Baird Lambasts Proponents of Palestinian UN Bid

[darkbeaver]

I realize that. Now order the dammed Pizza - Double pepperoni and extra Cheese - not that mozza crap - the good cheese.

I will have nothing to do with damned Pizza. Isn't it enough that my hand and my eyesight fail in tandem for my transgressions.

Right. It only took you 4 years to figure it out. You should cut back on the dope.

Me cutting back won't improve you're stuff bear. You should join me in the arms of the green one, let yourself become one with the sweet smoke, you must be tired of the fart you impersonate.

I came into the office an hour ago looking for papers. How did you get here?

 

[CDNBear]

Me cutting back won't improve you're stuff bear.

No thanks, I'll leave delusional stupors to you.

You should join me in the arms of the green one, let yourself become one with the sweet smoke, you must be tired of the fart you impersonate.

That is a bald faced lie, I have never impersonated you.

 

[darkbeaver]

No thanks, I'll leave delusional stupors to you.

That is a bald faced lie, I have never impersonated you.[/QUOT

So, I'll like go out in the shed and smoke a large. So I'll be back in an hour to give you another shot.

 

[CDNBear]

So, I'll like go out in the shed and smoke a large. So I'll be back in an hour to give you another shot.

You do that. Although I bet your aim is still off then too.

 

[Machjo]

Not true. It's tax deductible.

Besides that, any Chartered school, receives funding from Provincial coffers, per student, as mandated by the Ontario education act.

So how do you explain this:

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - Canada

So, should the government reimburse Mr. Waldman on the grounds that had a publicly funded Jewish school existed on the same basis as catholic schools, that he would not have had to pay out of pocket?

Or do you believe Catholics ought to have a special treatment?

 

[captain morgan]

So how do you explain this:

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - Canada

So, should the government reimburse Mr. Waldman on the grounds that had a publicly funded Jewish school existed on the same basis as catholic schools, that he would not have had to pay out of pocket?

Or do you believe Catholics ought to have a special treatment?

Get over it already... What you consider 'equal' is that society is somehow obligated to build, operate and fund a facility for each and every group that expresses an interest.

The fact is this: Waldman did get to write-off the majority of the tuition, didn't he? And if you decide to go back and read what both CDNBear and Petros posted, you'll see that the facility/infrastructure component was/is not reimbursed BUT that the student funding was covered.

Get off of yer I-hate-Catholics horse already and move on.

 

[Machjo]

Get over it already... What you consider 'equal' is that society is somehow obligated to build, operate and fund a facility for each and every group that expresses an interest.

The fact is this: Waldman did get to write-off the majority of the tuition, didn't he? And if you decide to go back and read what both CDNBear and Petros posted, you'll see that the facility/infrastructure component was/is not reimbursed BUT that the student funding was covered.

Get off of yer I-hate-Catholics horse already and move on.

Boy you're dense. It has nothing to do with hatred towards catholics, but rather the principle of equality for all religious communities, without preference given to any given community. the point is, had he been granted teh same access to a jewish public school just as Catholics have in Ontario, he would not have had to pay one cent. Clearly that's unfair.

I'm saying, what applies to one applies to all, and what does not apply to one applies to none. if you can't understand that basic consept, no wonder we get the governments we get.

 

[Goober]

So back on topic

Charles Krauthammer: A Palestinian invitation to suicide | Full Comment | National Post

While diplomatically inconvenient for the western powers, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ attempt to get the UN to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread sympathy. After all, what choice did he have? According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and continues to build settlements.

It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby creating Israel’s first national consensus for a two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months — something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.

To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out when the freeze expired. Last week he reiterated that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is not just absurd. It violates every prior peace agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition.

Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called “right of return,” which would demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning the world’s only Jewish state into the world’s 23rd Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as recently as last week in New York: “We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”

Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider:

* Camp David, 2000. At a U.S.-sponsored summit, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza — and, astonishingly, the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem. Arafat refuses — and makes no counteroffer, thereby demonstrating his unseriousness about making any deal. Instead, within two months, he launches a savage terror war that kills a thousand Israelis.

* Taba, 2001. An even sweeter deal — the Clinton Parameters — is offered. Arafat walks away again.

* Israel, 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands — 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps), Palestinian statehood, the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine. And incredibly, he offers to turn over the city’s holy places, including the Western Wall — Judaism’s most sacred site, its Kaaba — to an international body on which sit Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Did Abbas accept? Of course not. If he had, the conflict would be over and Palestine would already be a member of the United Nations.

This is not ancient history. All three peace talks occurred over the past decade. And every one completely contradicts the current mindless narrative of Israeli “intransigence” as the obstacle to peace.

Settlements? Every settlement remaining within the new Palestine would be destroyed and emptied, precisely as happened in Gaza.

So why did the Palestinians say no? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state on what they consider the Muslim patrimony.

The key word here is “final.” The Palestinians are quite prepared to sign interim agreements, like Oslo. Framework agreements, like Annapolis. Cease-fires, like the 1949 armistice. Anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all — while leaving a Jewish state still standing.

After all, why did Abbas go to the UN last week? For nearly half a century, the United States has pursued a Middle East settlement on the basis of the formula of land for peace. Land for peace produced the Israel-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace three times since. And been refused every time.

Why? For exactly the same reason Abbas went to the UN last week: to get land without peace. Sovereignty with no reciprocal recognition of a Jewish state. Statehood without negotiations. An independent Palestine in a continued state of war with Israel.

This is the reason that, regardless of who is governing Israel, there has never been peace. Territorial disputes are solvable; existential conflicts are not.

Land for peace, yes. Land without peace is nothing but an invitation to suicide.

 

[earth_as_one]

Reflections on the Abbas Speech to the UN General Assembly
Thursday, 29 September 2011 16:01
By Richard Falk

There is a natural disposition for supporters of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination to suppose that the Palestinian statehood bid must be a positive initiative because it has generated such a frantic Israel effort to have it rejected. Despite the high costs to American diplomacy in the Middle East at this time of regional tumult and uncertainty, the United States has committed itself to exercise its veto on Israel’s behalf if that turns out to be necessary. To avoid the humiliation of disregarding the overwhelming majority opinion of most governments in the world, the United States has rallied the former European colonial powers to stand by its side, while leaning on Bosnia and Colombia to abstain, thereby hoping to deny Palestine the nine votes it needs for a Security Council decision without technically casting a veto. On the side of Palestinian statehood one finds China, Russia, India, South Africa, Brazil, Lebanon, Nigeria, and Gabon, the leading countries of the South, the main peoples previously victimized by colonial rule. Is not a comparison of these geopolitical alignments sufficient by itself to resolve the issue of taking sides on such a litmus test of political identity? The old West versus the new South!

Add to this the drama, eloquence, and forthrightness of Mahmoud Abbas’s historic speech of 23 September to the General Assembly that received standing ovations from many of the assembled delegates. Such a favorable reception was reinforced by its contrast with the ranting polemic delivered by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who insulted the UN by calling it ‘the theater of the absurd’ while offering nothing of substance that might make even mildly credible his strident rhetoric claim to support ‘peace,’ ‘direct negotiations.’ and ‘a Palestinian state.’ The deviousness of Netanyahu was made manifest when a few days later the Israeli Government announced that it had approved 1,100 additional housing units in the major East Jerusalem settlement of Gilo. This was a bridge too far even Hilary Clinton who called the move ‘counter-productive’ and Europeans regarded as deeply disappointing and confidence-destroying, so much so that Netanyahu was openly asked to reverse the decision. There are a variety of other indications that additional settlement expansion and ethnic cleansing initiatives will be forthcoming in the weeks ahead. Are not such expressions of Israeli defiance that embarrasses even their most ardent governmental supporter enough reason by itself to justify a Security Council recommendation of Palestine statehood at this time? Would it not be worthwhile at this crucial moment to demonstrate the wide chasm separating increasing global support for the pursuit of justice on behalf of the Palestinian people from this domestically driven American reliance on its ultimate right of veto to block Palestinain aspirations? Would it not be well to remind Americans across the country, including even its captive Congress, that its own Declaration of Independence wisely counseled ‘a decent respect for the opinions of mankind’? If ever the use of the veto seems ill-advised and deeply illegitimate, it is in this instance, which the Obama Administration seems to acknowledge, or otherwise why would it use its leverage to induce allies and dependent states to go along with its opposition to Palestinian membership in the UN?

Turning to the speech itself, the language of recognition may be more notable than the substance. Never before in an international forum had the voice of the Palestinian Authority spoke of Israel’s occupation policies so unabashedly–as ‘colonial,’ as involving ‘ethnic cleansing,’ as imposing an unlawful ‘annexation wall,’ as creating a new form of ‘apartheid.’ With admirable directness, Israel was accused of carrying out the occupation in a manner that violated fundamental rules of international humanitarian law, and cumulatively amounted to the commission of crimes against humanity....

Reflections on the Abbas Speech to the UN General Assembly

 

[CDNBear]

I would have given that post a thumbs up, if that last erroneous paragraph was omitted.

What a shame. It was almost a well written Op/Ed piece.

 

[captain morgan]

Boy you're dense. It has nothing to do with hatred towards catholics, but rather the principle of equality for all religious communities, without preference given to any given community. the point is, had he been granted teh same access to a jewish public school just as Catholics have in Ontario, he would not have had to pay one cent. Clearly that's unfair.

I'm saying, what applies to one applies to all, and what does not apply to one applies to none. if you can't understand that basic consept, no wonder we get the governments we get.

Yeah, sure buddy... The optics in your posts just reek of anti-Catholicism and nothing more... If it wasn't the non-issue of separate vs public schools, you'd find another issue to piss and moan about and place the Catholics squarely in the cross-hairs.

 

[Nationhood]

I'm not a huge fan of Baird, or Canada's position on Palestinian Statehood. But when he called out the UN, I felt a sense of pride, I haven't felt in a long time.

Weird, because I felt completely disgusted. That speech was a despicable piece of hypocritical and rubbish propaganda. Of course, he brings up how we support freedom always (when's the last time we genuinely kept the peace in a country?), and that we're so noble and all that. Flaunting our stuff, of course. But then he goes to specifically exclude Palestine from a country and Palestinians as a people we should support.

Because terrorism. I do not want to deny that Palestinians have committed acts of terrorism and violence to Israel, because they have, and it's morally unjustifiable, naturally. But, you have to look at the context of Palestine. Yes, CDNBear, Gaza and the West Bank are occupied by Israel. There's no disputing that, the only thing we could debate with more certainity, is the ramifications of said occupation. Putting people in desperate and vile situations - which Israel is doing to Palestine - causes violent reactions and outbursts. That's inevitably, and understandable if you know the history and context.

Evidence time: http://www.secession.net/palestinianlandloss.jpg This picture shows the progression of Zionist/"Israeli" expansion. Which, just so happens, is in violation of international law and previous peace treaties.

Gaza is not occupied, they denied themselves their own state, a terrorist group as a gov't is not legitimate...

You're wrong about them not being occupied, so I'll move on to the more specious and misleading part. Why don't you consider what Israel has been doing to Palestine to be 'terrorism'? How come Israel can kill far more Palestinians, and not get coined as terrorists as well?

He's denouncing the bid simply because of Israel which I don't think is reasonable.

CDNbear, you rejected this. That seems silly. Let's take a look at the record of the Harper Conservatives.
Harper says he'll always stand on the side of Israel, hmm.

The Conservatives form an anti-anti-Israel criticism commission, and signed a protocol that actively denounces and (perhaps?) peruses those who do. I repeat, the Conservatives are supporting stifling of those who dare criticize Israel. For them, antisemitism also means criticism of Israel.

It's pretty clear why Baird gives unconditional support to Israel.

 

[Goober]

NationHood -
Care to answer these points- Do the Palestinians really want peace - Arafat did not.And Abbas seems to put conditions on top of conditions.
So back on topic

Charles Krauthammer: A Palestinian invitation to suicide | Full Comment | National Post

While diplomatically inconvenient for the western powers, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ attempt to get the UN to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread sympathy. After all, what choice did he have? According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and continues to build settlements.

It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby creating Israel’s first national consensus for a two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months — something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out when the freeze expired. Last week he reiterated that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is not just absurd. It violates every prior peace agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition.

Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called “right of return,” which would demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning the world’s only Jewish state into the world’s 23rd Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as recently as last week in New York: “We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”

Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider:

* Camp David, 2000. At a U.S.-sponsored summit, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza — and, astonishingly, the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem. Arafat refuses — and makes no counteroffer, thereby demonstrating his unseriousness about making any deal. Instead, within two months, he launches a savage terror war that kills a thousand Israelis.

* Taba, 2001. An even sweeter deal — the Clinton Parameters — is offered. Arafat walks away again.

* Israel, 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands — 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps), Palestinian statehood, the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine. And incredibly, he offers to turn over the city’s holy places, including the Western Wall — Judaism’s most sacred site, its Kaaba — to an international body on which sit Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Did Abbas accept? Of course not. If he had, the conflict would be over and Palestine would already be a member of the United Nations.

This is not ancient history. All three peace talks occurred over the past decade. And every one completely contradicts the current mindless narrative of Israeli “intransigence” as the obstacle to peace.

Settlements? Every settlement remaining within the new Palestine would be destroyed and emptied, precisely as happened in Gaza.

So why did the Palestinians say no? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state on what they consider the Muslim patrimony.

The key word here is “final.” The Palestinians are quite prepared to sign interim agreements, like Oslo. Framework agreements, like Annapolis. Cease-fires, like the 1949 armistice. Anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all — while leaving a Jewish state still standing.

After all, why did Abbas go to the UN last week? For nearly half a century, the United States has pursued a Middle East settlement on the basis of the formula of land for peace. Land for peace produced the Israel-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace three times since. And been refused every time.

Why? For exactly the same reason Abbas went to the UN last week: to get land without peace. Sovereignty with no reciprocal recognition of a Jewish state. Statehood without negotiations. An independent Palestine in a continued state of war with Israel.

This is the reason that, regardless of who is governing Israel, there has never been peace. Territorial disputes are solvable; existential conflicts are not.

Land for peace, yes. Land without peace is nothing but an invitation to suicide.

 

[Nationhood]

I'll clarify a couple things, just for safety reasons.

He did?

Well, yes, he said that we should not support Palestine's bid, and we should completely support Israel's right to do whatever they want.

Can you show me where I said it wasn't?

You have not, I was just asking a question that made sense. You invoked calling Hamas a terrorist organization, even though they do other things like provide social services to Palestinians. You used that as a reason not to support Palestine, and the reason to support Israel. But Israel has done far greater harm, so shouldn't they get even worse a title? I don't expect you to say it, because you like responding in a way that doesn't actually admit the falsehoods.

Now, beyond this, you haven't really offered a valid response. Just a semantically 'that's not occupation, that's annexation'... even thought it's occupation by any substantive definition of occupation. I offered you evidence in good faith you'd read and consider it, not just jump to opportunistic entertainment posts to discredit what I said.

Maybe one day, you people will be able to differentiate between flawed foreign policy, and righteous domestic policy. As it stands, when you dismiss the benefit and sanctuary that Israel is, you end up looking like Jew haters, not merely critics.

That's retarded. Statistically speaking, there's more Jews that live outside of Israel than Jews who live in Israel. This makes no sense whatsoever.

If I were to consider Israel some sort of sanctuary, it would only be with the note that it's at the expensive of those suffering in the increasingly shrinking West Bank and Gaza strip. A utopia on the backs of slaves is just as unpalatable to me.

 

[CDNBear]

Well, yes, he said that we should not support Palestine's bid, and we should completely support Israel's right to do whatever they want.

Can you quote him on that?

You have not, I was just asking a question that made sense.

While implying I support the whole of Israel's policy in Palestine.

You invoked calling Hamas a terrorist organization, even though they do other things like provide social services to Palestinians.

So did Hitler. They are an internationally recognized terrorist group. Their lineage has a direct connection to Adolph Hitler. Their Charter, has a written policy of genocide.

You used that as a reason not to support Palestine, and the reason to support Israel.

As I would the reverse if Israel had all Hamas' traits.

But Israel has done far greater harm, so shouldn't they get even worse a title?

No, that's moral relativism.

I don't expect you to say it, because you like responding in a way that doesn't actually admit the falsehoods.

Why would I admit to your falsehoods?

Now, beyond this, you haven't really offered a valid response.

Because you haven't said anything that hasn't been discussed to death around here, ad nauseum.

Just a semantically 'that's not occupation, that's annexation'... even thought it's occupation by any substantive definition of occupation.

I see you ignored the West Bank this time, while you ignored why Israel annexed land in Gaza for a buffer zone.

Lets not forget where the settlements are now.

I offered you evidence in good faith you'd read and consider it, not just jump to opportunistic entertainment posts to discredit what I said.

You offer a Guardian article. From 2009, on East Jerusalem.

That's retarded.

Of course it's retarded to people like you. You cry about human rights abuses by Israel, while you ignore the fact that they have the only written policy recognizing human rights in the region. You equally ignore the fact that people have freedom, and rights to speak out against Israel, be gay, and so on, in Israel, Arab and Jew alike. While those same freedoms, if expressed in Gaza, would result in your death.

Statistically speaking, there's more Jews that live outside of Israel than Jews who live in Israel.

And that has what to do with what I said?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree, you don't.

If I were to consider Israel some sort of sanctuary, it would only be with the note that it's at the expensive of those suffering in the increasingly shrinking West Bank and Gaza strip.

So you know as much about Gaza as you do about Canadian history. Good to know.

A utopia on the backs of slaves is just as unpalatable to me.

To me too. So much for objective input from you.

 

[Goober]

You have not, I was just asking a question that made sense. You invoked calling Hamas a terrorist organization, even though they do other things like provide social services to Palestinians. You used that as a reason not to support Palestine, and the reason to support Israel. But Israel has done far greater harm, so shouldn't they get even worse a title? I don't expect you to say it, because you like responding in a way that doesn't actually admit the falsehoods.

Hamas provides services - correct - they run the place - They also have control ref the other wing nuts who attack Israel - There main financial supporter is Iran.
They also sponsor Hezbollah.

Hamas Runs TV / Schools that portray Jews are to be killed. What else are they but a Terror Org.

 

[CDNBear]

Just out of curiousity Hoodie...

Do you think I support or denounce Palestinian Statehood?

 

[Goober]

Just out of curiousity Hoodie...

Do you think I support or denounce Palestinian Statehood?

Now that is a real toughie - He will have to think on that one. Which door will he pick?? I bet door no 1. There are only 3 doors - Any takers?

 

[Machjo]

Yeah, sure buddy... The optics in your posts just reek of anti-Catholicism and nothing more... If it wasn't the non-issue of separate vs public schools, you'd find another issue to piss and moan about and place the Catholics squarely in the cross-hairs.

Nice diversion there. i challenge you to find one post of mine that opposes Catholicism beyond the specific context of the separate school system. Hell, my own mother is Catholic and I had attended the separate school system for most of my elementary education!

I've even proposed a Swedish-like school voucher system that would allow private Catholic schools to receive public funding based on parental demand, BUT on the same basis as any other school, public or private, regardless of religious affiliation. Sounds like the issue is not that I'm anti-Catholic, but rather that you might have some hidden motive to defend a privileged position.

 

[captain morgan]

No diversion Machjo, it is an observation and one that I feel is highly accurate.

You live in a bubble that is cut-off from all reality... Hell, I got a real good laugh at the UN document that lambastes Canada for this inequality and I got to thinking why there was no mention of the cultural 'inequalities' recognized in other nations that have a system in place that was established hundreds of years ago... Funny, no mention in that UN document that there should be full funding for Christian schools in Saudi Arabia or special schools in Palestine that service those of Jewish faith.... Yeah, that UN - great guys - all of 'em.

So, with that in mind - and running with your equality BS - by definition, doesn't the public system discriminate against every other interest group by virtue of not recognizing their "right" to have publicly funded facilities?

Where are the stand-alone schools for families of same sex parents that desire to have recognition of their individual status? Maybe there are a few Wiccan families in your city that deserve a unique, publicly funded building, complete with a full complement of teachers, administrators and facility staff (all tax payer funded of course).

How about it Machjo? Are you just as prepared to rail at the public system for the exact reasons you are angry with the Separate system, or do you just have a hate-on for all things Catholic?