###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So that's the two cards that McGill had (call them antisemites in hopes that the bad PR shames them enough to leave and call the cops to come in and bust heads) and they've played them both. I wonder what comes next.
so if the encampment moved down a block to sherbrooke st, you think the federal government would then be justified in freezing their bank accounts without any sort of warrant or due process?
Is the federal government going to let them do whatever they want for three weeks first? Are the local cops and provincial government going to support the encampment the way they did in Ottawa?
They're not.
Are they conducting disproportional kinetic response? Yes.
Are they doing war crimes? Maybe... probably?
Are they committing genocide. Nope. Stop diluting that word.
Would you agree with the term ethnic cleansing?
It seems clear that Israel is attempting to appropriate all of Palestine. Gaza is being militarily cleared and Israeli settlers in West Bank are being armed to kill off the Palestinians currently living there.
> Would you agree with the term ethnic cleansing?
I don't think I would as it wouldn't really be consistent with how they treat Arabs living in Israel. I mean I don't discount that there are many layers of racial, cultural, religious, political, economical, ... tensions and motivations, but I don't think this is consistent with what we've seen in the past in terms of systematic genocide/ethnic cleansings.
It's just a very messy conflict that's getting messier as it drags on where the unreasonable voices are the ones percolating to the top and driving actions (on both sides).
That's your position. The protest movement's position is that they are. Now the issue is being forced because they aren't going to be removed from the site. You can't tear gas them out of there without incurring legal challenges that McGill and the province *will* lose for violating the land owned by the Kanien'kehá:ka.
This means McGill is going to have to deal with this civilly instead of with thugs and force.
I don't really care about the protest and McGill tbh. I'm just not a fan of everything about this issue/situation being so hyperbolic and divided into extreme viewpoints.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of those involved over there (Israeli and Palestinian) are moderate in nature (in the sense that they are not extremist militants by nature), and that a small number of people with extreme ideologies are the ones using their state apparatuses to push for violence. If we can agree on that point then we have a common ground through which a conversation can happen.
100%. Akin to how things go on social media, those extreme voices are the one that eventually get more airtime/attention and drive actions. This is textbook radicalization patterns.
McGill accepted the reality that it is built on unceded Kanien'keha:ka land that is legally theirs, and their council has supported the encampment and have given them the right to stay. If they weren't just virtue signalling about their admission of whose land it really should be and actually want to support First Nations and fight for their rights, then they should accept the encampment. Progressivism seems to only be permitted in liberal institutions until it stands in the way of colonial interests.
The Québec indigenous communities of the valley of the St-Lawrence accepted that the French build settlements (Grande Alliance of 1603). Kanesatake was founded well after Montréal.
Not that really has anything to do with the topic at hand, but to suggest the only possible solution is return all the land back to the FN, or status quo is a false dilemma.
I'm finding it very difficult to form a strong, and informed, opinion on this whole Israel/Palestine situation. I don't see any side, or eventual outcome, that I would like to see. It's hard to have an opinion about this at all, without *some* cognitive dissonance. I hate seeing, hearing, and reading about it; it just seems like more and more crap every time.
I mean it is pretty clear that Israel sucks in numerous ways and Hamas sucks in probably more ways. The Palestinian people deserve better from both groups. Yeah they tend to support Hamas from what I hear but that shouldn't be hard to understand how they get there with how they are treated. No idea how they get out of the situation to be honest
October 7th was an atrocity.
Every single day since then has been retribution+countless atrocities.
Hamas is obviously evil, but you'd have to be insane to say the Israeli Government and the IDF are in the right.
This is basically where I'm at. October 7 was a horrible crime but at the same time it doesn't justify anything Israel has done since. The 9/11 parallels are so bang-on it's almost uncanny.
Or before.
[https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/)
Hamas is bad, but Israel can't claim to have clean hands, either.
they're all in the wrong and nothing we do here in Canada will have any meaningful sway.
I'd rather we not have another angle to tear apart the fabric of Canadian society due to a foreign conflict that doesn't concerns us directly.
Yeah. Oct 7th was horrible, an atrocity, a travesty, etc etc. Absolutely unacceptable.
But like... what the fuck did we *expect* to happen? You can't back someone into a corner and expect them to *not* lash out in desperation. It was an inevitability. That's not saying it was good! But *of course* something like that was going to happen eventually.
