babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Canada decides to take a more pro-Israel stance at United Nations

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canada decides to take a more pro-Israel stance at United Nations
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 December 2005 04:59 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Canada has decided to adopt a more pro-Israel stance in the United Nations regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict and to move closer to the positions of Israel and the United States.

The decision followed a tough campaign by prominent members of the Canadian Jewish community, who directly lobbied Prime Minister Paul Martin to change Canada's voting pattern


Haaretz

[ 02 December 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 December 2005 07:19 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear The Middle East,

We decided to blow all our credibility in upholding the ideals of the United Nations, seeing as we developed the notion of peacekeeping armies, and participate extensively within the UN's organizations.

We decided to engage in a cynical move that lets Paulie Pockets brown-nose the USA in a desperate attempt to integrate deeper than Stephen Harper.

Regards,
Canada.

[ 02 December 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 December 2005 09:51 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Or Canada is just helping to keep the playing field level
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 03 December 2005 10:10 AM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Or Canada is just helping to keep the playing field level

Because as we all know, "level" is what we need to strive for, everywhere, no matter what the situation.

This mindset seems to have taken over news media of late, too, especially in the US -- that "fair" is the same thing as "balanced", and that the "fair and balanced" way of covering an issue is to give equal airtime to a talking head representing each "side". As pleasingly symmetrical as this appears, in reality, each side of an argument usually doesn't have equal validity. Canada should not be basing its votes on keeping some kind of "balance of power" between the Israelis and the Palestinians (as if any "balance" existed to begin with).


From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 December 2005 10:58 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Don't misunderstand me, the UN has been notoriously targeting Israel above and beyond anything approaching sense. Israel is target while countries that routinely murder their citizens, and deny human rights, autocracies and fascist dictatorships get a free ride.

Perhaps Canada is paying closer attention to these resolutions, its wording and determining that they are just unfair.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 03 December 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ohara, you crack me up!
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 04:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Don't misunderstand me, the UN has been notoriously targeting Israel above and beyond anything approaching sense. Israel is target while countries that routinely murder their citizens, and deny human rights, autocracies and fascist dictatorships get a free ride.

Perhaps Canada is paying closer attention to these resolutions, its wording and determining that they are just unfair.


I am sure Slobodan Milosovic would think that was very funny.

So, since 1945, which facist dictatorships have occupied large swaths of territories outside of their national boundaries, as defined by the UN, and imposed marshall law upon the people living there?

Would you say that Indonesia got a "free ride" from the UN? Or that Yugoslavia, operating entirely within its agreed to terrirtorial limits? Or Iraq for the period 1991 to 2003. (I seem to remember the UN mounting an military expection to make Iraq quit Kuwait, or something of that nature -- was i dreaming?) Or South Africa during Apartheid?

Do you read anything other than the CJN?

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 December 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Count the number of resolutions targeting Israel and then compare that to oh say China and Syria and Sudan. Let me know what you come up with.

I like the Canadian Jewish News but prefer the Forward, Ha'aretz and Canadian Dimension for a change of pace. And Cueball try a ltlle civility . It works wonders.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Count the number of Iraq resolutions. There must be at least 100 individual ones. And Iraq was in possession of Kuwait for less than six months.

As of now, Israel has been in occupation of Arab land for a long as the Maple Leafs have been without a Stanley Cup.

This argument is cracked.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel gets parking tickets, everyone else goes to jail.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
firecaptain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9305

posted 03 December 2005 05:30 PM      Profile for firecaptain        Edit/Delete Post
Sounds like echo's from a David Duke rally.
From: southwestern Ontario | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 06:59 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
From the Original Article at the Top of this Thread:

quote:
Until now Canada has traditionally followed European voting patterns in the UN on several annual resolutions pertaining to the Middle East.

The Canadian representative stated at the GA on Wednesday that his country would object to resolutions to maintain "the department for Palestinian affairs" in the UN Secretariat and from now on would only support bodies that promote the peace process.

Canada also objects to the decision on the Golan, as it places the onus for resuming negotiations solely on Israel, and will not support the resolution on a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem due to the Arab states' refusal to include an explicit condemnation of suicide bombings.


Sounds more reasonable than the one-sided history of the UN:

800 resolutions condemning Israel

considering that the most of the UN financing come from Western countries including Canada, and that most of the 3rd world and other non democratic nations have "controlled" the UN, Paul Martin's calling for a more balanced approach is timely. shameful examples of the unbalance have been the racism conference in Durban that was hijacked by the pro Palestinian factions passing resolutions that Zionism=racism and than the moon is made of blue cheese. Other examples of UN hypocrisy are that Syria (a fascist nation that sponsors terrorism) sits on the security counsel, and Libya chairs the human rights counsel!

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 03 December 2005 07:43 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As of now, Israel has been in occupation of Arab land for a long as the Maple Leafs have been without a Stanley Cup.

But not as long as the first nations land in North America has been occupied ... just a friendly reminder.

So when does the talk turn to what's the best way to find a solution - there and here?

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: retread ]


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:

So when does the talk turn to what's the best way to find a solution - there and here?



Through Dialogue!

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 07:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by firecaptain:
Sounds like echo's from a David Duke rally.

Sounds like slander.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 07:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:

But not as long as the first nations land in North America has been occupied ... just a friendly reminder.

So when does the talk turn to what's the best way to find a solution - there and here?

