Utter bullshit. I doubt this will ever pass the Supreme Court if challenges as a charter violation, tho. Just pandering to his base....right BS?
Seems to be a pattern with this government. They have been losing a lot at the supreme court lately, think of all the wasted time and money. You would think the conservative base would be appalled by the wasted resources.
I'm appalled by this for sure. It's actually a complete misreading of where the (canadian) conservative base actually is. We (me?) look at free speech as "the thing". I am for the right of the BDS person as much as I am for the right of Pamela Geller or the right of Occupy Wall Street. Provided that you are not violent or invading someone else's private property then you should have the right to say whatever the hell you want without being accused of committing a Hate Crime. Speech should be answered with more speech and not arrest warrents.
Glad we are on the same page BS. Nice to find common ground. I can't really figure out where Harper makes political gains with this posture. Or is it all idealism?
Yosi, does Hamas not exist to champion a one-state solution and condemn Jewish sovereignty over the region (and don't get me wrong - it's inexcusable for them to champion Islamic sovereignty as well)? When they say Israel has no right to exist - that's exactly the statement they make: a state with Jewish sovereignty ought not to exist when the region houses Jews and non-Jews alike. This is relevant not only at the time of the birth of Israel, but even at the time when Zionism pinpointed this very parcel of land to situate itself on. Until then, Zionism was not a problematic concept. Israel's existence promotes an outright elitist and racist point of view through the discrepancy of treatment between conforming Jews and all others, and was outdated decades ago. Why it is accepted in the case of Israel and condemned elsewhere is beyond me.
Until Israel acknowledges this initial injustice of self-appointed Jewish sovereignty (along with the affiliated injustices that are much more tangible: inappropriate seizure of land, humiliation, mistreatment, the segregation of a people even from each other with regards to Gaza and the West Bank, discrepancy in rights provided, etc) and begins to enter damage control in tangible and meaningful ways, Israel will never have peace, and as the BDS movement grows, Israel will never have economic stability. The sanctions will become stronger. The opposition will become louder. Canada and America's indigenous populations would not be peaceful without the meagre reparations granted by our respective governments. The reparations granted to the Palestinian population at this point fall short and fluctuate around (but just barely) non-existent, occasionally adding or retracting rights or land here or there when the inactivity is more damaging than minor change, as granted by the self-perceived superior and charitable race.
This is the reality: If Israel doesn't push for owed reparations (likely akin to those given to indigenous populations around the world - i.e. familiar), the world will watch as Israel burns slowly and painfully. My personal hope is for an iota of progress: there has never been a status quo of stability in Israel, and there's a reason for that. The world accepts two outcomes to injustice: work to rectify it slowly or partially to an unfortunate but acceptable state, or rectify it entirely. To minimize it only when convenient does not work, as injustices are done to seize or preserve power, and to undo injustice by definition would mean the return or rebalancing of power (i.e. it is inherently inconvenient).
As for my thought experiment, I stand by it, as plenty of scientists have stood by thought experiments that increase clarity to abstract scenarios and to extract and remove bias. Renter A and Renter B, and Landlord Joe have no prior biases in our minds - when you label them as Israel, Palestine, and England, they sure as hell do. BS, your response acknowledged the fact that I had omitted critical contextual points necessary to validate it, and so I tweaked it to add analogous historical context. If you had thought it did not relate whatsoever, why did you not speak up in the first iteration? Why now?
Once again, BS, you claim to be fact-driven, but you can not claim to be fact-driven if you make blanket statements (Hamas is an obstacle to peace) and ignore the subtext used to justify them (literally any statement providing nuance or refuting this notion). That's not logic: that's cherry-picking your arguments with a tunnel vision commitment to the outcome you've already decided upon. You had your mind made up prior to entering this discussion, and you manipulate, omit, or refuse to address conflicting facts, in an effort to reveal what you coin the 'truth'.
As long as people act this way on the Israeli/Palestinian topic, Israel is destined for global condemnation, violence, political and socioeconomic unrest, and impactful economic sanctions. Deal with it.
Unfortunately Benjs your very first paragraph will forever be our sticking point. It makes any analogy you post unworthy of a response. You do not believe Israel should exist as a state with Jewish sovereignty yet it will always and forever be that. It is that kind of belief which convinces the average Israeli to give up on the peace process and move to the right come election season. There can be no negotiation with someone who is completely opposed to your very existence.
Very thoughtful post through and through. The question of double standards is difficult to answer because the truth is this conflict is full of them. Everyone on here has them and I think the best thing to do when trying to forge peace is to acknowledge that they exist and why we hold them.
My biggest difference with everyone on here is clearly how I see Hamas's role in the equation. I don't necessarily disagree with you about how they came to be but I certainly disagree with you on what they are now. They are a cancer that has metastasized, anti-semitic to the core. They seek the destruction of Israel from sea to sea and the death of jews everywhere. They are vicious to there own people as well and have no interest in providing them with the freedoms that you and I hold dear. While Israel also has their share of religious extremists their government, unlike Hamas, has the capacity to pacify any violent objectors to the peace process. It seems to me that far to many of you romanticize the actions of Hamas based on your goal of seeing a free Palestine. I find that absolutely short sighted and as I have said from the very beginning one can be for a Free Palestinian state and against Hamas at the same time. Those views do not have to be mutually exclusive. Israel will never accept Hamas as they currently exist to be a partner for peace. If you do not ask Hamas to moderate then do not ask Israel to. This is the unfortunate reality.
(Doing this from my son's drum lesson...he's no Matt Cameron)
Let me get this straight, you believe that a democratically elected government in Israel that appoints representatives and believes in a non-functioning or destruction of the Palestinian state is somehow "legitimate" or noble as opposed to a Palestinian government democratically elected to represent one half of its state as being the obstacle to peace? Your analogy would be correct if both states were equal and clearly they are not. Comparing the two positions is like comparing mathematical equations of differing complexity, 2+2=4 is equal to the equation it takes to land 3 people on the moon. Contrary to your belief that I and others, who I won't speak for, equate the two or "excuse" Hamas' actions in a romanticized view of them, you couldn't be further from the truth. We don't condone Hamas' actions but we can understand where it's coming from and why it exists. I can't say the same for Israel as they are clearly the much stronger state. What you're asking the Palestinians to do with Hamas in Gaza is like me asking the Jewish underground in the Warsaw ghetto in 1944 to not rebel and rather, give the Nazis more time to play nice and elect a nicer representative of the ghetto's inhabitants.
Neocons, democracy is great unless I don't agree with the outcome. And to think the US has turned on the "democracy" in Palestine and Egypt and some misguided folks think we should continue to lead the way as that shining beacon on a hill. Whatever happened to "democracy is messy" as opposed to pre-determined outcomes?
It seems very simple to me, Israel, being the much stronger state, should negotiate faithfully for a two state solution as they have the ability to very quickly return to the status quo. In so doing, all or almost all of the other Middle East issues go away. But I also wonder where we'd be if the US didn't subsidize Israel to the tune of $3 billion, no strings attached, per year.
Call me an idiot racist if you want but I believe you're supporting an apartheid state.