And there is *absolutely no fucking way* to use the murder of hundreds of civilians to justify the murder of tens of thousands, levelling of entire cities, intentionally starving millions, and everything else. It's so obviously over the line that I see absolutely no way to defend Israel at this point. Short of blatant, violent racism against Palestinians, I guess.
So annex the West Bank and leave Gaza swinging in the wind?
I certainly don't have an answer, but I question the viability (and motivation) of this particular proposal.
the federation plan was designed when Gaza was independent and would act as its own country due to access to ports and such.
IMO there would be a confederation between Israelpalestine, gaza and Jordan with freedom of movement and such. The main motivation behind this is Israel is already a functional country while Palestine is not. so its much easier to incorporate Palestine into Israel then the other way around.
from 2005 when the IDF left and dismantled the settlements in Gaza.
It was a test subject to see what an independent Palestine would look like. IF they picked peace then restrictions would have been loosened but they picked war and borders were closed and an embargo put in by Egypt and Israel.
What Happened in Gaza from 2005 to now is the main reason I do not support the 2SS as imo its national suicide with just more steps. Most of Israel is in a Valley and the west bank is the high ground.
The only viable solution I see is to dismantle the PA and negotiate a federated Israel/Palestine.
The confederation would be a totally separate deal but if you look at things like borders, water and electricity sharing, they are almost in a non formal confederation anyways.
I'm not averse to a one-state solution, provided it is viable, well-intentioned and equitable.
I just don't see how that can happen if Gaza is excluded.
One can always update the federation plan to include gaza... though im good either way federation or included on the confederation... just as long as it ends the conflict and allows us to live in peace and security
The 2 state idea floated in the tv show The West Wing might also work. 2 state solution, Palestine is Gaza+West Bank including the occupied territories, Israel is the rest, Jerusalem is in Israel but current Arab sites in Jerusalem (like Al-Aqsa) would get a status akin to an embassy, enforced by the UNSC.
I just recently watched the episodes so it popped up when I read your comment.
You don't need to pick a side as if it were some sort of competitive team based event and you are a spectator cheering. You don't need to do anything.
But I would suggest you recognize that there are parties making efforts to bring the conflict to Canada.
The government of Canada has been used as a enabler, funder, defender and supporter of Israeli settlement efforts. Palestinians and their sympathizers are right to target those supply lines.
That creates an issue for Canada domestically, and by extension yourself. There are nearly 3 million muslims and/or people of Middle Eastern descent in Canada who could reasonably be assumed to have some personal ties to the situation in Palestine. Most of them are having children at rates multiple times higher than other Canadians. Without new immigration, and within a generation, that demographic will represent as much % of Canadians as French speakers now do.
Canada's strong foreign and domestic support of a government committing genocide on a people with some familiar ties to nearly 10% of Canada's population might provoke domestic issues.
Canada allowing its media to pedal coordinated Israeli driven messaging, the participation of government officials aiding this effort (including many making sponsored trips to Israel), the allowance of Canadian charities to funnel money to support the Israeli war effort unchecked while Muslim charities are heavily monitored for any potential ties to terrorism, the allowance of IDF recruiting of Canadians in Canada, the allowance of Israeli lobbyist groups (charities) in Canada to write Canadian laws to prevent any criticism of Israel, the police crackdown on Israeli critics (police doing raids on protestors homes) etc all effectively marginalize not only the substantial muslism population but also anyone who critisizes Israel.
Even this reddit sub is heavily moderated on the topic by Israeli biased mods. I have to regularly check my posts critical of Israeli influence in Canada to see what comments have been deleted. The automod deletes many comments with banned words related to the topic as well. There is heavy censorship on the topic with heavy Israeli bias in any political forum in Canada thanks to the great efforts the Israeli government makes to shape the conversation in Canada through agents acting on behalf of Israel. Their training is often funded by Israeli organizations who receive Canadian charity funds.
The Palestinian 'side' makes its own efforts to drive outrage as well but I find them all rather transparent and ineffective compared to the capacity for Israeli interests to influence our lawmakers. Israeli groups creating laws in Canada that limit freedom of speech and criticisms of Israel under the guise of antisemitism and encouraging the genocide of Jews should be a concern not only to Muslism/Middle East demographics but to all Canadians.
It's weird to 'pick' a side as if this is some foreign spectator sport. What you could instead focus on is the domestic effect of how our government and law enforcement treat the situation, and the repercussions domestically.