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: retread ]


Absurd. While I agree the comparison of the European genocide and ethnic cleansing of First Nations pWeople is apt. Noted Canadian native scholar and human rights activist Rodney Bobbiwash, made such comparisons, as has Ward Chruchill, but the ethnic cleansing of Palestinans, and Bedouin continues apace.

While the crimes of the past are certainly inexcusable, the reality is that Native persons in Canada and the US are recognized as citizens, the Palestinians are not, nor are they actively occupied and harrassed by some 900 odd check points, and an active program of house demolition which has rendered nearly 100,000 homless in the last few years.

Solution resides in an up front and clear exposition of the facts, and a willingness to act.

The reality is that the period of "dialogue" afforded by the cessation of general hostilities within the Oslo acords, was used by Israel to embark on the most abitious settlement project in the history of the occupation, and in a few short years Israel added 200,000 settlers to the West Bank.

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 08:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
From the Original Article at the Top of this Thread:

Sounds more reasonable than the one-sided history of the UN:

800 resolutions condemning Israel

considering that the most of the UN financing come from Western countries including Canada, and that most of the 3rd world and other non democratic nations have "controlled" the UN, Paul Martin's calling for a more balanced approach is timely. shameful examples of the unbalance have been the racism conference in Durban that was hijacked by the pro Palestinian factions passing resolutions that Zionism=racism and than the moon is made of blue cheese. Other examples of UN hypocrisy are that Syria (a fascist nation that sponsors terrorism) sits on the security counsel, and Libya chairs the human rights counsel!

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


Again absurd. The number of resolutions is immaterial. What is material is the will of the security council to act, as they did in Bosnia, and as they did in Iraq. Until such tims as they do the obvious imbalance, whereby certain countries are favoured by their supporters on the SC, any number of UN resolutios from the floor are moot.

Action speaks louder than words.

The number of resolutions is a refelction of the fact that the SC does not force Israeli compliance, so the issue must be raised again and again.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 08:09 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Again absurd. The number of resolutions is immaterial. What is material is the will of the security council to act, as they did in Bosnia, and as they did in Iraq. Until such tims as they do the obvious imbalance, whereby certain countries are favoured by their supporters on the SC, any number of UN resolutios from the floor are moot.

Action speaks louder than words.


The security counsel, led by (that fascist state) Syria, should what... "come on down" to "that Zionist Entity" (AKA Israel) and do what.....kick their ass? "Absurd" is right! But typically one sided , which is why Paul Martin said what he said (referring back to the top of the thread...not to get derailed). And I agree actions like suicide bombings, speak louder than words unfortunately.

(BTW The security counsel, did S.F.A. in Iraq. Which is why we have the mess we now have).

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 08:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please aquaint yourself of the facts.

The UN authorized use of force in the case of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It allowed for member states to mount armies under the auspices of the UN to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait.

It is pretty tiresome that this lie about UN bias is so roundly accepted as a prima facie 'fact' that persons whom propound it seem quite oblivious to the numerous times where the SC has actively intevened militarily, from Korea to Kuwait, or sanctioned governments which were not in compliance (South Africa and Iraq) with UN resolutions.

Not once has the UN ever authorized any sanction against Israel, let alone authorized use of force.

The bias is obvious, but the bias begins with US veto on the SC.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 08:26 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Please resist the temptation to be condescendingly.

The UN did Sweet Fuck All to prevent the PRESENT Iraq conflict (not that of 10 or 20 years ago).

Secondly the UN resolutions passed mostly by totalitarian countries with much to gain from the irradiation of Israel know they could not "wipe it out" as was tried by Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan (aided by the former USSR and even France)etc in the past. SO why would they try now? If the UN wanted to put its money (or should I say Canada,UK and USA's) money where the despicable little fascist countries that control its mouth is, they they would encourage dialogue, engage Israel more in the UN (Israel has not been permitted to participate in humanitarian efforts notwithstanding its offers) and condemn suicide bombing, which they continue to refuse to do. (also referring back to the article at the top of the thread which is what this is all about!)

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 08:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reslolution 668, 1990, holds that:

quote:
2. Auhtorizes mmeber states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15th january 1991 fully impliments, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and impliment resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and restore international peace and security in the region.

668

Please find for me any resolution targetting Israel's policy of occupation, which empowers memeber nations to use necessary means to effect resolution?

There are none.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 08:34 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
This is 2005 and I am talking about THIS Iraqi conflict and as you well know (for the reasons I stated above) the UN would never dare to threaten Israel with force it (ie Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libyia, former Iraq, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, etc) doesn't have. Doesn't it boggle the mind that the UN has nothing better to do than pass 800 resolutions dealing with that "racist zionist entity" ? Again I refer back to the article that started this thread.

quote:
List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine:

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir commissioned an analysis of UN voting concerning Israel. The results were, from 1967 to 1988 the Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel. During that span, Israel was "condemned" 49 times. In the General Assembly, 429 anti-Israel resolutions were passed, Israel was "condemned" 321 times. (Source: [1])


Why the UN has No Credability

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 08:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see so you want to count all the resolution that go back to 1948, but when it comes to the counter evidence, 10 years is too long.

Talk about biasing the evidence.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 08:38 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Talk about biasing the evidence.

Debate does not = insult.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 08:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then why are you arguing that we must count up every single itty-bitty resolution since 1948, and then complaining about talking about what the UN authorized in Iraq in 1990, because that was a long time ago?

Come on Peech, what is important, what people say or what they do?

The UN has actively involved itself in the affairs of other countries, including the use of huge armies to effect it will, as well as ineternational sanctions, but not once, has such an action been taken against Israel.

Period.

The bias of the UN against Israel is a chimera.

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 08:42 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Find ONE UN resolution condemning Palestinian or anyone's aggression against Israel, ONE resolution condemning suicide bombing, ONE resolution condemning murders or terrorism such as the Munich Massacre? Cna't find any? Well that was the point of (sigh) once again the article (and the PM Martin's statement) at the top of this thrread.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 08:47 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The UN has actively involved itself in the affairs of other countries, including the use of huge armies to effect it will, as well as international sanctions, but not once, has such an action been taken against Israel.

How many times do I have to post this, the UN resolutions against Israel are dominated by those (ineffective) countries who have the most to gain by the irradiation of Israel without the actual ability to do do it themselves. In other words they make the orders but want someone else to carry out the dirty work. And thankfully the US and Cananda (and sometimes UK, Australia etc.) Say no. It's one sided and we wont. Period. Once again refering back to thearticle at th top of they thread (have you even read it?????)

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 08:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Using your selective dating method, and your count the resolutions method, I could say that in 1990, the clear bias was against Iraq, which has 16 resolutoins against it, while there are only 4 mentioning Israel.

Oviously the UN was biased against Iraq in 1990.

Absurd. Even though Israel has an army in Gaza, an army in southern Syria, and army in Lebanon, and an army in the West Bank.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 08:50 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Find ONE UN resolution condemning Palestinian or anyone's aggression against Israel, ONE resolution condemning suicide bombing, ONE resolution condemning murders or terrorism such as the Munich Massacre?

Still waiting, and waiting, and ....waiting.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 08:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Find ONE UN resolution condemning Palestinian or anyone's aggression against Israel, ONE resolution condemning suicide bombing, ONE resolution condemning murders or terrorism such as the Munich Massacre? Cna't find any? Well that was the point of (sigh) once again the article (and the PM Martin's statement) at the top of this thrread.

Stupid again. Find one resolution comdemning the Bader Mienhoff gang. Obviously this is evidence of UN bias against Germany.

Puh-lease!

Does resolution 242 mention condemn Israeli agression? No. Does 338 (1973) mention Arab agression? No.

No. They don't without blaming either side, they call for and end to fighting. Resolution 242 also calls for the return of territory occupied by Israel.

Of course, there has never been any Arab occupation of Israeli territory so there is not resolution calling for Syria to desist and quit Tel Aviv. However, should Iraq occupy Kuwait, that is entirely another story.

Israel may occupy neighbouring territories, Arabs may not. That is the story.

Even recently, a demand was forwarded for Syria to quit Lebanon. Syria complied, so there is not need for further resolutions on the matter.

Isaeli occupation persists.

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 09:00 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
800 resolutions against Israel and NOT ONE against any other of the parties in the conflict notwithstanding their advocation, assistance and encouragement to commit murder. Not stupid but criminal and by anyone's grade school logic, 800 to none = a profound bias.

(BTW your derogatory, sanctimonious and insulting remarks are very tiresome and wont win you any points.)

Good night Cue

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is not about points. It is about this incredibly stupid arguement based on a numbers game, which is just that, a game.

There is nothing about the content of the resolutions in question, or the fact that Israel has failed to comply with its obligations as a charter member of the United Nations, to comply with the order of resolution 242.

The record is clear.

The UN will not act to oppose Israel, and never has. It will mumble into its shirt, but when it comes to effective action, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that dare thumb its nose at the UN, while of course, hiding in the skirts of its primary backer, the USA.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 09:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry about the invective, but perhaps I was put of by Firecaptain's nasty little insinuation up above, I notice that you, O'hara et al, seemed to feel no need to comment on that.

Being compared to a Klansmen has a way of putting me off.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 09:10 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Many Israelis perceive the UN to be deeply prejudiced against Israel. As evidence, they cite what they say is the disproportionately long list of resolutions concerning Israel, especially the 1975 Resolution 3379, which qualified Zionism as a form of racism (revoked by Resolution 4686 in December 1991 as a condition for participation in the Madrid peace talks [2]); and the alleged complicity of UNIFIL in the October 2000 Lebanon abduction of three Israeli Engineering Corps soldiers, by Hezbollah. In September 2004, the bereaved families announced that they intended to sue the UN for its part in the abductions. No legal challenge has to date succeeded in substantiating these claims against the UN.

The perception amongst Israelis that the UN is biased against their country helps explain the refusal of successive Israeli governments to pay attention to the numerous motions passed against Israel by the General Assembly. Arabs and their supporters reply that this is a red herring used to legitimize the refusal to comply with overwhelming international pressure for change in Israeli policy.

In her June 21, 2004 speech [3] at a Conference on Confronting anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding sponsored by the United Nations Department of Information and in her articles [4], Anne Bayefsky, attending as representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, advocated the necessity of deep reforms within the UN and criticized some of the UN policies and practices:

* There is only one entire UN Division devoted to a single group of people: the UN Division for Palestinian Rights (created in 1977).
* The only UN day dedicated to a specific people is November 29, the annual UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
* There is only one refugee agency dedicated to a single refugee situation: UNRWA (in operation since 1950).
* One of the General Assembly six committees, "the Fourth Committee, routinely devotes 30% of its time to the condemnation of Israel."
* "The General Assembly emergency sessions... began in 1956, and since then six of the ten emergency sessions ever held, have been about Israel. The 10th such session began in 1997 and has been reconvened 13 times. A million dead in Rwanda or two million dead in Sudan might have warranted one General Assembly emergency session."
* "...the UN's primary human-rights body is the UN Human Rights Commission. 30% of the resolutions condemning specific states ever adopted over 40 years are directed at Israel." [5]


UN's Bias against Israel

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The UN Charter gives every state the right to membership of the Security Council, and says that membership will be decided according to equitable geographic distribution. The latter requirement has meant in practice that non-permanent Security Council members are selected from the five geographical groupings of member states. Israel would naturally belong to the Asian group, but that group has repeatedly denied Israel's admission. The Jewish state has indefinite temporary membership of the "Western Europe and Others" group (WEOG) and agreed not to seek Security Council membership on that basis.

Israel has particularly few supporters in the United Nations, in part because of the large Muslim contingent (57 countries) and their influence: in terms of sheer voting strength in the General Assembly, this block represents about 1/4 of the delegates, though no Muslim country holds a permanent seat on the Security Council. See Arab League and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Moreover, Israel is the only member nation that that has never been enfranchised with voting rights in any part of the United Nations.

A few countries have consistently supported Israel's actions in the UN, such as the United States of America and also the tiny states of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, which are both associated states of the U.S. In recent times, Australia, under the leadership of John Howard, has also supported Israel at the UN.

The Western nations frequently condemn Israeli actions including, on occasion, some which Israel claims as being necessary to protect itself from Palestinian terrorism and Arab hostility. The European states frequently abstain from anti-Israel votes. Many European countries have been strong supporters of Israel, but also support the foundation of a Palestinian state. Such countries include France, Russia, and Germany.

The United States has frequently used its veto to protect Israel from condemnatory Security Council votes — in fact, this is a significant factor in the large number of vetos the United States has enforced in general.


More on the UN's History of Bias


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And wasn't the resolution regarding Zionist racism revoked? Yes it was.

Hmmmm.

Everyone else is sanctioned and invaded, and otherwise made to comply, but a little name-calling and the Israeli-wimps get all in a snit about bias.

Ha ha ha. This line of thinking is a joke.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 09:16 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Sorry about the invective, but perhaps I was put of by Firecaptain's nasty little insinuation up above, I notice that you, O'hara et al, seemed to feel no need to comment on that.

Being compared to a Klansmen has a way of putting me off.


I find it best to avoid the filth, rather than get down and get dirty too. I have no respect for that type of debate. On the other hand, I have respect for you, so I commented on it.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 December 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

I find it best to avoid the filth, rather than get down and get dirty too. I have no respect for that type of debate.



Other than calling babblers holocaust lovers?


quote:
The UN did Sweet Fuck All to prevent the PRESENT Iraq conflict (not that of 10 or 20 years ago).

The United Nations (Hans Blix worked for them, remember?) did all they could to prevent this war. The USA ignored us and indulged themselves in an unprovoked war of aggression.

What else would you have had the blue-hats do, bomb Washington?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 03 December 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
UN Bias Agaisnt Israel

More UN Bias

And More Bias against Israel

quote:
The vote did not signal an end to the UN's bias against Israel. The same month the General Assembly approved four new one-sided resolutions on the Middle East. On December 9, 1991, Israel's handling of the intifada was condemned by a vote of 150-2. On the 11th, it voted 104-2 for a resolution calling for a UN-sponsored peace conference that would include the PLO and voted 142-2 to condemn Israeli behavior toward Palestinians in the territories. On December 16 — the very day it repealed the Zionism measure — the UN voted 152-1, with the U.S. abstaining, to call on Israel to rescind a Knesset resolution declaring Jerusalem its capital, to demand Israel's withdrawal from "occupied territories," including Jerusalem and to denounce Israeli administration of the Golan Heights. Another resolution expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Yet More Bias by the UN

A History of the UN Bias against Israel

Previous bias of the Liberals against Israel

And still more about bias by the UN against Israel

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 03 December 2005 11:47 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

The United Nations (Hans Blix worked for them, remember?) did all they could to prevent this war. The USA ignored us and indulged themselves in an unprovoked war of aggression.

What else would you have had the blue-hats do, bomb Washington?


Peech's statement that the UN did nothing to prevent the current war is a complete twisting of the truth ... either Peech is an idiot, or he actually meant to say that the UN did nothing to forward the US agenda of ending a working strategy of inspections and threat of invasion for non compliance, and moving directly into an all out attack on Iraq.

As for Canada moving to a more pro-occupation position, all I can say is that this is one more reason we need to storm the hill and kick out the neo-con lights.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2005 07:37 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If that is a reference to Jack Layton and the NDP, I think that is unlikely. Jack thinks that "much of what is being done (by Israel in the West Bank) is necessary."

He didn't even bother to suggest that Israel maybe shouldn't be occupying land that doesn't belong to it.

[ 04 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 04 December 2005 08:16 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:


As for Canada moving to a more pro-occupation position, all I can say is that this is one more reason we need to storm the hill and kick out the neo-con lights.


While I have no problem with this position I fear the alternative would be Harper not Layton. But for the record I do not see Canada's new position on UN resolutions as pro-Occupation. Canada has said time and again that it supports Mahumoud Abbas and a 2 state solution.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 December 2005 08:20 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by firecaptain:
Sounds like echo's from a David Duke rally.

