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

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Forcibly converted? While it's true that some Muslim states did conquer land in less than ethical ways, and while it's true that they often taxed non-Muslims slightly more than Muslims, they were also known to guarantee freedom of religion for the 'Ahl-al-kitab', including Christians and Jews, and even sometimes financed the construction of churches and synagogues in poorer communities.

So while there may be some truth as far as equal treatment goes, forced conversion is a little rich of a claim.

Islam today has become much more corrupted than in the past. It wasn't quite as bad historically. Islam had become corrupted early, and has since become worse, but let's still try to maintain historical accuracy.

Islam actually was much better and tolerant of other religions and cultures after they were conquered in the past. Ok, forced conversion is more of a modern term. Wonder what ever happened to the "Constitution of Medina" They actually had "good old days" when it was the law.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Islam actually was much better and tolerant of other religions and cultures after they were conquered in the past. Ok, forced conversion is more of a modern term. Wonder what ever happened to the "Constitution of Medina" They actually had "good old days" when it was the law.

I'd forgotten about that constitution. Good point though. While non-Muslims did have to pay slightly higher taxes, they did have the flip side of not having to participate in wars whereas Muslims had to, and again, Christians and Jews, or at least poorer Christians and Jewish communities, could have the construction of their churches and synagogues financed by the state. So looking at it that way, it probably broke more or less even in the end.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
As far as I am concerned, considering the 6 day war was an outside attack on Israel, Israel should be allowed the land it annexed in it's defense against the aggressors. Which means Israel get's Gaza, the west bank, and the Sinai and the Golan Heights.

That conflict was preemptively commenced by Israel. That is a fact admitted by the Israeli general staff serving at the time. Israel gets nothing in free Palestine.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
That conflict was preemptively commenced by Israel. That is a fact admitted by the Israeli general staff serving at the time. Israel gets nothing in free Palestine.

Any links to that? From my understanding, the Israelis were responding to a legitimate attack. My issue though is not with Israel's defensive response to the attacks but rather its unilateral annexation of foreign land civilians resided in and the decades of problems that caused for both sides.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
My understanding is that the 6 day war started with an Israeli attack against the Egyptian air force.

Operation Focus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egyptian ground forces were soon routed as Israel controlled the skies. Many Egyptian soldiers surrendered only to be forced at gun point to dig their own graves:

http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951002/middleeast.html

YouTube - Operation Focus - 05 Jun 07 - Part 2

Now, try and be sensible. Israel is a tiny country. Nassar booted our peacekeepers, and began moving troops towards Israel........Israel had no choice. Pre-emptive strike would NOT have happened had they NOT been threatened with war.

He who strikes first, strikes best.

You've never been in so much as a strreet fight, have you?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,692
14,384
113
Low Earth Orbit
"Pre-emptive strike" I like cute terms like that. It rank rights up there with "surgical bombing" and "winning the hearts and minds".

Would you go to a surgeon that used bombs?
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Now, try and be sensible. Israel is a tiny country. Nassar booted our peacekeepers, and began moving troops towards Israel........Israel had no choice. Pre-emptive strike would NOT have happened had they NOT been threatened with war.

He who strikes first, strikes best.

You've never been in so much as a strreet fight, have you?

I wasn't making a judgment. Just stating the facts.

Here is another example of a pre-emptive airstrike:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Background_to_conflict

If I understand that situation, the US also provoked the Japanese with a general embargo followed by an oil embargo, which threatened to cripple the Japanese economy. However that day lives in infamy, whereas the day Israel attacked its neighbors in 1967 remains commonly mispercieved as an act of self defense in response to an unprovoked Arab attack.
 
Last edited:

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I wasn't making a judgment. Just stating the facts.

Here is another example of a pre-emptive airstrike:
Attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I understand that situation, the US also provoked the Japanese with a general embargo followed by an oil embargo, which threatened to cripple the Japanese economy. However that day lives in infamy, whereas the day Israel attacked its neighbors in 1967 remains commonly mispercieved as an act of self defense.

There is a HUGE difference.....the USA was not on the way to attack Japan.

There is no misconception, except in the minds of those that would have preferred the Jews slaughtered.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I prefer that nations resolve their differences peacefully through diplomacy. Unlike some here on this forum, I have no wish to see people slaughtered, regardless of race or religion. I condemn all war crimes and war criminals equally. I don't hypocritically support some war criminals and condemn others.

The fact is that the mass graves found in the Sinai from this war are filled with bones of Egyptian POWs, not Israeli ones. Its a fact that Egyptian POWs were given shovels, ordered to dig a hole and when they were done, their reward was a bullet in the back of the head.
http://www1.umassd.edu/specialprograms/mideastaffairs/witness2.htm
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/836/op8.htm

Slaughtering POWs is a war crime.

In 1940, the US imposed an economic and oil embargo imposed against Japan, and increased their forces to the Philippines. Japan interpreted these acts as hostile and launched a pre-emptive air strike against the US..

In 1967, Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and increased their forces in the Sinai. Israel interpreted these acts as hostile and launched a pre-emptive air strike against Egypt.
 
Last edited:

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I prefer that nations resolve their differences peacefully through diplomacy. Unlike some here on this forum, I have no wish to see people slaughtered, regardless of race or religion. I condemn all war crimes and war criminals equally. I don't hypocritically support some war criminals and condemn others.

The fact is that the mass graves found in the Sinai from this war are filled with bones of Egyptian POWs, not Israeli ones. Its a fact that Egyptian POWs were given shovels, ordered to dig a hole and when they were done, their reward was a bullet in the back of the head.
Mass Graves
Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | How to prosecute Israel

Slaughtering POWs is a war crime.

In 1940, the US imposed an economic and oil embargo imposed against Japan, and increased their forces to the Philippines. Japan interpreted these acts as hostile and launched a pre-emptive air strike against the US..

In 1967, Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and increased their forces in the Sinai. Israel interpreted these acts as hostile and launched a pre-emptive air strike against Egypt.

Oh, and i Suppose the Japs were in China buying Silk. Gimme a ****ing break, learn some history. The small reinforcements the USA sent to the Philippines were no threat to the Japanese islands .....the distance between Manila and Tokyo is 3000 kilometers.....GEEZUS!!!!! To compare that with the Egyptians massing troops a few dozen kilometers from Israel is ludicrous. Simply idiotic.

The Japanese were an expansive, fascist state of murderous intent.....they murdered prisoners not by the hundreds, but by the hundreds of thousands. There simply is no comparison with Israel.....More than 350,000 Chinese POWs were murdered by the Japs, as many as 200.000 civilians were murdered in Nanking alone in just a few weeks...........give it a break.

Now, if the Egyptians, no friend of the Israelis, have evidence of mass murders, that evidence being in Egyptian hands........why has it not been produced?

the mass execution of POWs is unacceptable. And should be investigated.....I'm sure the Egyptians can do that......why has it taken them 30 years???? (Since they got the Sinai back)

Which is, in any case, irrelevant to the discussion. The question was: Was Israel threatened with attack from the Egyptian military?

The answer is a resounding and irrefutable YES!

Therefore pre-emptive strikes were justified......

The Americans were going to attack Japan from the Philippines....just too funny........

Military history of the Philippines during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Colpy - So based upopn your theory that pre-emptive strikes are ok I can start bombing you because I think you and you neocon brotherhood are about to attack my paycheck and my freedom, or more realistically, its ok for that guy in the bar to beat the crap out of you because he thought you might hit him. That defense doesn't hold water in a courtroom.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Colpy - So based upopn your theory that pre-emptive strikes are ok I can start bombing you because I think you and you neocon brotherhood are about to attack my paycheck and my freedom, or more realistically, its ok for that guy in the bar to beat the crap out of you because he thought you might hit him. That defense doesn't hold water in a courtroom.

Who gives a crap if it holds water in a courtroom???

International Law is a complete joke. The entire concept is a non-starter.

Each nation does, and will, behave in its own interests, or as it sees fit in relation to other nations.

If I became convinced that my survival or that of any of my family depended on my acting in a pre-emptive manner against someone......they would never know what hit them.

BTW, I'm not a neocon.

Not even close.

In fact, I am a liberal, with libertarian leanings......kinda like a heavily-armed Mohatma Gandhi. :)
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Who gives a crap if it holds water in a courtroom???

International Law is a complete joke. The entire concept is a non-starter.

Each nation does, and will, behave in its own interests, or as it sees fit in relation to other nations.

If I became convinced that my survival or that of any of my family depended on my acting in a pre-emptive manner against someone......they would never know what hit them.

BTW, I'm not a neocon.

Not even close.

In fact, I am a liberal, with libertarian leanings......kinda like a heavily-armed Mohatma Gandhi. :)

A heavily armed Gandhi - I love it.


I would think though that as a libertarian you would be more inclined to keep out of others business yet you seem to be behind most of the armed conflict going on these days. You really do come across as an American loving conservitive.

Armed Gandhi....LOL
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Now, try and be sensible. Israel is a tiny country. Nassar booted our peacekeepers, and began moving troops towards Israel........Israel had no choice. Pre-emptive strike would NOT have happened had they NOT been threatened with war.

He who strikes first, strikes best.

You've never been in so much as a strreet fight, have you?

Nobody but a zionist would respect a low cowardly sucker puncher. Israelis are sewer fighters not street fighters.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Mubarak was on the US/Israeli payroll. Now that it appears like the Egyptian people are finally going to control their own country, I expect they will raise the issue of Israel executing Egyptian POWs at some point in the future.

In 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal on the western side of the Sinai Peninsula, and thereafter prohibited Israeli ships from using the Canal, owing to the continuing state of war between the two states. Egypt also prohibited ships traveling to and from Israel from using Egyptian territorial waters on the eastern side of the Peninsula, effectively imposing a blockade on the Israeli port of Eilat. Subsequently, Israeli forces, aided by Britain, and France (which sought to reverse the nationalization and regain control over the Suez Canal), invaded Sinai and occupied much of the Peninsula within a few days (see Suez Crisis). Several months later, following strong pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union, Israel withdrew its forces from Sinai. Thereafter, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was stationed in Sinai to prevent renewed conflict between the two states in Sinai.

In 1967, Egypt reinforced its military presence in Sinai and renewed the blockade of Eilat. The purpose of that deployment was most likely about taking back control of the Sinai, not invading Israel since on May 16 Egypt ordered the UNEF out of Sinai and Secretary-General U Thant eventually complied and ordered the withdrawal.

I'm sure that many Egyptians soldiers near the Israeli border made Israel nervous, especially given the Nasser's rhetoric and posturing. But the Israelis knew Egypt wasn't ready for a war with them in 1967. Most of Egypt's military was bogged down in the Yemen civil war at the time. If Egypt was really preparing to invade Israel rather than just taking back control of the Sinai, likely they would have pulled out of Yemen first.

BTW, I'm not condemning Israel for their "preemptive" attack against Egypt. War with Egypt was inevitable. Egypt occupied the Sinai in an awkward uncoordinated manner. Israel saw an opportunity to kick Egypt in the nuts, and didn't hesitate. All is fair in love and war, so they say. My point was that Israel initiated the 1967 war, not their Arab neighbors.

I'm also not condemning Japan for their "preemptive" attack against in the US. I will condemn Imperial Japan for their brutal occupation of China, Vietnam, the Philippines, the rape of Nanjing and other cities... and all the other atrocities they committed. But the Pearl Harbour attack was limited to strictly military targets. The US was threatening Japan's domination of the far east. Japan's economy was and still is completely dependent on import oil and most other raw materials. The American economic embargo seriously disrupted the Japanese economy and was an act war. The US arrogantly thought the Japanese would never dare to initiate a war with them and left themselves vulnerable to attack, just like the Egyptians did in 1967. Just like Israel, Japan's leaders saw an opportunity to kick the US in the nuts and they didn't hesitate.

All's fair in Love and War. Japan, like Israel has the right to initiate war. Japan was eventually crushed. Meanwhile Israel continues to commit atrocities.
 
Last edited:

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Mubarak was on the US/Israeli payroll. Now that it appears like the Egyptian people are finally going to control their own country, I expect they will raise the issue of Israel executing Egyptian POWs at some point in the future.

In 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal on the western side of the Sinai Peninsula, and thereafter prohibited Israeli ships from using the Canal, owing to the continuing state of war between the two states. Egypt also prohibited ships traveling to and from Israel from using Egyptian territorial waters on the eastern side of the Peninsula, effectively imposing a blockade on the Israeli port of Eilat. Subsequently, Israeli forces, aided by Britain, and France (which sought to reverse the nationalization and regain control over the Suez Canal), invaded Sinai and occupied much of the Peninsula within a few days (see Suez Crisis). Several months later, following strong pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union, Israel withdrew its forces from Sinai. Thereafter, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was stationed in Sinai to prevent renewed conflict between the two states in Sinai.

In 1967, Egypt reinforced its military presence in Sinai and renewed the blockade of Eilat. The purpose of that deployment was most likely about taking back control of the Sinai, not invading Israel since on May 16 Egypt ordered the UNEF out of Sinai and Secretary-General U Thant eventually complied and ordered the withdrawal.

I'm sure that many Egyptians soldiers near the Israeli border made Israel nervous, especially given the Nasser's rhetoric and posturing. But the Israelis knew Egypt wasn't ready for a war with them in 1967. Most of Egypt's military was bogged down in the Yemen civil war at the time. If Egypt was really preparing to invade Israel rather than just taking back control of the Sinai, likely they would have pulled out of Yemen first.

BTW, I'm not condemning Israel for their "preemptive" attack against Egypt. War with Egypt was inevitable. Egypt occupied the Sinai in an awkward uncoordinated manner. Israel saw an opportunity to kick Egypt in the nuts, and didn't hesitate. All is fair in love and war, so they say. My point was that Israel initiated the 1967 war, not their Arab neighbors.

I'm also not condemning Japan for their "preemptive" attack against in the US. I will condemn Imperial Japan for their brutal occupation of China, Vietnam, the Philippines, the rape of Nanjing and other cities... and all the other atrocities they committed. But the Pearl Harbour attack was limited to strictly military targets. The US was threatening Japan's domination of the far east. Japan's economy was and still is completely dependent on import oil and most other raw materials. The American economic embargo seriously disrupted the Japanese economy and was an act war. The US arrogantly thought the Japanese would never dare to initiate a war with them and left themselves vulnerable to attack, just like the Egyptians did in 1967. Just like Israel, Japan's leaders saw an opportunity to kick the US in the nuts and they didn't hesitate.

All's fair in Love and War. Japan, like Israel has the right to initiate war. Japan was eventually crushed. Meanwhile Israel continues to commit atrocities.


Good post.....up until the last six words.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Unlike you Colpy, I don't support these activities:

-abducting children and then forcing them at gun point to block bullets and search for booby traps
-shooting at ambulances and bombing hospitals
-using CWs and heavy artillery in densely populated areas
-herding 50 men, women and children (essentially a neighborhood) into a single building and then bombing it. Later shooting at ambulances and medics who came to evacuate the wounded. After 4 days, the medics were finally able to evacuate the wounded, and they found wounded children near death from dehydration next to their mother's corpses.
-interfering with the delivery of food and medical humanitarian aid to the point where malnutrition and disease has become rampant.
-deliberate destruction of farmland, food production facilties, water and sewage treatment facilities
-deliberate destruction of universities and schools
-attacking civilian bomb shelters

and so on... read the reports. Israel's ongoing atrocities are well documented and supported by conclusive evidence:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/factfindingmission.htm
and
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/015/2009/en
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Unlike you Colpy, I don't support these activities:

-abducting children and then forcing them at gun point to block bullets and search for booby traps
-shooting at ambulances and bombing hospitals
-using CWs and heavy artillery in densely populated areas
-herding 50 men, women and children (essentially a neighborhood) into a single building and then bombing it. Later shooting at ambulances and medics who came to evacuate the wounded. After 4 days, the medics were finally able to evacuate the wounded, and they found wounded children near death from dehydration next to their mother's corpses.
-interfering with the delivery of food and medical humanitarian aid to the point where malnutrition and disease has become rampant.
-deliberate destruction of farmland, food production facilties, water and sewage treatment facilities
-deliberate destruction of universities and schools
-attacking civilian bomb shelters

and so on... read the reports. Israel's ongoing atrocities are well documented and supported by conclusive evidence:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/factfindingmission.htm
and
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/015/2009/en

Once again I will point out the over-riding fact that belies your protests....

In Operation Cast Lead, of which you speak, the IDF killed 1418 people, according to Palestinian sources.

In Operation Cast Lead, roughly one half of all Palestinian dead were militants: the operation crippled the Hamas military wing, and that according to HAMAS.

In modern conflict, the average ration of civilian:military death is 10:1 .

In other words, in a concerted attack on the most densely populated place on earth, against an enemy that routinely hides among the people, the IDF scored a huge success while keeping civilian casualties to ONE TENTH the average in modern military operations.

That, my friend, is not atrocity, it is humane and responsible action.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON