro-Israel for years and Israel is not in Africa.

Yes you can indeed debate what is and what is not Africa. Wherever you might situate it, Israel is a long way from here.

Here is what I mean by being neutral...

Under Paul Martin's watch, a suicide bomber killed a Canadian Israeli who was living in a West Bank Settlement. The Canadian Jewish community put heavy pressure on the Canadian government to send a diplomatic representative to visit the family of the victim in their West Bank home. The government refused because Canada has agreed with the UN Resolution and Geneva Convention that make the settlements illegal. I have no doubt Harper would have sent someone.

OK, so Harper is not neutral but I think it's unfair to suggest that Paul Martin is not pro-Israel merely because he acknowledged that the settlements are illegal. Many Israelis share that view and they view disengagement from the settlements as being in Israel's best interests.

It's not debatable. Israel is not in Africa. Perhaps you're thinking of Egypt which is.

[Higgly]

It's not debatable. Israel is not in Africa. Perhaps you're thinking of Egypt which is.

Yeah that's something I would do. Confuse Israel with Egypt.

[White Doors]

The problem I have with Harper announcing that Canada is now pro-Israel is that it runs counter to the wishes of the majority of Canadians who have shown a preference for a neutral stance in successive polls. I believe that we can do the most good by not taking sides.

MLW Members who routinely refer to previous governments as being apologists for terrorists or supporters of terrorists are being dishonest - it was the previous government who put Hamas and Hezbollah on the terrorist list.

I am reporting Argus for bigotry. He routinely slags entire groups of people; I don't know how he has gotten away with it for so long.

I wouldn't call backing a democratically elected government defending it's citizens from murderour terrorists who started the war, 'taking sides'.

Martin governed by Polls, look where that got him. Harper is standing up for what is right, not necessarily popular. Good for him.

[White Doors]

No Canada has always taken pains to remain neutral, although Israel has received generous treatment from Canada - including a free trade agreement, which is remarkable given the fact that this is a small country in North Africa which has steadfastly refused to participate in agreements accepted by the world community - for example, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, and to abide by widely accepted protocols - for example, The Geneva Conventions.

I guess it comes down to how you are defining the term 'pro-Israel'.

No Canada took pains to remain 'neutral' in the past 20 years. Not 'always'.

North Africa? Better consult a map.

Geneve Conventions? What part of that did they violate?

[Higgly]

Geneve Conventions? What part of that did they violate?

Fourth Geneva Convention - Section III: Occupied Territories, Article 49 (last sentence). Check it for yourself.

[White Doors]

Geneve Conventions? What part of that did they violate?

Fourth Geneva Convention - Section III: Occupied Territories, Article 49 (last sentence). Check it for yourself.

I thought we were speaking about the war with Lebanon?

Israel has shown willingness to negotiate land for peace. The problem is the 'peace' part.

hard to negotiate with people who consider you to be monkey's.

[normanchateau]

Canada has always taken pains to remain neutral,

Former Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley: "We have never been neutral in the Middle East - we have always been a friend of Israel."

http://johnmanley.blogspot.com/2006/08/joh...-on-israel.html