Under protest.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2005 08:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
While I have no problem with this position I fear the alternative would be Harper not Layton. But for the record I do not see Canada's new position on UN resolutions as pro-Occupation. Canada has said time and again that it supports Mahumoud Abbas and a 2 state solution.

This is not factual. This move by PM PM is a direct response to the position paper developed by Joe Volpe and others specifically saying that in the light of the "war on terror" Canada should not be critical of the means that Israel handles its "security concerns." The primary justification for the occupation is, and always has been, Israel's desire to create a forward security buffer through occupation.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 December 2005 08:33 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the position paper developed by Joe Volpe and others

"others" would include Carolyn Bennett: papers in St Paul's please copy.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2005 08:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, they are in fact:

Senator Jack Austin, Dr. Carolyn Bennett, MP, Professor Irwin Cotler, MP, Hon. Art Eggleton, MP
Ms. Raymonde Folco, MP Ms. Marlene Jennings, MP Senator Leo Kolber Senator Richard Kroft Ms. Anita Neville, MP Mr. Bernard Patry. M.P. Hon. Jim Peterson, MP Mr. Joe Volpe, MP

Along with the change at the position at the UN, now adopted as Canadian policy by PM PM, as follows:

quote:
In an effort to protect the integrity of the United Nations, Canada’s effort to resist politicisation of UN bodies dealing with the Middle East and combat the systematic hijacking of their agendas by biased anti-Israeli forces should be strengthened and improved. In particular, we have to address the problems found at the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East.

The same "report" alao quite clearly does not recognize the occupied territories as the "occupied territories" but refers to them as the "disputed terrirtories." There can be no clearer indication that the new position is a pro-occupation position since it doesn't even recognize the existance of an "occupation," and instead inserts the euphamism "dispute."

Such clearly intends to suggest that Israel has some "rights" to the territories in question, which is most certainly does not.

Further the paper recommends removing the phrase "proportionate response" from Canadian FP stand on Israeli means, as potentially too judgemental, and even seeks to remove the phrase the phrase "cycle of violence," from policy as "in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inappropriate."

It would seem all blame is to be placed on the Palestinians for disupting the territories, no one should have a basis of asking wether or not Israel actions a proportionate to the threat.

Evil Crap Here

[ 04 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2005 09:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by firecaptain:
Sounds like echo's from a David Duke rally.

Sorry, but that's too much. You need a time out.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 04 December 2005 10:46 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Absurd. While I agree the comparison of the European genocide and ethnic cleansing of First Nations pWeople is apt. Noted Canadian native scholar and human rights activist Rodney Bobbiwash, made such comparisons, as has Ward Chruchill, but the ethnic cleansing of Palestinans, and Bedouin continues apace.

While the crimes of the past are certainly inexcusable, the reality is that Native persons in Canada and the US are recognized as citizens, the Palestinians are not, nor are they actively occupied and harrassed by some 900 odd check points, and an active program of house demolition which has rendered nearly 100,000 homless in the last few years.


I'm sure the Israelies would find the comparison absurd as well. After all, they didn't take a whole continent, or ensure their majority by wiping out most of the population. But I'm glad to know that I'm actually an equal citizen of this country, and that I've been imagining all the racism - can't wait to spread the good news back at the reserve.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 December 2005 01:36 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Again absurd. The number of resolutions is immaterial. What is material is the will of the security council to act, as they did in Bosnia, and as they did in Iraq. Until such tims as they do the obvious imbalance, whereby certain countries are favoured by their supporters on the SC, any number of UN resolutios from the floor are moot.

Action speaks louder than words.

The number of resolutions is a refelction of the fact that the SC does not force Israeli compliance, so the issue must be raised again and again.



Um, I am taking exception to the Security COuncil "acting" on the question of Bosnia. They failed to act, and hence the war escalated, causing unnecessary death and destruction.

The UN is horribly flawed, and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. The UN is as guilty of the deaths in countless countries (Rawanda, Ethiopia, Sudan to name a few), as the people actually weilding the machetes and machine guns.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2005 06:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that you can take that position if you like. But even if it is the case that the actions taken were not effective, or might have been handled differently to more effect, the fact is that there was a direct attempt to intervene materially.

The intent was there.

Palestinians have been calling for UN intervention for years, to no avail, not even a preliminary third party non-combat security screen seems feasible.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2005 06:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:

I'm sure the Israelies would find the comparison absurd as well. After all, they didn't take a whole continent, or ensure their majority by wiping out most of the population. But I'm glad to know that I'm actually an equal citizen of this country, and that I've been imagining all the racism - can't wait to spread the good news back at the reserve.


No they simply did on a small scale, and did it in one country, not a whole continent. Does the numerical equation change the right of the individual. If the European invasion had killed only half as many First Nations people would that change the nature of the crime?

Here I notice you speak of white European "ensuring their majority." Did you know that creating a "demographic majority," is an openly discussed aspect of Israeli political debate?

Wombs in the service of the state

quote:
In the early 1970s, the Gafni Commission, an interministerial body with task of "examining the rate of development in Jerusalem," was established. Its recommendations, which were submitted in August 1973, stated: "The ratio of Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem must be preserved" - the ratio at the time was 73.5 percent Jews and 26.5 percent Arabs. Since then, Israeli governments have invested great efforts to implement that recommendation - innumerable new neighborhoods have been built for Jews only, while the lives of the city's Palestinian residents are turned into a living hell. They are stripped of residency rights, their homes are demolished, they are denied construction permits, they receive meager services and master plans for their part of the city are not approved. The aim of all this is to push them out of the city and maintain the sacred balance. The result? Twenty-nine years after the Gafni Commission turned in its report, the Palestinian minority in Jerusalem has increased to 32.5 percent. The conclusion? Either a population transfer or the end of the occupation in Jerusalem. No commission is needed to conclude that.