Yosi, does Hamas not exist to champion a one-state solution and condemn Jewish sovereignty over the region (and don't get me wrong - it's inexcusable for them to champion Islamic sovereignty as well)? When they say Israel has no right to exist - that's exactly the statement they make: a state with Jewish sovereignty ought not to exist when the region houses Jews and non-Jews alike. This is relevant not only at the time of the birth of Israel, but even at the time when Zionism pinpointed this very parcel of land to situate itself on. Until then, Zionism was not a problematic concept. Israel's existence promotes an outright elitist and racist point of view through the discrepancy of treatment between conforming Jews and all others, and was outdated decades ago. Why it is accepted in the case of Israel and condemned elsewhere is beyond me.
Until Israel acknowledges this initial injustice of self-appointed Jewish sovereignty (along with the affiliated injustices that are much more tangible: inappropriate seizure of land, humiliation, mistreatment, the segregation of a people even from each other with regards to Gaza and the West Bank, discrepancy in rights provided, etc) and begins to enter damage control in tangible and meaningful ways, Israel will never have peace, and as the BDS movement grows, Israel will never have economic stability. The sanctions will become stronger. The opposition will become louder. Canada and America's indigenous populations would not be peaceful without the meagre reparations granted by our respective governments. The reparations granted to the Palestinian population at this point fall short and fluctuate around (but just barely) non-existent, occasionally adding or retracting rights or land here or there when the inactivity is more damaging than minor change, as granted by the self-perceived superior and charitable race.
This is the reality: If Israel doesn't push for owed reparations (likely akin to those given to indigenous populations around the world - i.e. familiar), the world will watch as Israel burns slowly and painfully. My personal hope is for an iota of progress: there has never been a status quo of stability in Israel, and there's a reason for that. The world accepts two outcomes to injustice: work to rectify it slowly or partially to an unfortunate but acceptable state, or rectify it entirely. To minimize it only when convenient does not work, as injustices are done to seize or preserve power, and to undo injustice by definition would mean the return or rebalancing of power (i.e. it is inherently inconvenient).
As for my thought experiment, I stand by it, as plenty of scientists have stood by thought experiments that increase clarity to abstract scenarios and to extract and remove bias. Renter A and Renter B, and Landlord Joe have no prior biases in our minds - when you label them as Israel, Palestine, and England, they sure as hell do. BS, your response acknowledged the fact that I had omitted critical contextual points necessary to validate it, and so I tweaked it to add analogous historical context. If you had thought it did not relate whatsoever, why did you not speak up in the first iteration? Why now?
Once again, BS, you claim to be fact-driven, but you can not claim to be fact-driven if you make blanket statements (Hamas is an obstacle to peace) and ignore the subtext used to justify them (literally any statement providing nuance or refuting this notion). That's not logic: that's cherry-picking your arguments with a tunnel vision commitment to the outcome you've already decided upon. You had your mind made up prior to entering this discussion, and you manipulate, omit, or refuse to address conflicting facts, in an effort to reveal what you coin the 'truth'.
As long as people act this way on the Israeli/Palestinian topic, Israel is destined for global condemnation, violence, political and socioeconomic unrest, and impactful economic sanctions. Deal with it.
Unfortunately Benjs your very first paragraph will forever be our sticking point. It makes any analogy you post unworthy of a response. You do not believe Israel should exist as a state with Jewish sovereignty yet it will always and forever be that. It is that kind of belief which convinces the average Israeli to give up on the peace process and move to the right come election season. There can be no negotiation with someone who is completely opposed to your very existence.
In that case, Israel in its current iteration is destined to be forever fighting for its survival. To offer reparations to Palestinians is to admit that the founding was unjust. To admit that the founding was unjust is to admit that the region shouldn't be run with a notion of Jewish sovereignty. Working backwards, to refuse to question the notion of the righteousness of Jewish sovereignty is to refuse to acknowledge an unjust founding, and by extension to refuse to offer reparations to Palestinians. Once again, this is why Israel is in the midst of a self-perpetuated existential crisis, and the world (with the exception of pro-Israel lobbyists) is unlikely to care about their hardships for too much longer.
Edit: Before Netanyahu backtracked on his words the day after winning the election, he also said that there will never be a Palestinian state so long as he is in office. In this statement, and the implied notion of a Jewish-sovereign state, is Netanyahu not saying that he is opposed to the existence of Palestine? How could Hamas or the PA aspire to negotiate with him then?
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Very thoughtful post through and through. The question of double standards is difficult to answer because the truth is this conflict is full of them. Everyone on here has them and I think the best thing to do when trying to forge peace is to acknowledge that they exist and why we hold them.
My biggest difference with everyone on here is clearly how I see Hamas's role in the equation. I don't necessarily disagree with you about how they came to be but I certainly disagree with you on what they are now. They are a cancer that has metastasized, anti-semitic to the core. They seek the destruction of Israel from sea to sea and the death of jews everywhere. They are vicious to there own people as well and have no interest in providing them with the freedoms that you and I hold dear. While Israel also has their share of religious extremists their government, unlike Hamas, has the capacity to pacify any violent objectors to the peace process. It seems to me that far to many of you romanticize the actions of Hamas based on your goal of seeing a free Palestine. I find that absolutely short sighted and as I have said from the very beginning one can be for a Free Palestinian state and against Hamas at the same time. Those views do not have to be mutually exclusive. Israel will never accept Hamas as they currently exist to be a partner for peace. If you do not ask Hamas to moderate then do not ask Israel to. This is the unfortunate reality.
(Doing this from my son's drum lesson...he's no Matt Cameron)
Halifax: Let me get this straight, you believe that a democratically elected government in Israel that appoints representatives and believes in a non-functioning or destruction of the Palestinian state is somehow "legitimate" or noble as opposed to a Palestinian government democratically elected to represent one half of its state as being the obstacle to peace? Your analogy would be correct if both states were equal and clearly they are not. Comparing the two positions is like comparing mathematical equations of differing complexity, 2+2=4 is equal to the equation it takes to land 3 people on the moon. Contrary to your belief that I and others, who I won't speak for, equate the two or "excuse" Hamas' actions in a romanticized view of them, you couldn't be further from the truth. We don't condone Hamas' actions but we can understand where it's coming from and why it exists. I can't say the same for Israel as they are clearly the much stronger state. What you're asking the Palestinians to do with Hamas in Gaza is like me asking the Jewish underground in the Warsaw ghetto in 1944 to not rebel and rather, give the Nazis more time to play nice and elect a nicer representative of the ghetto's inhabitants.
Neocons, democracy is great unless I don't agree with the outcome. And to think the US has turned on the "democracy" in Palestine and Egypt and some misguided folks think we should continue to lead the way as that shining beacon on a hill. Whatever happened to "democracy is messy" as opposed to pre-determined outcomes?
It seems very simple to me, Israel, being the much stronger state, should negotiate faithfully for a two state solution as they have the ability to very quickly return to the status quo. In so doing, all or almost all of the other Middle East issues go away. But I also wonder where we'd be if the US didn't subsidize Israel to the tune of $3 billion, no strings attached, per year.
Call me an idiot racist if you want but I believe you're supporting an apartheid state.
BS: But Israel was not always the stronger state. They were a dirt poor nothing state that was immediately attacked by their established stronger arab neighbours. Against all obstacles they defend themselves through multiple wars and made the desert bloom. What drives their neighbors crazy is that in such a short time they have turned their state into the powerful one it is today. Instead of attacking Israel it's neigbours should learn from it. The PA gets a lot of money from the international community but they squander it daily. Hamas chooses to use their funding for tunnels and not for the betterment of their people. The "democracy" you claim they have is not the same as our's or Israel's and remaining on that path will forever leave their people in poverty. Some would argue Palestinians are kept poor by their leaders intentionally so as to forever be the victims of the little satan.
