A balanced Canadian approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What policy should Canada adopt regarding Israel?

  • Option 1 in the OP.

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Option 2 in the OP.

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Option 3 in the OP.

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Other answer.

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • Total voters
    13

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
What would you say would be the most balanced approach Canada ought to take to the Israeli-palestinian conflict:

1. Uphold international law, whereby we would defend Israel from foreign aggression within its pre-1967 limits, but would also defend Israel itself from occupying territory beyond those same limits. We would condemn terrorist aggression within Israel's pre-1967 limits but consider Israel's occupation of territories beyond those limits as an act of Israeli aggression.

2. Support Israel unconditionally regardless of its actions or what foreign land it may occupy.

3. Condemn the very existence of Israel.

4. Other answer.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Other Answer:

The one-state solution and the similar binational solution, are proposed approaches to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1] It is sometimes referred to as Palisra (Hebrew: פלישרא‎‎, Palisra; Arabic: فلسرا‎, Falisra)[2] or Isratin (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָטִין‎‎, Yisrātīn; Arabic: إسراطين‎, Isrātīn).[3] Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate either a single state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or a single state in Israel and the West Bank,[4][1] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1] While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

In other words start from where we are and over time evolve Israel and the occupied territories into a free and democratic state.

Israel would no longer be a "Jewish" state but a nation where everyone has the same rights and freedoms regardless of race or religion.

As far as Canada is concerned, we should expect that all nations including Israel respect international laws and treaties regarding human rights. Canada should not "unshakably" support war criminals or people responsible for crimes against humanity. Canada should put Israel on the same list of countries with Human Rights problems as Iran, The Sudan and the DRC. Canada should arrest war criminals if they set foot in Canada.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Let Israel and Palestine hammer this out for once and for all.

If that means you believe the US should stop giving Israel about 5 billion a year in arms and economic support then I agree. Otherwise this is a war between the US/Israel against the Palestinian people.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The aforementioned option ain't a pretty one, but all of this dancing around has just dragged-out the hostilities and upped the death count. It's probably going to happen anyways, so why keep punishing civilians on either side for no progress.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I like the one-state solution in principle, EAO, but you'd first have to get the Zionists out of the way and let real Jews take over on the Israeli side, and something similar would likely have to happen on the Palestinian side (Fanatics must step aside in favour of real Muslims).
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Sure... And the same in terms of the ME nations that arm Hamas

Wouldn't option 1 in the OP essentially do that in a way? After all, if the US stopped funding Israel while Iran continued funding Hizbullah et al., we'd let it happen as long as they are not attacking pre-1967 Israeli soil. Essentially it would be like the US saying that as long as the Palestinians are limiting their attacks to Israeli troops in occupied territory, it's a legitimate battle for their land back. Should such fighting eventually push Israel back to within its pre-1967 limits, then all legitimate reasons to finance Palestinian military activities would no longer be legitimate, and so should Iran continue to finance them, then the US would step up the ani on the grounds that it has played fair so why not Iran. This would put the US in a position ot say that it has indeed played fair with the Palestinians by not interfering in their battle for their homeland, but drawing the line only at attacks on pre-1967 Israeli territory.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
The biggest problem is reason is not part of the equation when it come to a pending or
out and out conflict. Reason goes out the window, and emotion takes over and that is
not objective at all. First of all, there is no easy solution because on all sides there is
no trust. Without trust step two is impossible and only actions over time establish that
key word Trust.

We need to have a West Bank State, for the Palestinians and somehow we have to
police it, to make sure that those radicals on all sides don't gain control of the state and
send everything back to step one. The area of the Middle East needs meaningful jobs
and education that is how a middle class can emerge and with it hopefully the concept
of listening to tribal witch doctors will ease somewhat. (yes that was over the top) and
meant to be. Unless we can bring the Arab world into the twenty first century progress
cannot be made. These people are content to live in the dark ages because they have
not had the opportunity to see the light as a broad spectrum of the population.

Enter the Canadian approach, that is a mystery in and of itself, we assume there is a
civilization that is modern and that is not in keeping with the facts of life here. We do not
understand the concept that a country would live in tribal relationships when they could
adopt a societal approach. The one thing we have going for us is we are polite and we
have patients to develop change over a period of time. I don't hate the Arabs or the
Muslims within it, in fact I feel sorry for them. They have not behaved in a manner that the
world accepts and their reputation is self smeared, by their actions and their statements.
On the other hand the Israelis, assume they can simply do what ever they please and the
world should side with them. Israel has to understand the Palestinians have as much right
to exist as they do, and everyone has to work toward a better future and not pay lip service
to change.
Canada has still got the reputation for being fair on the world stage whether it is true or not.
In that spirit we should be promoting peace and express a willingness to support the efforts
of all those who are looking for solutions. While some believe we have hurt our reputation in
the Arab World, I do not agree. The fact is Canadians have demonstrated they do not cut and
run, and they are a force to be reckoned with in the theatre of war. Arabs, respect this
position, we can be fair and tough at the same time. Canada is in the position to play a real
constructive role in shaping the future of the Middle East. The problem is no one on either side
can get past step one the issue of trust. Both have behaved in a manner that does not lead to
trust and there in lies the problem.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
What would you say would be the most balanced approach Canada ought to take to the Israeli-palestinian conflict:

ROFLMFAO...... non of the above because nothing about any of the solutions offered is balanced.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
lol...no, "other answer" was your way out. The first three were enough to show where your leanings are.

So where are my leanings. At first, I was tempted to vote option one. But after EAO's post on the One-state soution, I now lean more towards the other answer option myself.

So, seeing that I have not even voted yet and am still not sure which option to vote for, how can you know what my leanings are?

Seeing that I do believe in respecting international law, it goes without saying that I have to condemn Israel's occupation of territory beyond its legally recognized boundaries. That would lead me to vote option one.

But since I also think both Palestinians and Israelis could likely benefit from a one-state solution, that leads me to lean towards option 4. Seeing that even I am not sure which way to vote here, are you telling me you have a crystal ball?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
your leanings....same as eao....anti-Isreali. No surprise though.

Quote please.

When did I ever propose anything 'anti-Israel'? Unless of course opposing Israel's occupation of territory that is not recognized in international law as Israeli territory = being anti-Israeli?

Could you clarify that? Oh, and besides, if that is the case, then what about option 2 in the OP? Would that not be pro-Israeli enough for ya?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
it's the slant dumbass.

2. Support Israel unconditionally regardless of its actions or what foreign land it may occupy.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
gerry of course you have a point it is slanted but there is some things that could
be done, by adopting another solution and it is the reason I included the bit about
trust, as trust does not exist in this part of the world.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
it's the slant dumbass.

2. Support Israel unconditionally regardless of its actions or what foreign land it may occupy.

I thought it would have been obvious from context that options 2 and 3 are intended as extreme opposites of one another, one being blind support for Israel and the other blind opposition to Israel. How else would you have worded that option 2 to make it clear that it was in fact intended to represent blind support for Israel?