I think that you should do your research. While it is the case that there are numerous examples of continued systemic racism in Canada, as well as grevious wrongs to be righted, the situation of Native Canadians is not comparable to that of Palestinians, today, which is comparable to the status of First Nations people in 1890.

As for comparisons to mass genocide, let us not forget that the primary mode of genocide employed against native North Americans, aside from active military campaigns, was driving population fo native people of the continent from their traditional means of livelihood, and making them live in increasingly small reserves.

As an example of Israel partaking in this exact same mode of ethnic cleansing you should note that in 1948, nearly 2/3rds of the Arab population (700,000 people) of what is today called Israel was driven from the country, and many of them and their decendants, numbering millions, have been living in refugee camps, ever since. This was done in order to, as you put it, "ensure their (Jewish white european) majority."

While it may be the case that systemic racism persists, in Canada, it is not the case that, as it is with the Palestinians in the West Bank, that you can not claim citizenship, as all. Having hobbled rights and experiencing racism, is not the same as having no rights whatsoever.

There is a difference between not being allowed citizenship and not being an equal citizen, of the country which commands your life.

Are there laws which prevent you from marrying white European people? Well there are in Israel, regarding Arabs and Israeli Jews.

Does Israel assign itself the responsibility of paying any kind of compensation for the lost property Palestinian people? No. None whatsoever, Palestinian refugees subsist largely on handouts from international aid organization. On the other hand Canada does, even if such "compensation" does not seem to match the quantity of the loss.

Even those Arabs, whom are allowed status under the laws of Israel as citizens can expect the ongoing expropriation of land by the white Europeans in Israel:

quote:
The 3,000 or so residents of Bir al Mshash are distinctly unmoved by the prospect of Israeli elections next March. The villagers, who like all their fellow Bedouin in the Negev desert are Israeli citizens, many of whom serve in the Israeli army, normally vote Labour. "I don't want to vote for any party now," says Ibrahim Abu Speyt, 48. "I want to boycott the elections."

The reason isn't hard to find. Two weeks ago, a 50-year-old problem came to a head for Bir al Mshash. Israeli police and ministry of interior officials arrived to put formal notices on 12 houses slated for demolition in what the villagers believe is the first of a multi-stage operation in which they will be moved off the land they regard as having been theirs since Ottoman times.


Does this sound familliar to you?

As an example of the difference.

Where is the Israeli-Arab scholar whom has anywhere the near been accepted into the mainstream of Israeli society, as Mr. Churchill has been, working, if under constant attack, but still employed as an eminent person whom may speak directly against the mainstream power structure from a lectern, as opposed to hiding in a bomnb shelter?

[ 04 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2005 06:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Churchill: I am on the board of the Institute On the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem. I was solicited to take a seat by Israel Charny [the institute’s Executive Director], one of the preeminent experts on the Holocaust. I doubt if I was actively anti-Semitic that I would be on an Israeli board of that caliber. That term, “anti-Semitic,” is an insidious term. I have been accused of it before because of my solidarity with the Palestinians. Last I heard, the Palestinians were a Semitic people. I object to the appropriation of the term. And it’s not coincidental that there is a whole range of discourse saying the Palestinians really are a fiction, they don’t exist. That’s the ultimate nullification. It is genocidal. In order to impose the kinds of policies, that kind of framing, on the Palestinians, one must themselves be an active anti-Semite.

Some People Push Back


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2005 06:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The push of settlers into the West Bank and Gaza, which has already taken up a great part of these areas, is precisely like white settlers moving into U.S. or Canadian Indian Country and, in fact, the Palestinians are now "Israel's Indians."

This aggression is apparently supported by Bush, perhaps because it so nicely mirrors Texas' policy towards Native people (which was, very simply, "ethnic cleansing"). As governor of Texas, Bush was hostile towards the states' two surviving Native communities.

Of course, the Israeli settlers are being attacked by Palestinians, just as white settlers along the frontier were attacked sometimes by Native Americans, but in both cases, the settlers could easily remove themselves from the zone of conflict by leaving the others' homelands alone. (I do not condone the slaughter of innocent civilians by either side, but the armed settlers do have a choice, after all, which the defenders do not. That is, they can stop being armed invaders).


Jack D. Forbes -- Winspeaker Guest columnist


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 December 2005 10:50 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I think that you can take that position if you like. But even if it is the case that the actions taken were not effective, or might have been handled differently to more effect, the fact is that there was a direct attempt to intervene materially.

The intent was there.

Palestinians have been calling for UN intervention for years, to no avail, not even a preliminary third party non-combat security screen seems feasible.


Sending soldiers into an area with the intent to stop crimes against humanity with ROEs that are good for self defense only is absolutly useless. The act was was purely political with absolute no resolve to actually do anything. The ROEs were written so poorly that Serb (or enter your favorite of the three ethnic groups here) militants would actually commit war crimes in front of UN peacekeeping soldiers.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 December 2005 01:20 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
I'm sure the Israelies would find the comparison absurd as well. After all, they didn't take a whole continent, or ensure their majority by wiping out most of the population. But I'm glad to know that I'm actually an equal citizen of this country, and that I've been imagining all the racism - can't wait to spread the good news back at the reserve.