Yosi, does Hamas not exist to champion a one-state solution and condemn Jewish sovereignty over the region (and don't get me wrong - it's inexcusable for them to champion Islamic sovereignty as well)? When they say Israel has no right to exist - that's exactly the statement they make: a state with Jewish sovereignty ought not to exist when the region houses Jews and non-Jews alike. This is relevant not only at the time of the birth of Israel, but even at the time when Zionism pinpointed this very parcel of land to situate itself on. Until then, Zionism was not a problematic concept. Israel's existence promotes an outright elitist and racist point of view through the discrepancy of treatment between conforming Jews and all others, and was outdated decades ago. Why it is accepted in the case of Israel and condemned elsewhere is beyond me.
Until Israel acknowledges this initial injustice of self-appointed Jewish sovereignty (along with the affiliated injustices that are much more tangible: inappropriate seizure of land, humiliation, mistreatment, the segregation of a people even from each other with regards to Gaza and the West Bank, discrepancy in rights provided, etc) and begins to enter damage control in tangible and meaningful ways, Israel will never have peace, and as the BDS movement grows, Israel will never have economic stability. The sanctions will become stronger. The opposition will become louder. Canada and America's indigenous populations would not be peaceful without the meagre reparations granted by our respective governments. The reparations granted to the Palestinian population at this point fall short and fluctuate around (but just barely) non-existent, occasionally adding or retracting rights or land here or there when the inactivity is more damaging than minor change, as granted by the self-perceived superior and charitable race.
This is the reality: If Israel doesn't push for owed reparations (likely akin to those given to indigenous populations around the world - i.e. familiar), the world will watch as Israel burns slowly and painfully. My personal hope is for an iota of progress: there has never been a status quo of stability in Israel, and there's a reason for that. The world accepts two outcomes to injustice: work to rectify it slowly or partially to an unfortunate but acceptable state, or rectify it entirely. To minimize it only when convenient does not work, as injustices are done to seize or preserve power, and to undo injustice by definition would mean the return or rebalancing of power (i.e. it is inherently inconvenient).
As for my thought experiment, I stand by it, as plenty of scientists have stood by thought experiments that increase clarity to abstract scenarios and to extract and remove bias. Renter A and Renter B, and Landlord Joe have no prior biases in our minds - when you label them as Israel, Palestine, and England, they sure as hell do. BS, your response acknowledged the fact that I had omitted critical contextual points necessary to validate it, and so I tweaked it to add analogous historical context. If you had thought it did not relate whatsoever, why did you not speak up in the first iteration? Why now?
Once again, BS, you claim to be fact-driven, but you can not claim to be fact-driven if you make blanket statements (Hamas is an obstacle to peace) and ignore the subtext used to justify them (literally any statement providing nuance or refuting this notion). That's not logic: that's cherry-picking your arguments with a tunnel vision commitment to the outcome you've already decided upon. You had your mind made up prior to entering this discussion, and you manipulate, omit, or refuse to address conflicting facts, in an effort to reveal what you coin the 'truth'.
As long as people act this way on the Israeli/Palestinian topic, Israel is destined for global condemnation, violence, political and socioeconomic unrest, and impactful economic sanctions. Deal with it.
Unfortunately Benjs your very first paragraph will forever be our sticking point. It makes any analogy you post unworthy of a response. You do not believe Israel should exist as a state with Jewish sovereignty yet it will always and forever be that. It is that kind of belief which convinces the average Israeli to give up on the peace process and move to the right come election season. There can be no negotiation with someone who is completely opposed to your very existence.
In that case, Israel in its current iteration is destined to be forever fighting for its survival. To offer reparations to Palestinians is to admit that the founding was unjust. To admit that the founding was unjust is to admit that the region shouldn't be run with a notion of Jewish sovereignty. Working backwards, to refuse to question the notion of the righteousness of Jewish sovereignty is to refuse to acknowledge an unjust founding, and by extension to refuse to offer reparations to Palestinians. Once again, this is why Israel is in the midst of a self-perpetuated existential crisis, and the world (with the exception of pro-Israel lobbyists) is unlikely to care about their hardships for too much longer.
Edit: Before Netanyahu backtracked on his words the day after winning the election, he also said that there will never be a Palestinian state so long as he is in office. In this statement, and the implied notion of a Jewish-sovereign state, is Netanyahu not saying that he is opposed to the existence of Palestine? How could Hamas or the PA aspire to negotiate with him then?
On your first point...i am not against reparations necessarily but that doesn't mean they have to come with an admission of guilt. A just settlement can include a financial component
On your second point...Netanyahu is not against the existence of a Palestinian state but that he just can't possibly see one happening under current conditions. The Arab world is in absolute turmoil and is also in the middle of a confrontation with Iran. Hamas and the PA are going at each other, ISIS has declared war on Hamas, Saudi and Turkey are now fighting Assad and Iran, Hezbollah is in the mix, Egypt is fighting Hamas, never mind a whole host of other unaffiliated islamist groups that are trying to carve up their own slice of the pie! Who in god's name is Israel supposed to negotiate with right now? I honestly do not have a clue.
The one thing I do know is that the only Middle Eastern Arab with an opportunity these days is the Israeli Arab. So much for your Apartheid.
But their founding is predicated on atrocities committed on inhabitants that had been there for 2,000 years. The zionists committed war crimes in their seizing the land they occupy and call Israel since 1947. I'm willing to let that go. But before you claim the old "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and practice democracy, a shinning example on a hill" argument, remember, they accept welfare payments to the tune of $3 billion a year. The typical neocon argument, celebrate them because they work hard and prosper and want the same for everyone, unless your Arab, Muslim, Palestinian or as we saw recently, black. And they didn't do it themselves without massive amounts of resources from the US and other western powers.
What has been the return on my government's investmen?
Yosi, does Hamas not exist to champion a one-state solution and condemn Jewish sovereignty over the region (and don't get me wrong - it's inexcusable for them to champion Islamic sovereignty as well)? When they say Israel has no right to exist - that's exactly the statement they make: a state with Jewish sovereignty ought not to exist when the region houses Jews and non-Jews alike. This is relevant not only at the time of the birth of Israel, but even at the time when Zionism pinpointed this very parcel of land to situate itself on. Until then, Zionism was not a problematic concept. Israel's existence promotes an outright elitist and racist point of view through the discrepancy of treatment between conforming Jews and all others, and was outdated decades ago. Why it is accepted in the case of Israel and condemned elsewhere is beyond me.
Until Israel acknowledges this initial injustice of self-appointed Jewish sovereignty (along with the affiliated injustices that are much more tangible: inappropriate seizure of land, humiliation, mistreatment, the segregation of a people even from each other with regards to Gaza and the West Bank, discrepancy in rights provided, etc) and begins to enter damage control in tangible and meaningful ways, Israel will never have peace, and as the BDS movement grows, Israel will never have economic stability. The sanctions will become stronger. The opposition will become louder. Canada and America's indigenous populations would not be peaceful without the meagre reparations granted by our respective governments. The reparations granted to the Palestinian population at this point fall short and fluctuate around (but just barely) non-existent, occasionally adding or retracting rights or land here or there when the inactivity is more damaging than minor change, as granted by the self-perceived superior and charitable race.
This is the reality: If Israel doesn't push for owed reparations (likely akin to those given to indigenous populations around the world - i.e. familiar), the world will watch as Israel burns slowly and painfully. My personal hope is for an iota of progress: there has never been a status quo of stability in Israel, and there's a reason for that. The world accepts two outcomes to injustice: work to rectify it slowly or partially to an unfortunate but acceptable state, or rectify it entirely. To minimize it only when convenient does not work, as injustices are done to seize or preserve power, and to undo injustice by definition would mean the return or rebalancing of power (i.e. it is inherently inconvenient).
As for my thought experiment, I stand by it, as plenty of scientists have stood by thought experiments that increase clarity to abstract scenarios and to extract and remove bias. Renter A and Renter B, and Landlord Joe have no prior biases in our minds - when you label them as Israel, Palestine, and England, they sure as hell do. BS, your response acknowledged the fact that I had omitted critical contextual points necessary to validate it, and so I tweaked it to add analogous historical context. If you had thought it did not relate whatsoever, why did you not speak up in the first iteration? Why now?
Once again, BS, you claim to be fact-driven, but you can not claim to be fact-driven if you make blanket statements (Hamas is an obstacle to peace) and ignore the subtext used to justify them (literally any statement providing nuance or refuting this notion). That's not logic: that's cherry-picking your arguments with a tunnel vision commitment to the outcome you've already decided upon. You had your mind made up prior to entering this discussion, and you manipulate, omit, or refuse to address conflicting facts, in an effort to reveal what you coin the 'truth'.
As long as people act this way on the Israeli/Palestinian topic, Israel is destined for global condemnation, violence, political and socioeconomic unrest, and impactful economic sanctions. Deal with it.
Unfortunately Benjs your very first paragraph will forever be our sticking point. It makes any analogy you post unworthy of a response. You do not believe Israel should exist as a state with Jewish sovereignty yet it will always and forever be that. It is that kind of belief which convinces the average Israeli to give up on the peace process and move to the right come election season. There can be no negotiation with someone who is completely opposed to your very existence.
In that case, Israel in its current iteration is destined to be forever fighting for its survival. To offer reparations to Palestinians is to admit that the founding was unjust. To admit that the founding was unjust is to admit that the region shouldn't be run with a notion of Jewish sovereignty. Working backwards, to refuse to question the notion of the righteousness of Jewish sovereignty is to refuse to acknowledge an unjust founding, and by extension to refuse to offer reparations to Palestinians. Once again, this is why Israel is in the midst of a self-perpetuated existential crisis, and the world (with the exception of pro-Israel lobbyists) is unlikely to care about their hardships for too much longer.
Edit: Before Netanyahu backtracked on his words the day after winning the election, he also said that there will never be a Palestinian state so long as he is in office. In this statement, and the implied notion of a Jewish-sovereign state, is Netanyahu not saying that he is opposed to the existence of Palestine? How could Hamas or the PA aspire to negotiate with him then?
On your first point...i am not against reparations necessarily but that doesn't mean they have to come with an admission of guilt. A just settlement can include a financial component
On your second point...Netanyahu is not against the existence of a Palestinian state but that he just can't possibly see one happening under current conditions. The Arab world is in absolute turmoil and is also in the middle of a confrontation with Iran. Hamas and the PA are going at each other, ISIS has declared war on Hamas, Saudi and Turkey are now fighting Assad and Iran, Hezbollah is in the mix, Egypt is fighting Hamas, never mind a whole host of other unaffiliated islamist groups that are trying to carve up their own slice of the pie! Who in god's name is Israel supposed to negotiate with right now? I honestly do not have a clue.
The one thing I do know is that the only Middle Eastern Arab with an opportunity these days is the Israeli Arab. So much for your Apartheid.
Some opportunity. As long as he knows his place and doesn't get too uppity.
I disagree with this policy by the way. Like I said...I don't think BDS is effective but I don't think hate crimes should apply to those that advocate for it. I'm a big free speech guy. That includes speech I don't like. Will let my MP know that this is the wrong approach.
Bullshit. 100% bullshit and I'm gonna fucken call you out on this. If you're sooooo for free speech, then why the fuck did you make that comment about me wanting any Israel supporters to wear yellow stars just because you didn't agree with my posts? Exactly, more bullshit from BS.
How is that being against free speech? You asking for people to where their religion on their sleeve is your right. Me using...wait for it...an "anology" to show you how gross that request sounds is my right. That's how you answer speech you don't like with more speech. Free speech for everyone!
I asked 1 fucken person what religion they follow, you, and you were a pussy and didn't answer for almost a year. Simple question to see if you were a Zionist, which woukd explain why you hold those views. You comeback with that bitch ass comment towards me, and think you're cool for it. you've been getting schooled lately a lot on the boards. It's becoming comical reading your answers to questions, trying to slither your way around them. I used to think you were a troll, now I know you're just an idiot who tries to backtrack statements and what not. You go around calling some of us idiots and students, when in reality, you're the idiot that needs an education in reality. Deal with it bigot.
Utter bullshit. I doubt this will ever pass the Supreme Court if challenges as a charter violation, tho. Just pandering to his base....right BS?
Seems to be a pattern with this government. They have been losing a lot at the supreme court lately, think of all the wasted time and money. You would think the conservative base would be appalled by the wasted resources.
I'm appalled by this for sure. It's actually a complete misreading of where the (canadian) conservative base actually is. We (me?) look at free speech as "the thing". I am for the right of the BDS person as much as I am for the right of Pamela Geller or the right of Occupy Wall Street. Provided that you are not violent or invading someone else's private property then you should have the right to say whatever the hell you want without being accused of committing a Hate Crime. Speech should be answered with more speech and not arrest warrents.
Glad we are on the same page BS. Nice to find common ground. I can't really figure out where Harper makes political gains with this posture. Or is it all idealism?
It appears this Canadian Government pushing hate crimes charges is completely made up
Utter bullshit. I doubt this will ever pass the Supreme Court if challenges as a charter violation, tho. Just pandering to his base....right BS?
Seems to be a pattern with this government. They have been losing a lot at the supreme court lately, think of all the wasted time and money. You would think the conservative base would be appalled by the wasted resources.
I'm appalled by this for sure. It's actually a complete misreading of where the (canadian) conservative base actually is. We (me?) look at free speech as "the thing". I am for the right of the BDS person as much as I am for the right of Pamela Geller or the right of Occupy Wall Street. Provided that you are not violent or invading someone else's private property then you should have the right to say whatever the hell you want without being accused of committing a Hate Crime. Speech should be answered with more speech and not arrest warrents.
Glad we are on the same page BS. Nice to find common ground. I can't really figure out where Harper makes political gains with this posture. Or is it all idealism?
It appears this Canadian Government pushing hate crimes charges is completely made up
It seems that CBC ran with a story that isn't true.
That may be. But I will reserve judgement given the source you just referenced. Taking a look through the site, it looks quite biased. I trust the CBC and Neil Macdonald far more than the Harper Government and this website.
I disagree with this policy by the way. Like I said...I don't think BDS is effective but I don't think hate crimes should apply to those that advocate for it. I'm a big free speech guy. That includes speech I don't like. Will let my MP know that this is the wrong approach.
Bullshit. 100% bullshit and I'm gonna fucken call you out on this. If you're sooooo for free speech, then why the fuck did you make that comment about me wanting any Israel supporters to wear yellow stars just because you didn't agree with my posts? Exactly, more bullshit from BS.
