Question regarding this latest mid-east conflict.

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
Re: RE: Question regarding th

elevennevele said:
It's the same way Canadians would have a hard time living down the international community partitioning Canada for any historic land claims by the Native Community.

Well I find it kind of ironic that you use the natives in your example, when what we did to the natives is about 1000 times worse than anything Israel ever did. But let's actually make your model work.

Lets say natives about 70 years back decide that life on crappy reserves suck, so they start buy land at a common spot in quebec to join up a couple of reservers already there, there are a couple of tribal burial grounds there and they feel a tie to the land, it really takes off and most natives move to the new Quebec homeland buying up land. There is large unrest with the local non native population and there are fights and minor attempts to drive off the natives. Things are not great but nothing terrible happens yet.

Then there is a terrible holocaust in Austrailia and the aboriginal flee. No where in the world will accept the refugees. The natives figuring these are long separated Kin welcome them onto their land (that they purchased). The influx upsets the local non natives even more. Fighting escalates on both sides murders, bombings etc, a terrible situation.

World body decrees in exasperation that there will be a partition to split the land in the area so that each side can exist in its own space. The natives say ok, the local non natives and all of Canada says no way and the combined armies of 6 provinces attack in an attempt wipe out the natives. During the fighting the Canadians start a rumor to anger all Canadian and suggest that the natives are murdering the men, raping the women and eating the children. The lie backfires and instead of an uprizing large numbers of the local non natives flee. When the dust settles the natives prevail during the fight for their survival the have captured a chunk of new territory. For then next decade Natives all over Canada flee or are expelled from Canadian provinces them came to NewLand.

After the decade the Canadian provinces built up massive armies and were saber rattling for war. Americans have given financial aid to the plucky natives. They are after all a mere spec surrounded by enemies that try to destroy them. The Canadians expell peace keepers, and blocked native shipping lanes. Not waiting to be crushed the natives launched a pre emptive strike and again flattened the Canadian provincial armies.

In the years after the second stinging military failure, Canadian provinces again started the build up. As the crises approaches, The natives are warned, but new Chief Golden Hair, does not launch a pre-emptive strike. It is costly, the natives of new land are hit by a sneak attak on their holy day and suffer great initial losses, but in the end they again prevail striking deep into the Canadian provinces.

Finally after 3 miltary failures, terror is introduced as a weapon. The FLQ, Based in Quebec are the main fighters. Eventually the battling takes a high toll on Quebec, and civil war erupts, eventually leading to the expulsion of the FLQ to Ontario. Ontario then falls into civil war, with strings pulled by Saskatchewan. Natives goes to war to displace FLQ succeding at great cost to Ontario, for at time it occupies a buffer zone but disengages completely from Ontario, only to have a new organization SLQ funded by Saskatchewan fill the void. SLQ begin to stockpile arms.

Years go buy with skirmishes. Getting nowhere The natives withdraw from previous captured territories. Almost as soon as that they are attacked and from areas in the North by SLQ striking from the territories it abandoned 6 years before. In the south by the successors of the FLQ.

Again the natives must go to war to root out Terror fighters in Ontario in hopes of a few more years of relative calm while their enemies rebuild.

The natives never attacked to take land, three times the other Canadian provinces united to militarily wipe out the tiny band of natives, and in these conflicts not of their choosing they expanded their meager tiny chunk of Canada. Yet the rest of Canada seeths with hate. Many in the reset of the world don't understand why they shoot back when the small band of canadian that live next to their territory lauch rockets at their population centers.
 

SaintLucifer

Electoral Member
Jul 10, 2006
324
0
16
Re: RE: Question regarding this latest mid-east conflict.

elevennevele said:
SaintLucifer said:
I see absolutely no point in this post. The Nazis were the aggressors. In the Mideast, the Ottoman Empire were the aggressors. Is it possible for you to see my point or must I type slower?


No need to get insulting SaintLucifer, You may be throwing rocks in a glass house. The point I made wasn’t that the Nazis weren’t bad, the point was that even the “good guys” can justify terrorism as an act when they are in need to use it against an ‘evil’ opponent.