Cueball's right there, you'd have to go back at least 40 years to find similar levels of structural exclusion in Canada, need to start blowing up a few more white people before we'd send the troops back in....sure we'd all agree on that. Look at it as having passed a few more steps on the official assimilation program. /:l


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 December 2005 09:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

Sending soldiers into an area with the intent to stop crimes against humanity with ROEs that are good for self defense only is absolutly useless. The act was was purely political with absolute no resolve to actually do anything. The ROEs were written so poorly that Serb (or enter your favorite of the three ethnic groups here) militants would actually commit war crimes in front of UN peacekeeping soldiers.


That really isn't relevant. This is about bias at the UN, not whether actions taken are effective or not.

Thet fact is that the UN intended to do something in Bosnia, and has never intended to take action, in Israel.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 05 December 2005 10:31 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
so are you saying that the 800 resolutions agaiant Israel are just BS?
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 December 2005 07:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am saying that of the 800 resolution regarding Israel, other than those regarding the 1956 Suez Crisis and the war, none indicate any action to be taken by the UN. The most galring of this being resolution 242, which calls for Israeli withdrawal to its 1967 border, but does not recommend any actions for member states to take, such as sanctions used against Iraq and South Africa, or direct military intevention as in the case of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

I am further saying, that the great majority of these resolution, are not new resolutions targetting Israel afresh, but reiterations of 242 variously.

If for instance, Saddam Hussein's 1990 occupation of Kuwait had been allowed to stand for 35 years, I imagine that similar numbers of resolution would have been offered in the intervening period, as the Government of Kuwait, still a member in good standing, would have mounted complaint after complaint based on resolution 660.

As I pointed out, in 1991, there were 14 resolution targeting Iraq and only 4 mentioning Israel.

Considering that Israel has occupied chunks of every single nation upon which it borders, on an off since 1967, it is hardly suprising that member states raise continous and ongoing complaints, and that the UN finds it necessary to call for Israeli withdrawal, as enshrining the principle of extra-territorial deterance, and buffer zones would be a formula for international chaos.

Are you saying that you want an world order where China keeps its armies 30 miles projected into the territories of its neighbours, as a security precaution?

[ 05 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 December 2005 10:06 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
From the original article:

The decision followed a tough campaign by prominent members of the Canadian Jewish community, who directly lobbied Prime Minister Paul Martin to change Canada's voting pattern


Why is it that 57 posts can go by on this thread and nobody has yet accused the author of saying "the Canadian government is controlled by Jews", as has been the case whenever babblers mention the effectiveness of the CJC and other Jewish organizations in lobbying?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 December 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Probably because they realize how stupid the insinuation sounds. The Canadian government is controlled by rich people who want more tax cuts for themselves when the NDP isn't horning in.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 07 December 2005 08:03 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Why is it that 57 posts can go by on this thread and nobody has yet accused the author of saying "the Canadian government is controlled by Jews", as has been the case whenever babblers mention the effectiveness of the CJC and other Jewish organizations in lobbying?


I am taken aback by this post. Why was it necessary?

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 December 2005 10:22 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh stop wringing your hankie, and figure it out on your own.

It's rather self-explanatory.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 07 December 2005 10:46 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Oh stop wringing your hankie, and figure it out on your own. It's rather self-explanatory.
Um, I'm a little perplexed myself. But then again, that's nothing new.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 07 December 2005 02:45 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Oh stop wringing your hankie, and figure it out on your own.

It's rather self-explanatory.


al-Qa'bong it is not self-explanatory. Now there are three of us wondering.

From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 07 December 2005 06:03 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Make that four... Perplexed and concerned.
From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 December 2005 06:20 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There was a time in babble's history when anyone suggesting that lobby groups such as the CJC in Canada, or AIPAC in the U.S., were actually having a significant effect on the policies of their respective countries would be rewarded with a rather unfortunate accusation, or at the very least be encouraged to look deeply into his heart to examine his true motives.

Seriously.

And that may be the longest sentence I've written all week.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 07 December 2005 07:26 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
There was a time in babble's history when anyone suggesting that lobby groups such as the CJC in Canada, or AIPAC in the U.S., were actually having a significant effect on the policies of their respective countries would be rewarded with a rather unfortunate accusation, or at the very least be encouraged to look deeply into his heart to examine his true motives.

Seriously.

And that may be the longest sentence I've written all week.


Still doesnt explain al Qa'bong.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 07 December 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
..."others" would include Carolyn Bennett

That's disappointing.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 December 2005 07:31 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Still doesnt explain al Qa'bong.

I thought I explained the situation rather well.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 07 December 2005 08:20 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
There was a time in babble's history when anyone suggesting that lobby groups such as the CJC in Canada, or AIPAC in the U.S., were actually having a significant effect on the policies of their respective countries would be rewarded with a rather unfortunate accusation, or at the very least be encouraged to look deeply into his heart to examine his true motives.
Seriously.


Since AIPAC is under criminal investigation and charges have been laid against them by the authorities in the US.

Are you suggesting that CJC is under criminal investigation or been charged?

Or did you just refer to the first Canadian lobby group you thought of?

I also would like Al-Q to clarify his/her remarks for us

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 December 2005 08:44 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
pogge did just fine. Only the willfully obtuse, or someone completely unfamiliar with the history of the Middle East forum, could fail to grasp the meaning of what I wrote.