How is that being against free speech? You asking for people to where their religion on their sleeve is your right. Me using...wait for it...an "anology" to show you how gross that request sounds is my right. That's how you answer speech you don't like with more speech. Free speech for everyone!
Simple question to see if you were a Zionist, which woukd explain why you hold those views.
You can be any religion and be a zionist. You do know that don't you? Many people think that as part of a two-state solution Israel can and should remain a jewish state. Like I said if that makes me a "zionist" then so be it. I don't think it's a dirty word.
You should really think about your words though because when you go on rants such as this it doesn't make you to different from the UCLA student council who denied Rachel Beyda's appointment to the Student Judicial Board for simply being a jew
I disagree with this policy by the way. Like I said...I don't think BDS is effective but I don't think hate crimes should apply to those that advocate for it. I'm a big free speech guy. That includes speech I don't like. Will let my MP know that this is the wrong approach.
Bullshit. 100% bullshit and I'm gonna fucken call you out on this. If you're sooooo for free speech, then why the fuck did you make that comment about me wanting any Israel supporters to wear yellow stars just because you didn't agree with my posts? Exactly, more bullshit from BS.
How is that being against free speech? You asking for people to where their religion on their sleeve is your right. Me using...wait for it...an "anology" to show you how gross that request sounds is my right. That's how you answer speech you don't like with more speech. Free speech for everyone!
Simple question to see if you were a Zionist, which woukd explain why you hold those views.
You can be any religion and be a zionist. You do know that don't you? Many people think that as part of a two-state solution Israel can and should remain a jewish state. Like I said if that makes me a "zionist" then so be it. I don't think it's a dirty word.
You should really think about your words though because when you go on rants such as this it doesn't make you to different from the UCLA student council who denied Rachel Beyda's appointment to the Student Judicial Board for simply being a jew
Being against Israel isn't always anti-semitism but some time it is.
Oh Allah, here he goes with that anti-Semitic bullshit.
Got a friend who "used" to model. Went in for a shoot. Lady in charge asks him,"Zimmerman, you wouldn't happen to be Jewish?" He says,"no, I'm German." She responds,"that's too bad." Didn't get the shoot. TRUE story. So is their such thing as reverse anti-semitism? Or are you gonna call me anti-Semitic for sharing a story about a friend of mine back in the day?
I disagree with this policy by the way. Like I said...I don't think BDS is effective but I don't think hate crimes should apply to those that advocate for it. I'm a big free speech guy. That includes speech I don't like. Will let my MP know that this is the wrong approach.
Bullshit. 100% bullshit and I'm gonna fucken call you out on this. If you're sooooo for free speech, then why the fuck did you make that comment about me wanting any Israel supporters to wear yellow stars just because you didn't agree with my posts? Exactly, more bullshit from BS.
How is that being against free speech? You asking for people to where their religion on their sleeve is your right. Me using...wait for it...an "anology" to show you how gross that request sounds is my right. That's how you answer speech you don't like with more speech. Free speech for everyone!
Simple question to see if you were a Zionist, which woukd explain why you hold those views.
You can be any religion and be a zionist. You do know that don't you? Many people think that as part of a two-state solution Israel can and should remain a jewish state. Like I said if that makes me a "zionist" then so be it. I don't think it's a dirty word.
You should really think about your words though because when you go on rants such as this it doesn't make you to different from the UCLA student council who denied Rachel Beyda's appointment to the Student Judicial Board for simply being a jew
Being against Israel isn't always anti-semitism but some time it is.
Oh Allah, here he goes with that anti-Semitic bullshit.
Got a friend who "used" to model. Went in for a shoot. Lady in charge asks him,"Zimmerman, you wouldn't happen to be Jewish?" He says,"no, I'm German." She responds,"that's too bad." Didn't get the shoot. TRUE story. So is their such thing as reverse anti-semitism? Or are you gonna call me anti-Semitic for sharing a story about a friend of mine back in the day?
Sure there is such thing as reverse anti-semitism...anyone can be a racist. And sharing the story doesn't make you anti-semitic but it probably more appropriately belongs in the "Zimmerman at it again..." thread.
Unfortunately Benjs your very first paragraph will forever be our sticking point. It makes any analogy you post unworthy of a response. You do not believe Israel should exist as a state with Jewish sovereignty yet it will always and forever be that. It is that kind of belief which convinces the average Israeli to give up on the peace process and move to the right come election season. There can be no negotiation with someone who is completely opposed to your very existence.
In that case, Israel in its current iteration is destined to be forever fighting for its survival. To offer reparations to Palestinians is to admit that the founding was unjust. To admit that the founding was unjust is to admit that the region shouldn't be run with a notion of Jewish sovereignty. Working backwards, to refuse to question the notion of the righteousness of Jewish sovereignty is to refuse to acknowledge an unjust founding, and by extension to refuse to offer reparations to Palestinians. Once again, this is why Israel is in the midst of a self-perpetuated existential crisis, and the world (with the exception of pro-Israel lobbyists) is unlikely to care about their hardships for too much longer.
Edit: Before Netanyahu backtracked on his words the day after winning the election, he also said that there will never be a Palestinian state so long as he is in office. In this statement, and the implied notion of a Jewish-sovereign state, is Netanyahu not saying that he is opposed to the existence of Palestine? How could Hamas or the PA aspire to negotiate with him then?
On your first point...i am not against reparations necessarily but that doesn't mean they have to come with an admission of guilt. A just settlement can include a financial component
On your second point...Netanyahu is not against the existence of a Palestinian state but that he just can't possibly see one happening under current conditions. The Arab world is in absolute turmoil and is also in the middle of a confrontation with Iran. Hamas and the PA are going at each other, ISIS has declared war on Hamas, Saudi and Turkey are now fighting Assad and Iran, Hezbollah is in the mix, Egypt is fighting Hamas, never mind a whole host of other unaffiliated islamist groups that are trying to carve up their own slice of the pie! Who in god's name is Israel supposed to negotiate with right now? I honestly do not have a clue.
The one thing I do know is that the only Middle Eastern Arab with an opportunity these days is the Israeli Arab. So much for your Apartheid.
So did Apartheid not exist in South Africa because many blacks in neighbouring Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Lesotho were living impoverished lives with corrupt governments and hopeless in the ways of economic growth? We are not comparing the treatment of Arabs in Israel to the treatment of Arabs in Syria (and whether it's better or worse is neither here nor there). We are comparing the treatment of Arabs in Israel's direct or indirect control to the treatment of Jews in Israel.
You may very well be right about Netanyahu's current condition opinion, but what I'll say is that there wasn't always a confrontation with Iran. There wasn't always a PA for Hamas to be butting heads with. There wasn't always an ISIS, nor an Assad. Whether there is relative peace (which is always only 'relative peace' at best in modern Middle Eastern history, I can appreciate that) or not - Netanyahu has been unwaveringly committed to there being no state of Palestine. Withholding taxes as collective punishment for Palestinians as they put themselves on a global platform to be exposed - warts and all - before the International Criminal Court, to expose injustices at the hands of Israeli leadership and gain an iota of political legitimacy is a perfect example of this.
Finally, as I said before, are reparations not by definition attempting to mend the byproducts of wrongdoings from one party unto another? How does this not imply guilt? Seems to me that this is why Netanyahu could never offer even a partial right of return (even one which maintained a vast Jewish majority in the state of Israel).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
'Bout time the Catholic Church became a fuller member of the 21st century. Progress.
I'm surprised aipac hasn't reached them yet. What gives?
Didn't you get the memo, Nart? Being part of the 21st century means acting in ways which serve your own before the rest.
Don't forget, while officially it's the first document recognizing a state of Palestine from the Vatican, this is probably a formality associated with a byproduct of the Vatican's standing support for the PLO (a governing body) pivoting to the state of Palestine (a region housing Palestinians). To me, this would be akin to a pivot from 'I support Stephen Harper' to 'I support Canada'. In one, you vouch for the government and its decisions made, in the other you vouch for the peoples' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc. etc.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Yosi, does Hamas not exist to champion a one-state solution and condemn Jewish sovereignty over the region (and don't get me wrong - it's inexcusable for them to champion Islamic sovereignty as well)? When they say Israel has no right to exist - that's exactly the statement they make: a state with Jewish sovereignty ought not to exist when the region houses Jews and non-Jews alike. This is relevant not only at the time of the birth of Israel, but even at the time when Zionism pinpointed this very parcel of land to situate itself on. Until then, Zionism was not a problematic concept. Israel's existence promotes an outright elitist and racist point of view through the discrepancy of treatment between conforming Jews and all others, and was outdated decades ago. Why it is accepted in the case of Israel and condemned elsewhere is beyond me.
Until Israel acknowledges this initial injustice of self-appointed Jewish sovereignty (along with the affiliated injustices that are much more tangible: inappropriate seizure of land, humiliation, mistreatment, the segregation of a people even from each other with regards to Gaza and the West Bank, discrepancy in rights provided, etc) and begins to enter damage control in tangible and meaningful ways, Israel will never have peace, and as the BDS movement grows, Israel will never have economic stability. The sanctions will become stronger. The opposition will become louder. Canada and America's indigenous populations would not be peaceful without the meagre reparations granted by our respective governments. The reparations granted to the Palestinian population at this point fall short and fluctuate around (but just barely) non-existent, occasionally adding or retracting rights or land here or there when the inactivity is more damaging than minor change, as granted by the self-perceived superior and charitable race.
This is the reality: If Israel doesn't push for owed reparations (likely akin to those given to indigenous populations around the world - i.e. familiar), the world will watch as Israel burns slowly and painfully. My personal hope is for an iota of progress: there has never been a status quo of stability in Israel, and there's a reason for that. The world accepts two outcomes to injustice: work to rectify it slowly or partially to an unfortunate but acceptable state, or rectify it entirely. To minimize it only when convenient does not work, as injustices are done to seize or preserve power, and to undo injustice by definition would mean the return or rebalancing of power (i.e. it is inherently inconvenient).
As for my thought experiment, I stand by it, as plenty of scientists have stood by thought experiments that increase clarity to abstract scenarios and to extract and remove bias. Renter A and Renter B, and Landlord Joe have no prior biases in our minds - when you label them as Israel, Palestine, and England, they sure as hell do. BS, your response acknowledged the fact that I had omitted critical contextual points necessary to validate it, and so I tweaked it to add analogous historical context. If you had thought it did not relate whatsoever, why did you not speak up in the first iteration? Why now?
Once again, BS, you claim to be fact-driven, but you can not claim to be fact-driven if you make blanket statements (Hamas is an obstacle to peace) and ignore the subtext used to justify them (literally any statement providing nuance or refuting this notion). That's not logic: that's cherry-picking your arguments with a tunnel vision commitment to the outcome you've already decided upon. You had your mind made up prior to entering this discussion, and you manipulate, omit, or refuse to address conflicting facts, in an effort to reveal what you coin the 'truth'.
As long as people act this way on the Israeli/Palestinian topic, Israel is destined for global condemnation, violence, political and socioeconomic unrest, and impactful economic sanctions. Deal with it.
Unfortunately Benjs your very first paragraph will forever be our sticking point. It makes any analogy you post unworthy of a response. You do not believe Israel should exist as a state with Jewish sovereignty yet it will always and forever be that. It is that kind of belief which convinces the average Israeli to give up on the peace process and move to the right come election season. There can be no negotiation with someone who is completely opposed to your very existence.
In that case, Israel in its current iteration is destined to be forever fighting for its survival. To offer reparations to Palestinians is to admit that the founding was unjust. To admit that the founding was unjust is to admit that the region shouldn't be run with a notion of Jewish sovereignty. Working backwards, to refuse to question the notion of the righteousness of Jewish sovereignty is to refuse to acknowledge an unjust founding, and by extension to refuse to offer reparations to Palestinians. Once again, this is why Israel is in the midst of a self-perpetuated existential crisis, and the world (with the exception of pro-Israel lobbyists) is unlikely to care about their hardships for too much longer.
No, to offer reparations is to admit that the founding involved injustices, which is not the same thing as it being entirely unjust. If, for example, the U.S. were to decide to pay reparations to the families of people killed in the firebombing of Dresden it wouldn't mean that it was unjust for the U.S to have fought the entire Second World War.
As for Jewish sovereignty, assuming it is predicated on a Jewish majority and is exercised with respect for minority rights, it is no less legitimate than the sovereignty of any other national majority population within a democratic society. Moreover, the notion that Jewish sovereignty is inherently problematic, which seems to be the thrust of your argument, is troubling to me. Either you categorically don't believe in the right of national groups to self-determination, or you are effectively arguing that Jews are not equally entitled to that right (actually, even worse, you'd be arguing that having already exercised that right with the blessing of the international community for the last 70-odd years they should now be stripped of it against their will).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Also, your premise that the current legitimacy of a state is determined by the "justness" of its founding makes no sense to me. The founding of the U.S. (and Canada, and most, if not all of the states in South and Central America) involved the genocide of indigenous populations. Are those states all illegitimate? Should the world boycott the U.S. until Manhattan island is returned to the remaining descendants of its original Native American inhabitants?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Yosi, regarding your first sentence, that's fine. I do personally feel the founding of the state of Israel was unjust, but that's besides the point. I would say the same about Canada's founding, for the record. I do, however, see how that kind of admission could lead to the loss of the Jewishly sovereign state of Israel, so I'm happy to edit that thought to read something along the lines you're going by - that the founding of the state of Israel "involved injustices". With this wording, reparations can be granted (i.e. damage control initialized), and Israel can remain the state with Jewish sovereignty.
Also, I wish you wouldn't pick and choose from statements I made (even in the small chunk of text you quoted me on) to tell me about my premise. My premise is that the current legitimacy of a state is determined largely by the way it recognizes the injustices occurring at its founding, in conjunction with the country's efforts to minimize damage and optimize the living situation of those on the receiving end of those initial injustices. As I said, just as has been the case through visible reparation efforts to injustice-receiving indigenous populations in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and likely others. Are these truly fair? No. Are they less unfair than the Israeli subjugation of the Palestinian population? I believe so.
I categorically do believe in a national group's right to self-determination, but it is not the end-all, be-all most critical thing to protect. For example, if one group's self-determination infringes on another group's freedoms (i.e. freedom in all the ways received by the group seeking self-determination), I feel that unless those alternative freedoms can be protected, and unless the efforts are made to check on that, the group's right to self-determination ought to be waived. Granted, I'm not naive enough to think that historically that's how it works. None of the colonial forces have ever recognized the injustices they were responsible for immediately. But time passes, and when publicly condemned, and when the affected parties speak up, all of a sudden things begin to happen to make some sort of meagre amends. In most cases except Israel.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Also, your premise that the current legitimacy of a state is determined by the "justness" of its founding makes no sense to me. The founding of the U.S. (and Canada, and most, if not all of the states in South and Central America) involved the genocide of indigenous populations. Are those states all illegitimate? Should the world boycott the U.S. until Manhattan island is returned to the remaining descendants of its original Native American inhabitants?
Come on Yosi the Indians were red faced savages that needed to be saved. We helped them!!
Ok, fair enough. Sorry if I put words in your mouth. Hate it when it's done to me. I am, however, confused. Your last post seems to suggest support for a two state solution, but your recent posts read to me as arguing for one state.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
No need for apologies - I don't think you're a malicious person, and I don't think what you did there was intentional. I'm sorry for being rude in that accusation!
Your confusion has merit, for sure. The more I think about it, the more I realize that, much to my dismay (I won't hide that fact), a Jewish identity has become the overwhelmingly predominant one in the region. Just as the landscape of all of North America would undergo a tremendous pivot if the indigenous peoples living there were granted back the land (i.e. most or all of it) that likely ought to be theirs, at the expense of the settlers who created the concept of 'Western civilization', it would be the same if this were to happen to the Jewish people. The more I think about this, and perhaps it's my own selfishness as a resident of the 'Western' North America, I question whether this would be a reasonable pivot in the name of justice, or whether to have this culture return to its origins would feel like as much of an unreasonable usurping of land and culture as the first seizure did. I'll admit I struggle with this, and I'd love to hear some other opinions on this topic.
My guess when it comes to Hamas has always been that the refusal to recognize in the interest of subdividing to create an Israeli-recognized state of Palestine would be a fear that a two-state solution would preclude seeking a one-state solution, when I feel that that is Hamas' ultimate goal. I suppose my back-and-forth between two-state and one-state has to do with the paragraph before this one. If a return to the previous state of existence in the region is with merit - then so is Hamas' end goal of a one-state solution. If it is without merit - then Hamas ought to cede the push for one-state, and begin to accept a two-state solution as a tangible effort to afford reparations to Palestinians. Just as with Canada, I would hope these reparations would likely grow more vast over time, and would not stagnate in the form of "here's some land, we're even-steven now".
I hope some of this makes sense Yosi... What I'm trying to say is that I'm struggling internally to decide what's right (i.e. a reparation process akin to that in North America vs. a recognition that Israel's founding contained injustices which can't be overlooked and the region should return to that prior harmonious state of coexistence without the label of a religion - which would in turn force all of us in a colonially settled expansionist project to question whether we have the rights to the land we live on, and the government we created after an illegitimate seizure of power). At the end of the day, this is a philosophically difficult scenario to find a solution to.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Comments
Very thoughtful post through and through. The question of double standards is difficult to answer because the truth is this conflict is full of them. Everyone on here has them and I think the best thing to do when trying to forge peace is to acknowledge that they exist and why we hold them.
My biggest difference with everyone on here is clearly how I see Hamas's role in the equation. I don't necessarily disagree with you about how they came to be but I certainly disagree with you on what they are now. They are a cancer that has metastasized, anti-semitic to the core. They seek the destruction of Israel from sea to sea and the death of jews everywhere. They are vicious to there own people as well and have no interest in providing them with the freedoms that you and I hold dear. While Israel also has their share of religious extremists their government, unlike Hamas, has the capacity to pacify any violent objectors to the peace process. It seems to me that far to many of you romanticize the actions of Hamas based on your goal of seeing a free Palestine. I find that absolutely short sighted and as I have said from the very beginning one can be for a Free Palestinian state and against Hamas at the same time. Those views do not have to be mutually exclusive. Israel will never accept Hamas as they currently exist to be a partner for peace. If you do not ask Hamas to moderate then do not ask Israel to. This is the unfortunate reality.
(Doing this from my son's drum lesson...he's no Matt Cameron)
Let me get this straight, you believe that a democratically elected government in Israel that appoints representatives and believes in a non-functioning or destruction of the Palestinian state is somehow "legitimate" or noble as opposed to a Palestinian government democratically elected
to represent one half of its state as being the obstacle to peace? Your analogy would be correct if both states were equal and clearly they are not. Comparing the two positions is like comparing mathematical equations of differing complexity, 2+2=4 is equal to the equation it takes to land 3 people on the moon. Contrary to your belief that I and others, who I won't speak for, equate the two or "excuse" Hamas' actions in a romanticized view of them, you couldn't be further from the truth. We don't condone Hamas' actions but we can understand where it's coming from and why it exists. I can't say the same for Israel as they are clearly the much stronger state. What you're asking the Palestinians to do with Hamas in Gaza is like me asking the Jewish underground in the Warsaw ghetto in 1944 to not rebel and rather, give the Nazis more time to play nice and elect a nicer representative of the ghetto's inhabitants.
Neocons, democracy is great unless I don't agree with the outcome. And to think the US has turned on the "democracy" in Palestine and Egypt and some misguided folks think we should continue to lead the way as that shining beacon on a hill. Whatever happened to "democracy is messy" as opposed to pre-determined outcomes?
It seems very simple to me, Israel, being the much stronger state, should negotiate faithfully for a two state solution as they have the ability to very quickly return to the status quo. In so doing, all or almost all of the other Middle East issues go away. But I also wonder where we'd be if the US didn't subsidize Israel to the tune of $3 billion, no strings attached, per year.
Call me an idiot racist if you want but I believe you're supporting an apartheid state.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Edit: Before Netanyahu backtracked on his words the day after winning the election, he also said that there will never be a Palestinian state so long as he is in office. In this statement, and the implied notion of a Jewish-sovereign state, is Netanyahu not saying that he is opposed to the existence of Palestine? How could Hamas or the PA aspire to negotiate with him then?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Halifax:
Let me get this straight, you believe that a democratically elected government in Israel that appoints representatives and believes in a non-functioning or destruction of the Palestinian state is somehow "legitimate" or noble as opposed to a Palestinian government democratically elected
to represent one half of its state as being the obstacle to peace? Your analogy would be correct if both states were equal and clearly they are not. Comparing the two positions is like comparing mathematical equations of differing complexity, 2+2=4 is equal to the equation it takes to land 3 people on the moon. Contrary to your belief that I and others, who I won't speak for, equate the two or "excuse" Hamas' actions in a romanticized view of them, you couldn't be further from the truth. We don't condone Hamas' actions but we can understand where it's coming from and why it exists. I can't say the same for Israel as they are clearly the much stronger state. What you're asking the Palestinians to do with Hamas in Gaza is like me asking the Jewish underground in the Warsaw ghetto in 1944 to not rebel and rather, give the Nazis more time to play nice and elect a nicer representative of the ghetto's inhabitants.
Neocons, democracy is great unless I don't agree with the outcome. And to think the US has turned on the "democracy" in Palestine and Egypt and some misguided folks think we should continue to lead the way as that shining beacon on a hill. Whatever happened to "democracy is messy" as opposed to pre-determined outcomes?
It seems very simple to me, Israel, being the much stronger state, should negotiate faithfully for a two state solution as they have the ability to very quickly return to the status quo. In so doing, all or almost all of the other Middle East issues go away. But I also wonder where we'd be if the US didn't subsidize Israel to the tune of $3 billion, no strings attached, per year.
Call me an idiot racist if you want but I believe you're supporting an apartheid state.
BS:
But Israel was not always the stronger state. They were a dirt poor nothing state that was immediately attacked by their established stronger arab neighbours. Against all obstacles they defend themselves through multiple wars and made the desert bloom. What drives their neighbors crazy is that in such a short time they have turned their state into the powerful one it is today. Instead of attacking Israel it's neigbours should learn from it. The PA gets a lot of money from the international community but they squander it daily. Hamas chooses to use their funding for tunnels and not for the betterment of their people. The "democracy" you claim they have is not the same as our's or Israel's and remaining on that path will forever leave their people in poverty. Some would argue Palestinians are kept poor by their leaders intentionally so as to forever be the victims of the little satan.
Edit- quotes broken again I think.
On your second point...Netanyahu is not against the existence of a Palestinian state but that he just can't possibly see one happening under current conditions. The Arab world is in absolute turmoil and is also in the middle of a confrontation with Iran. Hamas and the PA are going at each other, ISIS has declared war on Hamas, Saudi and Turkey are now fighting Assad and Iran, Hezbollah is in the mix, Egypt is fighting Hamas, never mind a whole host of other unaffiliated islamist groups that are trying to carve up their own slice of the pie! Who in god's name is Israel supposed to negotiate with right now? I honestly do not have a clue.
The one thing I do know is that the only Middle Eastern Arab with an opportunity these days is the Israeli Arab. So much for your Apartheid.
What has been the return on my government's investmen?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.honestreporting.ca/government-calls-neil-macdonald-israel-boycott-story-a-bizarre-conspiracy-theory/15212
It seems that CBC ran with a story that isn't true.
You should really think about your words though because when you go on rants such as this it doesn't make you to different from the UCLA student council who denied Rachel Beyda's appointment to the Student Judicial Board for simply being a jew
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.646175
Being against Israel isn't always anti-semitism but some time it is.
Got a friend who "used" to model. Went in for a shoot. Lady in charge asks him,"Zimmerman, you wouldn't happen to be Jewish?" He says,"no, I'm German." She responds,"that's too bad." Didn't get the shoot. TRUE story. So is their such thing as reverse anti-semitism? Or are you gonna call me anti-Semitic for sharing a story about a friend of mine back in the day?
You may very well be right about Netanyahu's current condition opinion, but what I'll say is that there wasn't always a confrontation with Iran. There wasn't always a PA for Hamas to be butting heads with. There wasn't always an ISIS, nor an Assad. Whether there is relative peace (which is always only 'relative peace' at best in modern Middle Eastern history, I can appreciate that) or not - Netanyahu has been unwaveringly committed to there being no state of Palestine. Withholding taxes as collective punishment for Palestinians as they put themselves on a global platform to be exposed - warts and all - before the International Criminal Court, to expose injustices at the hands of Israeli leadership and gain an iota of political legitimacy is a perfect example of this.
Finally, as I said before, are reparations not by definition attempting to mend the byproducts of wrongdoings from one party unto another? How does this not imply guilt? Seems to me that this is why Netanyahu could never offer even a partial right of return (even one which maintained a vast Jewish majority in the state of Israel).
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Don't forget, while officially it's the first document recognizing a state of Palestine from the Vatican, this is probably a formality associated with a byproduct of the Vatican's standing support for the PLO (a governing body) pivoting to the state of Palestine (a region housing Palestinians). To me, this would be akin to a pivot from 'I support Stephen Harper' to 'I support Canada'. In one, you vouch for the government and its decisions made, in the other you vouch for the peoples' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc. etc.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As for Jewish sovereignty, assuming it is predicated on a Jewish majority and is exercised with respect for minority rights, it is no less legitimate than the sovereignty of any other national majority population within a democratic society. Moreover, the notion that Jewish sovereignty is inherently problematic, which seems to be the thrust of your argument, is troubling to me. Either you categorically don't believe in the right of national groups to self-determination, or you are effectively arguing that Jews are not equally entitled to that right (actually, even worse, you'd be arguing that having already exercised that right with the blessing of the international community for the last 70-odd years they should now be stripped of it against their will).
Also, I wish you wouldn't pick and choose from statements I made (even in the small chunk of text you quoted me on) to tell me about my premise. My premise is that the current legitimacy of a state is determined largely by the way it recognizes the injustices occurring at its founding, in conjunction with the country's efforts to minimize damage and optimize the living situation of those on the receiving end of those initial injustices. As I said, just as has been the case through visible reparation efforts to injustice-receiving indigenous populations in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and likely others. Are these truly fair? No. Are they less unfair than the Israeli subjugation of the Palestinian population? I believe so.
I categorically do believe in a national group's right to self-determination, but it is not the end-all, be-all most critical thing to protect. For example, if one group's self-determination infringes on another group's freedoms (i.e. freedom in all the ways received by the group seeking self-determination), I feel that unless those alternative freedoms can be protected, and unless the efforts are made to check on that, the group's right to self-determination ought to be waived. Granted, I'm not naive enough to think that historically that's how it works. None of the colonial forces have ever recognized the injustices they were responsible for immediately. But time passes, and when publicly condemned, and when the affected parties speak up, all of a sudden things begin to happen to make some sort of meagre amends. In most cases except Israel.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Sarcasm
No need for apologies - I don't think you're a malicious person, and I don't think what you did there was intentional. I'm sorry for being rude in that accusation!
Your confusion has merit, for sure. The more I think about it, the more I realize that, much to my dismay (I won't hide that fact), a Jewish identity has become the overwhelmingly predominant one in the region. Just as the landscape of all of North America would undergo a tremendous pivot if the indigenous peoples living there were granted back the land (i.e. most or all of it) that likely ought to be theirs, at the expense of the settlers who created the concept of 'Western civilization', it would be the same if this were to happen to the Jewish people. The more I think about this, and perhaps it's my own selfishness as a resident of the 'Western' North America, I question whether this would be a reasonable pivot in the name of justice, or whether to have this culture return to its origins would feel like as much of an unreasonable usurping of land and culture as the first seizure did. I'll admit I struggle with this, and I'd love to hear some other opinions on this topic.
My guess when it comes to Hamas has always been that the refusal to recognize in the interest of subdividing to create an Israeli-recognized state of Palestine would be a fear that a two-state solution would preclude seeking a one-state solution, when I feel that that is Hamas' ultimate goal. I suppose my back-and-forth between two-state and one-state has to do with the paragraph before this one. If a return to the previous state of existence in the region is with merit - then so is Hamas' end goal of a one-state solution. If it is without merit - then Hamas ought to cede the push for one-state, and begin to accept a two-state solution as a tangible effort to afford reparations to Palestinians. Just as with Canada, I would hope these reparations would likely grow more vast over time, and would not stagnate in the form of "here's some land, we're even-steven now".
I hope some of this makes sense Yosi... What I'm trying to say is that I'm struggling internally to decide what's right (i.e. a reparation process akin to that in North America vs. a recognition that Israel's founding contained injustices which can't be overlooked and the region should return to that prior harmonious state of coexistence without the label of a religion - which would in turn force all of us in a colonially settled expansionist project to question whether we have the rights to the land we live on, and the government we created after an illegitimate seizure of power). At the end of the day, this is a philosophically difficult scenario to find a solution to.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1