For the WWII Resistance movements, and for their British backers in SOE who had been ordered by Prime Minister Winston Churchill to "set Europe ablaze," they were freedom fighters. Their clandestine work of sabotage and ambush, destroying bridges and railroads, assassinating German officials and their local collaborators, was a wholly justifiable tactic of a war of national liberation. And it was the Nazi occupiers of Europe during World War II who characterized the work of the French and Czech and Polish Resistance movements, as backed by Britain's Special Operations Executive, as 'terrorism."

Quote: Copyright 2000 The Press Association Limited

How is it terrorism when they are sabotaging military hardware? Ambushing Nazi soldiers, destroying bridges and railroads, assasinating German officials? It was war. Why can you not see the difference? What Hezbollah is doing is not war. It is terrorism. I shall give you an example. Imagine that the Nazis do not go beyond Czechoslovakia and Austria. Instead they remain within their own borders and those of Czechoslovakia and Austria. Now imagine the French have certain peoples who display a grave dislike of the new Nazi regime so they perpetrate attacks against the German population. They do not attack military targets but German civilians who have nothing to do with these French terrorists. Do you honestly believe the Nazis would not have the right to attack targets in France proper in order to protect their own people? Of cousre they would. Christ they could march straight into Paris if they so decided if it meant this would save their people.

Your example with attacks regarding ambushing Nazi soldiers, destroying bridges etc. Those were bonafide military targets in a war. Please try to understand. The concept is really very simple. Honestly it is. It saddens me to know you cannot see the obvious which is right before your very own eyes.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Re: RE: Question regarding th

elevennevele said:
Did you not get the declaimer? It was an ANALOGY based on outside interference. A hypothisis! There is no such reality I illustrated between the French and the rest of Canada. It’s a hypothisis.

No, sorry, I missed your discalimer.


“Please... for whoever doesn’t get that I’m making an anology, think before speaking out.“

Fair enough. Still, an analogy has to have some basis in reality to be worthwhile. It's supposed to illustrate a point. There's no point drawing an analogy and then saying nevermind anything I just said, it's only an analogy.

Having said that, I can take your analogy and poke holes in it. Firstly, outside interference or not ("vive le Quebec Libre", remember that? Being trained by Paletinian terorists - could all be construed as outside interference...anyway...) we are not blowing things up in Quebec in response to separtist sympathies. Yes, the FLQ was blowing things up in Quebec, that's not the same. If Hamas wants to blow up things in Palestine, that's their issue. The FLQ is NOT analogous to the PLO or Hamas.

Furthermore, there was never a nation of Palestine that was partitioned. That renders your analogy invalid right there. Palestine was the name the Romans gave to Judea and Samaria. It is the Jewish ancestral homeland, which was largely disregarded by the powers that controlled it over the last two millennia as a "back woods" not worth worrying about. The west bank was part of Jordan before the 1967 war. They (Jordan) didn't want it back. There was no Palestine. Palestine was already partitioned into Israel and Jordan, with Gaza going to Egypt. So there was Israel, and there was Jordan. No Palestine.

Still, the Israeli's were willing to accept yet another partition and a new Arab nation. Most of the world also supports that. Sure the Palestinians have no history, no real historical claim to nationhood. But they're here, they exist. Fine. I support a homeland for the Palestinians. I think most people do. They are a de facto nation.

The truth seems to be coming about though, that the Palestinians don't want a nation. They want Israel. Even if we set the borders to the original UN partition plan of 1947, you would still have Hamas attacking Israel. You would still have Hezbollah attacking Israel. That is the reality. I have no hope for a negotiated peace. The Gaza withdrawal proved that.

A separate Quebec would have placated the FLQ. A Palestinian nation comprised of the 1947 UN partition plan will no placate the Arabs. Analogy dismissed.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Re: RE: Question regarding th

Freethinker said:
Well I find it kind of ironic that you use the natives in your example, when what we did to the natives is about 1000 times worse than anything Israel ever did. But let's actually make your model work.


Sounds terrible, but you seem to get my point.

It’s a good thing, as was with my post and yours, that such a situation you illustrated for us is simply fiction. For the Israelis and the Palestinians, it isn’t fiction. That’s what this forum topic was though, yes? To better understand the situation there?

And it’s complicated with a lot of torn hearts.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Re: RE: Question regarding this latest mid-east conflict.

SaintLucifer said:
How is it terrorism when they are sabotaging military hardware? Ambushing Nazi soldiers, destroying bridges and railroads, assasinating German officials?


No, it was much more than that. You can be sure acts of terrorism by the allies were fierce whether right or wrong. I have no doubt civilians/innocents were blown up in the process. In some cases the terrorism by the allies held a lot of disagreement by the parties conducting it because of the outcomes in some cases. But war is brutal and we can play schematics as to what it means to target the other side with an improvised bomb, or using hardware to level cities in a way that becomes just as indiscriminate.

I doubt you will find many western sources that will be more descriptive with the acts of terrorism that was used. You know what they say. History is written by the victor.

Israel has done some things against the Palestinians that have been very indiscriminate with the resulting deaths, but the difference is they have used the tools of the west to do it.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Re: RE: Question regarding th

Just the Facts said:
Fair enough. Still, an analogy has to have some basis in reality to be worthwhile. It's supposed to illustrate a point. There's no point drawing an analogy and then saying nevermind anything I just said, it's only an analogy.


I never said, “nevermind anything I just said, it's only an analogy”. Please, everyone go right ahead and be mindful of what I said. Next time direct quote me.

It is an analogy, but it does try to illustrate, using different people, what is happening over there. The fact that something is an analogy doesn’t discredit the value contained.

Forget I said Palestine. I honestly won’t argue with everyone’s version of history for that area. It is enough for me to acknowledge the place was fought over by many different groups and I’m sure each group has their own idea of the place.

I’m not even arguing which cultures put buildings there at one time, have archeological artifacts left in the ground, or just contributed in some fashion, etc. What I find wrong is ‘eviction’.

Eviction of those who are there, were there and taken off land that they held by outside governments. You can try to argue the Palestinians were nationless, but that doesn’t mean they were homeless.

Now with the Jewish settlers who are being evicted, you have that same kind of pain. The difference is being uprooted after say 15 years, as opposed to having a generation of living someplace being taken away from you and perhaps losing all you have left.

In the very least at this point, the Israelis could respect what was suppose to be the only areas they were to occupy, but instead they took more land and evicted again, more people.

Why can’t anyone see the crime in at least that?
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Re: RE: Question regarding th

You know, I simply believe in human rights. I would argue any wrong done against anyone, whether Israelis or Palestinian. However, the numbers with regards innocents being harmed don’t lie and they don’t favour the Palestinians.

And that is the point. I fail to see how anyone can only see wrong from one side in this situation.

The whole mess has already been created. It’s now a situation where two different families can’t own the same property. However, the eviction of people from their homes, their land started the mess. It’s such a crime to ignore that.
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
Re: RE: Question regarding th

elevennevele said:
In the very least at this point, the Israelis could respect what was suppose to be the only areas they were to occupy, but instead they took more land and evicted again, more people.

Why can’t anyone see the crime in at least that?

What evictions? Jordainians/palestenians could have had the mandated 1948 borders. Instead 6 Arab nations tried to wipe out Israel. Borders change when you start a massive war.

3 times combined Arab armies tried to wipe out Israel, 3 times borders changed. Everytime they attack Israel, it gets bigger, and justifiably so IMO. It is as simple as that.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Re: RE: Question regarding th

elevennevele said:
In the very least at this point, the Israelis could respect what was suppose to be the only areas they were to occupy, but instead they took more land and evicted again, more people.

Why can’t anyone see the crime in at least that?

You said yourself you saw the anguish and anger in the eyes of Israeli's evicted from Gaza. Why did the Palestinians not get on with the business of nation building instead of rocket launching? That is the real crime. It's been said over and over and over, but I'll say it again. If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israeli's laid down their arms, they would be massacred. That is the reality. That is why there is an increasing realization that the Palestinians have brought their suffering upon themselves.

I ask again, out the millions upon millions of refugees created by the second world war, why are the Palestinians the only ones still assigning themselves refugee status generations later?