Seriously.

babble needs an eyelash-batting, feigned innocence smiley.

[edited to correct anatomy]

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 07 December 2005 09:48 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
There are at least 5 people here who seriously question your intention. Your continual refusal to offer an explanation only reinforces my feelings.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 07 December 2005 10:17 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
Maybe it's just some more of that qa'razy, Al-Qa'bong, qa'omedy.
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 07 December 2005 10:30 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Im not sure Jewish Babblers find it very funny
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 December 2005 10:32 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
There are at least 5 people here who seriously question your intention. Your continual refusal to offer an explanation only reinforces my feelings.

What intention? Explain what? What do you feel? Quit prevaricating; spit it out.

pogge already told you what I meant; it isn't that complicated.

You're really becoming tiresome.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 07 December 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, I guess it was a jest... Not familiar with the form, I mostly lurk here, and only recently at that.

al-Qa'bong, I hope that you could appreciate, that there are those that would find it funny, maybe even hilarious, there are those that won't. Some might even be deeply offended. I don't think that there was any malicious intent, and now knowing the history, I can chuckle... I guess it's just a question of knowing your audience.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 December 2005 11:07 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:
Since AIPAC is under criminal investigation and charges have been laid against them...

Unless there's been a major development in that story of which I'm unaware, no, they're not. Two individuals who were in their employ have been charged and they became former AIPAC employees rather quickly. I believe there were search warrants issued for some AIPAC premises but the organization itself was assured several times by JD and FBI officials that it was not under investigation.

If you have a link that shows new developments, please share. It would be a major story.

And yes, I mentioned AIPAC because it was one of the first organizations of its type that came to mind and has been the focus of exactly the kinds of discussions I referred to. Same with the CJC.

quote:
Are you suggesting that CJC is under criminal investigation or been charged?

Please quote anything I've ever written to substantiate that. Otherwise you're putting words in my mouth in a way that's completely out of left field. Why?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 December 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
So, I guess it was a jest... Not familiar with the form, I mostly lurk here, and only recently at that.

al-Qa'bong, I hope that you could appreciate, that there are those that would find it funny, maybe even hilarious, there are those that won't. Some might even be deeply offended. I don't think that there was any malicious intent, and now knowing the history, I can chuckle... I guess it's just a question of knowing your audience.



No, I wasn't trying to be funny; anything but. worker-drone suggested comedy, if you'll recall.

ohara's little witchhunt is all the more ridiculous because he himself has been the most recent babbler to have made the accusation I noted:

B'Nai Brith Attacks the Canada Palestine Film Festival...Again

quote:
25 October 2005 ohara: I was simply dismayed at your pointing to Jewish groups and ascribing to them the power to control government appointed bodies.

Given his history here, I'm sure he'll deny that this means he claimed I said that Jews control the government (or their appointed bodies).


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ginger Jar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10992

posted 07 December 2005 11:28 PM      Profile for Ginger Jar        Edit/Delete Post
Let's be clear here.

al-Qa'bong, do you believe Jews control the government?


From: green glen | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 December 2005 11:31 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ginger Jar:
Let's be clear here.

al-Qa'bong, do you believe Jews control the government?



Of course not, I'm from the West.

Those damn Frogs control the government, tabernacle!


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 07 December 2005 11:33 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hehe, dry sense of humour. Perhaps some here should be redirected to the jokes thread.

Good night, try to get along guys.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 08 December 2005 01:28 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Worker Drone is absolutely right again! I am positive that AL's remarks are just another example of his harmless fun-loving Qwazy, Qwomedy. Who can ever forget his other famous Qwomedy hits like: poking fun of the Pizzeria bombing, or "speculating" on ethnic cleansing by Israel? I don't know about you but I enjoyed them!

On a more serious note I think rather than "speculate" about the CJC's influence let's look at what the head of the CIC has said:

quote:
Michael Coren asked the very pointed question

“So everyone in Israel…irrespective of gender, over the age of 18 is a target?”

Elmasry responded, “Yes, I would say.” and then went on to specify that, “They are not innocent if they are part of a population which is [the] total population of Israel… the definition of terrorism is really a means to an end, which is actually ending terrorism, either by a group or an individual or a state...”


This is in sharp contrast with the present excellent work of the Moslem lobby groups actively trying their best to free the Canandian hostages in Iraq. Let's hope they are succesful! (Too bad such efforts were not made on behalf of Daniel Pearl, and sadly many others.

List of hostages beheaded )


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 08 December 2005 01:32 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:

Please quote anything I've ever written to substantiate that. Otherwise you're putting words in my mouth in a way that's completely out of left field. Why?


I am not trying to put words in your mouth pogge. I was questioning why CJC was even mentioned. that is why I asked if CJC was the first group you could think of.

I found it interesting that you mentioned AIPAC who has problems (to say it lightly) and then in the next breath CJC.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 08 December 2005 01:34 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:
I found it interesting that you mentioned AIPAC who has problems (to say it lightly) and then in the next breath CJC.

And I find it interesting that you find it interesting. I don't believe in guilt by association. Do you?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 December 2005 01:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Daniel Pearl? Where did that come from?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 08 December 2005 02:27 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow. This thread has been totally Mishtified. I haven't seen that in a while. Good job?
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 December 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, really, to be fair, al-Q started it this time around.

I'm closing this since it's long and off topic.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca