Meanwhile back in Israel

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dignin said:

This is crazy, we really need to get rid of this government.


Ottawa considering hate charges against those who boycott Israel.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-considering-hate-charges-against-those-who-boycott-israel-1.3067497

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

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.

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.

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

This is crazy, we really need to get rid of this government.


Ottawa considering hate charges against those who boycott Israel.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-considering-hate-charges-against-those-who-boycott-israel-1.3067497

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

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.646175

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.

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

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).

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.

yosi said:

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!!


Sarcasm

Yosi,

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.