It is not my intention by starting this thread to state any opinion on this long standing issue but more so to gather opinions that may be more informed than my own. I've never been there, I do not know any Jewish people or Palestinians. Up until our Prime Minister made a major blunder in quoting a derivative of the American pro-Israel foreign policy position last year, the Canadian official position was never one of a "manufactured duality" where being pro-Israel equates to being anti-Palestinian or vice versa. Canadian public opinion and foreign policy has always favored a 2 state solution in the region. If this blunder remains in the public consciousness until the next election, he will be soundly defeated because of it. As the politicians and interested parties feed us with all manner of partisan and sometimes extremely biased information, those of us who recognize propaganda when we see it are left scratching our heads and wondering why some basic common sense questions are completely ignored. The first question that came to my mind is why are the Palestinians so perpetually pissed off? So much so that their society has embraced such desperate measures? The only answer I could find to these questions was in census numbers from a 60's vintage set of Encyclopedias, information that I have been able to corroborate from several other sources: (The numbers illustrated above are in thousands) To me this answers why they are so pissed, it seems that up until the time of the establishment of Israel they formed the majority in the region and as this was true for centuries, they were living there legally (by all international occupancy standards). In making this observation, it is not my intention to overlook the history of the Jewish people, I believe that the information found HERE is relatively accurate. We also cannot overlook forced immigration of the Jewish people to the region over the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a result of multiple pogroms and other organized persecutions that took place in other countries. The Zionist movement also played its part and when the aspects of religion, ancient history and cultural differences are all added to the mix, the complexity of the issue illustrates the difficulty of attempting to find a solution. I see no other solution than the 2 state solution. Can anyone shed a bit more light on this? . . . (but please spare us quotes from the bible, blatant propaganda and other irrelevancies)
1. It sure sounds like an opinion when you call someone's pro-Israel position a "blunder". With your perspective, it must be hard to separate your opinion from actual facts. Whether or not your PM's statement is a blunder is a matter of opinion. 2. The Palestinians are as you say, "pissed off" because they did not want to share the land they lived on with the Jews, so when partition and a two state solution was proposed they opposed it thinking they could fight or get a better deal. (That decision was a blunder and led them to a far worse outcome - thus the state of being pissed off) Since that time they have tried both fighting and negotiating to get a better deal. At the same time, they get a lot of verbal support from other Arab and Muslim countries, but are intentionally kept as poor pawns probably for both strategic reasons and some sort of discrimination against them mainly in other countries where they live (see Jordan, Kuwait, etc.) Nobody it seems wants to actually help build up a Palestinians society as that would make the claims for more land simply that, claims for more land. 3. They have resorted to desperate measures because after so much time there really are only two groups of Palestinians left. Those that would like to make peace with the best deal that can and move on, and those that want to do everything to fight Israel until the bitter end - death or victory. They are stuck where most of their Arab and Muslim supporters want nothing less than Israel itself. The idea of settling and growing a prosperous nation on something less than Israel or Jerusalem is unacceptable to their supporters, so rather than support the Palestinians and build on the land they have and grow the West Bank and Gaza into a prosperous society, the Palestinians are kept as poor pawns in the thinking that it is better in the long run for the cause for the Palestinians to be refugees fighting for justice than a nation simply fighting for a larger piece of land. 4. Most of the non-Muslim and non-Arab countries (The EU) simply want a deal. They say, go back to the 1967 borders and be done with it. Of course, that ignores the contentious issue of the claimed "right of return" and also the fact that Israel has had to defend itself from a bunch of countries and people sworn to its destruction who would simply take that land and then use it to continue to attack Israel. Israel, as they have done before, will trade land for peace. But when the peace part of that deal is illusive, then it is really not much of a deal. As Egypt moves tanks back into the Sinai and seeks to reopen their peace accords, one really has to wonder what keeps Israel safe when it allows its sworn enemies to have more land that it now controls? People with even a modicum of understanding of the history of warfare understand what is happening. Hope that helps you get a better grasp on the conflict.
You open by stating it is not your intention to state any opinion, which you immediately follow up with your opinon. Comedy, especially with this little gem mixed in. As if to say the pro-Israel United States has ever favored anything but a two state solution. We then follow up this opinion and an implied misrepresentation of the US position on the issue with another opinion dressed up as a question and answer which seems obvious(to you). That whole argument strikes me a bit like the Jews complaining about how the Arab population has grown in Saudi Arabia, where as the Jews used to make up a health minority before their expulsion. How ever can we roll back the clock and make all those Arab countries re-admit the Jews that used to live there and give them back their land? How can we make up for all the Jewish babies that have not been born as rightful citizens of those countries in the days since their expulsion? It is a bit like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Neither does anyone else, except for a minorty of Israelis, a majority of Palestinians, and an overwhelming number of the Arabs living near Israel. My recommendation would be to pick up a history book. As you point out, Wikipedia is relatively accurate". There is a dearth of information on the subject including less relevant information such as: population statistics for the last 2000 years population statistics prior to 0ad the myriad of empires which have ruled the area throughout recorded history There you will find more relevant information pretaining to: UN Resolution 181 Israeli acceptance and Arab rejection of the partition plan The war of 1948 The war of 1967 The birth of the PLO The evolution of the PLO from terror group to group working for a two state solution The rejection of the PLO by the Palestinian people in favor of Hamas who have written the destruction of Israel into their charter The use of Israel and anti-semitism by Arab neighbors as a political tool to make When you get done with the history, I suppose we can dig into the more touchy feely issues such as comparative analysis on how Israel has treated its Muslim minority vs how the neighbors treat their Jewish minorities, human rights records, etc, etc, etc, but if you broaden the scope of your education on the history, we really shouldn't even have to go down the path of shared moral and cultural values.
Most of what you say sounds fairly informed and I take no issue with any of it aside from point number 1. Referring to a public gaffe by our head of state who stepped outside of his mandate to re-write our established national foreign policy on the fly, is not a contradiction of my opening statement, as they are 2 completely separate issues. Nor can it be dismissed as simply an opinion to refer to a mistake on the international stage that may see him voted out of office.
It's inclusion added nothing to the topic other than your view that it was a blunder. I don't really know why it was included other than as a way for you to say you disagree with being pro-Israel. It certainly sheds no light on the conflict itself.
Is not the concession clearly stated in the OP that I was looking for opinions more informed than my own enough for you? This may come as a shock to some American citizens but the vast majority of Canadian citizens are not pro either side of the conflict. That was the point of mentioning that our official foreign policy concerning the region is neutral, that official policy is to a great extent backed by popular opinion in this country.
In the late 1800's, Jews from Europe decided to go and create a state in their "biblical homeland" . The only problem was that their "biblical homeland" was occupied by Palestinians who didn't like the idea of a Jewish state on their land. And so the Jews took up arms not just against the indigenous Palestinians but also the British who for some years had a mandate. In 1947 or 1948 .. the Jews proclaimed their state and captured as much land as they wanted by force. But not only did they do that, they also kicked out 800,000 Palestinians from this newly created Jewish state. And of-course all Palestinian property was looted by the Jews. This is why Palestinians are angry. This is why they have had a 60+ year struggle with Israel. As for your countries foreign policy, I don't know about Canada's foreign policy. But the European leaders have a guilt, they feel they owe the Jews something after the holocaust and so they blindly support Israel. And the US has the Zionist lobby and millions of wacky Christian fundamentalists who have a lot of power and are politically active.
Very true. I think the Jews should go to the UN and demand the land and citizenship they lost back from every Arab state that stole it from them in 1948 and 1967, but unfortunately, most of those Jews are are dead, as well as the people who originally threw them out. In the interest of perpetuating conflict, I think the Irish should also go back to the UN and demand North Ireland back. Throw the dirty invaders out. Is it too late to start up a car bombing campaign?
Asking that question in that manner was my attempt to simplify the issue but it is by no means all encompassing, there are so many other factors to consider on both sides. . . . . but yeah, I'd be pretty pissed too if dealt that hand.
There is no denying that the Jewish people have been historically treated horribly by a number of nations. I understand how a collective sense of guilt can creep into public sentiment and by extension into foreign policy, what I do not get is how that sentiment has remained so one sided amongst so many people for so long. My country does not harbor any of this guilt, we had nothing to do with any of it other than receiving Jewish refuges from those areas whose descendants comprise a large segment of our small national Jewish community. Most people here view the conflict as a quandary taking place on the other side of the globe. Learning more about it and specifically attempting to determine how people arrived at their opinions is a minefield in of itself. From my experiences in forums, it won't be long before someone reads the fairly innocuous OP and levies charges of antisemitism. Where their motives for doing so may not envelope the guilt you mention, it is the same type of raw emotion that stifles the asking of some questions that more and more need to be asked.
From the Israeli perspective that is not quite what happened. You can read more at the link I provided earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#Objectors.27_viewpoints But here are a couple key points: According to some sources, including Arab ones, Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. Many Arab leaders encouraged and even ordered Palestinians to evacuate the battle zone in order to make it easier for the Arab armies and fedayeen to demolish the newly found Jewish state and Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion. A 1952 memorandum submitted to the League of Arab States by the Higher Arab Committee reveals that Arab states officially agreed to take responsibility for these refugees at the height of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. However, only until such time as Israel would be destroyed. In the Middle East, none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence. It is argued a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them. the migration of refugees between Israel and the Arab World essentially constituted a population exchange. Precedent, such as the exchange of 2.5 million people between Poland and the Soviet Union, as well as the 13 million Hindus and Muslims who crossed the India-Pakistan border, showed that international law neither requires nor expects the reversal of population exchanges. Precedent does not require reversal even of one-directional refugee migrations, such as the expulsion of 900,000 Germans from Czechoslovakia following World War II. During her visit at Haïfa on May 1, 1948, Golda Meir declared: "The Jews should treat the remaining Arabs 'with civil and human equality', but 'it is not our job to worry about the return [of those who have fled]" There is a reason Israel has Arab and Muslim citizens. There goal was not to kick everyone out. They were attacked by seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel. That war was the cause of the Palestinians losing their homes, but it is not the fault of Israel acting alone. A lot of people seem to have this silly notion that Israel simply kicked out Palestinians and took over their homes, as though they were not willing combatants thinking those 7 Arab nations would prevail. Some offer silly hypotheticals about what you would do when someone took your home. If you moved out of your home so all of your friends could firebomb your neighbors house - in an attempt to take his home from him - you wouldn't expect to just be allowed to move back in any time and continue to harass him. Guys like pladecalvo want to spin some romantic tale painting the Palestinians as poor victims who homes were simply stolen by the Jews ignoring the facts that they were part and parcel of the 7 Arab states trying to take Jewish homes from the Jews. The ones who stayed, many became citizens of Israel. Those that fought or left have mostly themselves to blame for their current situation. If I recall you (and the Spaniard) already claimed that you were accused of being antisemitic on this forum. I never recalled seeing it, but it seemed more like just your ideas being challenged you prematurely stated that you had been accused of that when it actually did not happen. It seems odd to me that you keep throwing it out there. Nobody, that I have seen, has accused you of being antisemitic. I am not sure why you feel the need to defend yourself ahead of time. I've not seen you write anything remotely antisemitic. Being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel is not being antisemitic so there is no position in this issue that you could take that would make you antisemitic just by virtue of a position on this conflict. I know that I have called maybe 3 or 4 (probably the same person twice) people antisemitic on this forum over many years and many discussions. They were they few that simply went out of their way to make it clear that they hated Jews for simply being Jewish and the examples they provided proved it beyond any doubt and so I have no problem calling them out on it. Simply not agreeing with Israel does not make anyone antisemitic. Hating or discriminating against Jews simply because they are Jews is what makes one antisemitic. There are people here who do seem to hold antisemitic beliefs, stated plainly, and yet nobody bothers to call them antisemitic. It is an accusation I rarely see around here. Here is one recent example where nobody even called him antisemitic. I think his feelings about Jews are pretty clear though when he says that Egyptian Jews should be blamed for acts of Israeli Jews just because they are Jewish. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=2435600&page=2#post17492674 What would you call that logic?
Nice propaganda. Denying that Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed from their homeland in 1948 and 1967 is like denying the holocaust. A great book has been written on the subject so that nobody has to rely on garbage spewed by people like you.
I was citing one part of this page. There is obviously more than one view of the events that occurred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return
Did you really think the Jews would admit to kicking out 800,000 Palestinians ? Use your brain. Kicking out the Palestinians has always been one of the main Zionist goals. In 1938 David Ben-Gurion stated, 'I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it." David Ben Gurion was the founder of Israel. Once the compulsory transfer of Palestinians partly succeeded, the Jews have always denied that compulsory transfer took place, this is because they are liars and criminals.
If there was a vacant house across the road from your house would you want it given it to the family known for peace or the family wanting to blow up western civilisations, kill all gays and treat its people like shit. Why would the western world vote to send itself backwards 1000 years, if it had a choice that is? That's the quandry the world is in imho.
You've recalled what I said incorrectly. My lament of being accused of antisemitism was in reference to experiences on other forums (one of the main reasons I am on this forum now). The point of saying it is that in the age of political correctness it has become an overused ploy by far too many people to stifle inquiries and discussion on this topic. I know that I have not made any antisemitic comments, I would actually have to know a single Jewish person first before developing any form of bias, favorable or otherwise towards them. You will notice that I put a portion of your words in bold in the above quotation, I agree with that statement but do want to make it clear that I am neutral (ambivalent may be a better word). The motivation for asking questions about the conflict is that the very real possibility exists of escalation to the point of involving other countries and we are western allies. If that scenario ever developed, it is my hope that our government shows the same common sense they showed when asked to invade Iraq.
So you would want Canada to show restraint and stay out of it if all of Israel's neighbors manged to successfully invade? Did you feel the same way about Canada's support for defending Kuwait in 91?
Maybe you would, but many people have been taught to hate Jews in by their religious leaders and their society as a whole and grow to hate people they have never met. There have been examples posted in this forum of children's shows teaching hatred of Jews. If you do not know about this teaching of hate then you are keeping yourself ignorant. I love the idea of being neutral and open to all sides and all facts. But that does not mean one should simply give equal credence to both side of an issue. That is utter nonsense and yet it seems to be what some people feel is required. I have always stated that I believe there should be a Palestinian state. I just also happen to think Israel does not need to be a party in its own destruction at the hands of those who openly proclaim their goal is its destruction. When one really evaluates what is happening now, the history of the various parties and their actions and positions, then you realize the devil is in the details. Everybody agrees that the Palestinians should have a state. So what is the hold up? It is the very existence of Israel that most "pro-Palestinians" (and I use that term to describe not the Palestinians themselves but most of their Arab and Muslim supporters) insist on demanding "right of return" which would turn Jews into a minority in Israel. Why in the world would Israel accept that when history has, over the same period the Palestinians have been trying to get a state, Jews have been kicked out of nearly every Arab and Muslim nation - with no world outcry, no demand for their return, no demand for compensation. The safety of Israel depends on it being able to decide who and who is not going to be a citizen. The so called acknowledgement that Israel is to be recognized as a Jewish state. Something that most Arab and Muslims cannot or will not do. So, if I were Israel I would keep the status quo until they acknowledged my right to exist. Without that, they would be negotiating their own demise. I really feel badly for the Palestinians themselves - most of them just want to live in peace, and have a better life for them and their families. They are really stuck as pawns in a large war between Islam and Israel. The countries that want to keep fighting Israel use the Palestinians as pawns and will keep them that way as long as it serves their purpose. Please tell my why in the world Israel would want to keep Palestinians as refugees? How does that benefit them? They want Palestinians to be responsible for themselves, their land, their people - so long as it is not a threat to Israel.