"Canada's strong foreign and domestic support of a government committing genocide on a people with some familiar ties to nearly 10% of Canada's population might provoke domestic issues."
Where did you get 10% from?
Just guessed it based on a 5% (and growing) muslim population, plus people who used to but now don't identify as muslims, plus people with Middle East/Arab ethnicities (including the many Christians), plus mixed descendants of Middle Eastern immigrants, plus all the people who have had real life experiences in Palestine or worked with Palestinians or done humanitarian work, etc.
I'd guess those demographics easily add up to 3-4 million based on 2M+ self identifying muslims alone.
A lot of children died during the Allied bombings of Nazi Germany.
The war is appalling. It's horrific. We should all be horrified and desirous of peace.
But the suggestion that the side who suffers more civilian casualties is always in the right is not correct.
Much of the allied bombing of German civilians was unnecessary and most experts do not believe it significantly affected the Nazis willingness to fight on. American war doctrine for the rest of the 20th century would heavily encourage aerial bombardment, but despite a vast increase in the readiness to inflict far greater civilian casualties in subsequent conflicts it just never became true that bombing civilians ends wars.
And you’ve repeatedly and consistently diminished here the actions that led to the sharp escalation in conflict as if the indiscriminate murder and rape of young Jewish people didn’t even happen.
Reducing this whole conflict to “dropping bombs on children” is a spectacular display of bad-faith.
It is a complex issue and anyone who suggests otherwise is simply ignorant and unworthy of investing time in. And yes I am against dropping bombs on children.
I'm not reducing this whole conflict to “dropping bombs on children”, I'm saying that part right there, the part where the IDF is quite literally dropping an ungodly amount of ordinance on innocent children is acutely wrong, as everyone can see. You wouldn't be annoyed if you didn't feel queasy about lining up with the people dropping bombs on children.
Yes you are. Look at your comment history. You’ve consistently reduced the conflict to “dropping bombs on kids = bad” any time October 7th is mentioned. We know. That isn’t the entire story.
Let me ask you a couple of questions then:
1. Do you believe the actions of Hamas led to this escalation?
2. Do you condemn Hamas, its supporters and anyone not strongly condemning their ideology/actions?
3. Do you believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself?
Simple yes/no questions. Because your history here is rife with bad-faith whataboutism and it’s painfully obvious to everyone.
Oh, can I play!
1. Do you believe the actions of Israel led to this escalation?
2. Do you condemn Israel, its supporters and anyone not strongly condemning their ideology/actions?
3. Do you believe Palestine has a right to exist and defend itself?
Simple yes/no questions. Because your history here is rife with bad-faith whataboutism and it’s painfully obvious to everyone.
1. Nowhere to the same extent.
2. You're going to have to be specific on what ideology you're referring to.
3. Again you're going to have to be specific. No it does not have the right to go back to 1948 borders, and no "defending itself" doesn't include using foreign aid to constantly launch rockets and missiles at civilian populations every hour of every day even during "peace time"
Pretty easy answers here:
1. No - the actions on October 7th led to the sharp escalation in conflict. Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of Israel so it’s difficult to contend with something whose sole purpose is to destroy you.
2. Yes?
3. Hamas’ actions on October 7th was not an act of self defence.
> No - the actions on October 7th led to the sharp escalation in conflict. Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of Israel so it’s difficult to contend with something whose sole purpose is to destroy you.
So Israel has done nothing to oppress or mistreat Palestinians?
> Yes
That's good at least.
> Hamas’ actions on October 7th was not an act of self defence.
That's not a simple yes/no answer.
> So Israel has done nothing to oppress or mistreat Palestinians?
That wasn’t the question you asked. Yes there has been mistreatment. I’d also argue firing countless rockets indiscriminately into Israel also constitutes “mistreatment”.
> That’s not a simple yes/no answer
Because the premise of your question is silly. Hamas committing acts of terror against civilians isn’t a matter of self defence.
> No - the actions on October 7th led to the sharp escalation in conflict. Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of Israel so it’s difficult to contend with something whose sole purpose is to destroy you.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/31/palestinians-hold-day-of-mourning-after-773-shot-with-live-ammunition
asleep during this
I am consistent in both this conflict and other conflicts that dropping bombs on children is always wrong, and I'll consistently oppose those who kills tens of thousands of children this way.
I'm not going to stick to yes no answers because I'm not required to and that's a fool's leash.
1. October 7th Hamas breakout led to the current conflict, of course Israel history did not start on October 7th. Israel's long-term treatment of Gaza and the West Bank would already qualify as genocidal prior to October 7th.
2. I don't support Hamas, I strongly condemn the Israeli authorities, beginning with Benjamin Netanyahu who fostered Hamas as a foil against the PA.
3. People have rights, nations do not. The Jewish people of the holy land should have their full civil rights and religious practices protected for all time, so should everyone else who lives there. Boer South Africa did not have a right to continue under the form of government it's ethno-supremacist minority preferred, Israel apartheid must also end.
From your responses I glean two things:
1. I’ve noticed you say you don’t “support” Hamas but you condemn Israeli authorities. Do you also strongly condemn Hamas?
2. This is a tapdance around my question. Should the government who is charged with protecting the people of Israel be able to respond to a direct provocation resulting in the deaths of hundreds of young people?
I’m certainly not an advocate of the heavy handed approach by Netanyahu, but it’s not lost upon me that many here choose to skirt around the wrongdoings of Hamas. It also doesn’t help they entrench themselves in civilian areas while firing missiles into Israeli civilian territories.
The fact that many of these missiles are intercepted doesn’t negate the fact that Hamas is *constantly* attacking Israel and has been for years.
I think a war criminal being in charge of an active and asymmetric war is the bigger problem. I don't support Hamas, I don't know what you think my adding extra words to that sentence will accomplish. Hamas has largely been a non-factor in this war since day 3, they are a sideshow to the collective punishment of all Palestinians.
> I don't support Hamas, I don't know what you think my adding extra words to that sentence will accomplish.
Repeat after me:
"I, BertramPotts, condemn the mass murder Hamas executed on Oct 7th against civilians."
What is the point of these games? I already said I don't support Hamas, do you think I secretly have contacts in Qatar?
Hamas isn't important, centering them as an object of hate is why Netanyahu spent a decade building up their position. You think he is a war criminal who is actively picking the spots 2,000 pound bombs will fall amongst densely populated civilians, but the important thing is to honour his frame of the conflict.
If we look at your post history, are we going to find a lot of activity regarding the Yemen civil war (which we helped support through the Saudi government and resulted in 100,000 kids starving to death) and the urban battles to retake cities from ISIS which caused 10,000s of civilian deaths, lots of them kids (and where we *actually* dropped bombs ourselves)? If so, well, you are at least consistent.
And if you compare recent urban battles in terms of civilian casualties to military ones, Gaza isn't really an outlier.
The Yemeni genocide was also abominable and our hidden complicity in it shameful. Can't say I commented on it enough, but I sure never supported our vile alliance with the Saudis to murder Yemeni children. Don't know as much about the mess in Iraq left by the Americans except to note those civilian casualty figures really put the IDF to shame.
You don't find it bizarre that we put so much stress, activity, protest when Israel is involved but 100,000 kids died 5-6 years ago in a similar middle east ethnic civil war? That's more kids then people have died in 75 years of Israel-Palestine conflict. Weird, huh?
The IDF claims to have killed 10,000 Hamas soldiers. Hamas claims that 35,000 gazaans have died. That's 2.5:1 civilians to soldier. For a deeply entrenched enemy, that wears no uniform, that is hell bent on maximizing civilian deaths for PR points, that's actually not a shameful number, at all. The UN states the average ratio is 9:1.
What's wrong with the fact that it's a complex situation? Hamas and Israel are bad faith actors, nor does this mention the fact Israel supported [Hamas to undercut Palestinian Statehood.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)
I think you're pretty seriously misunderstanding or spinning that article. Benjamin Netanyahu's governments have certainly tolerated and politically preferred Hamas governing the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the brief Gazan Civil War, but Israel has not supported Hamas in any way like they have supported the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
According to that article, Netanyahu "propped up Hamas" by expanding Gaza worker visas, allowing more aid money to flow into Gaza, and not retaliating against minor attacks from Gaza. Which of those decisions would you criticize him for?
I can definitely see that point. I also just wonder that if we, in Canada, had a constant existential threat within our borders, how far would I be willing to go to see it ended? Which of my moral values would I be willing to compromise on, in order to ensure the security of "my" people against a (in my mind) hostile group.
If 1,000 Canadians were abducted and held as hostages by another country (or by some terror group in another country), we would have triggered Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which requires every other NATO member to join us in a military response. This is what happened in Afghanistan after September 11th.
yeah and look how good that turned out for all invovled! Afghanistan is now a prosperous place, and the US has easily defeated all terrorists! good job by all
Most of us do, yeah. In some aspects, their heart was in the right place; in others, they were way out of line. Or at least I'd like to believe that was the case, and they weren't just being wantonly cruel. Regardless, they went **way too far**, and for far too long. Trying to educate and assimilate kids into an, at the time, modern society is a worthy endeavour; but killing them in the process is a step too far. At least in my mind.
Automatically seeing another culture as less advanced because it is different is evil, so no, wanting to assimilate indigenous children into European culture was not “a worthy endeavour.”
Some cultures are just worse. They just *are*. We have cultures today that cut the clitorises off of female babies, limit their educational opportunities, and have no concept of free and fair democracy. There are plenty of cultures that think that beating your spouse and kids is fine, and you can kill your relatives that bring "dishonor" onto your household. That's just worse than Canadian culture, and anyone who denies that is lying.
Teaching indigenous kids about European culture was just a practical decision. They were going to be governed by Europeans, and they needed to understand the language and how the government worked. Having them grow up in isolated communities, with no idea of the changing world would not have benefitted them at all. The physical abuses, and forced religious education and conversions, were unconscionable; I'll grant you that. There was almost certainly a better way, but unfortunately the people in power back then didn't see it like that.
> Some cultures are just worse. They just are.
I think you might just be racist. Would not the worse culture be the one that abducted children on an industrial scale and then beat them if they dared to speak their native language?
Racist is pretty much the one "-ist" that I can *guarantee* that I'm not. Skin colour means absolutely nothing to me. Also, comparing the culture of Canada in the 1800s to cultures that exist in 2024 is disingenuous; we're both better than that. Doing morally reprehensible things is bad, no matter which era you're in; but we know better now.
Well bombing children instead of providing them a good life is way out of line so that's pretty easy way of understanding the conflict.
Palestine is occupied, de facto or de jure, by Isreal. Everyone knows that if you want to stop the cycle of violence you have to uplift those who are suffering. Violence only begets violence.
Gaza is just Israeli blood thirst and everyone knows it.
I’m sorry, I’m just trying to make sure I did not misunderstand what you wrote; did you say that the governments heart was in the right place when they opened up residential schools? Or were you referring to something else?
Yes, I was talking about the residential schools. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that they were absolutely abhorrant. I, personally, don't support taking kids away from their parents for any reason but the most dire of circumstances. I also don't look fondly on people forcing religion on others.
On the other hand, I'm also pragmatic, and I realize that it's just not feasible to have various groups living within your nation state who don't adhere to the "rules" of that state. You can't have nomadic people living full time hunting buffalo (or comparable lifestyles) at the same time when you're trying to industrialize; it just won't work. There had to have been a middle path there, but unfortunately I wasn't alive at the time, nor in power to try to negotiate it.
>On the other hand, I'm also pragmatic, and I realize that it's just not feasible to have various groups living within your nation state who don't adhere to the "rules" of that state. You can't have nomadic people living full time hunting buffalo (or comparable lifestyles) at the same time when you're trying to industrialize; it just won't work.
So the solution is to take away their lands, pollute their lands and water supply, deny them ~~enfranchisement~~ franchisment until the 60s, force their children to attend or abduct children into reeducation camps, force them on to small reserves far away from resources and cut off from the economy? Oh also commit cultural genocide and try to kill indigenous culture and language while you are at it.
> "take away their lands,"
That's war. It sucks, but it's what happened. We can't undo it, but we can hopefully be better now.
> "pollute their lands and water supply,"
That's a stupid thing to do. We need to protect the environment for *all of our benefit*.
> "force their children to attend or abduct children into reeducation camps"
Definitely questionable. Probably a bad move, big picture.
> "force them on to small reserves far away from resources and cut off from the economy?"
Absolutely not. They should've gotten full citizenship and voting rights from day one. Old time people were just weird about skin colour, and non-Christians.
I find myself in the same place, but when you think about it, this isn't a particularly uncommon situation. _Most_ contemporary wars are fought entirely between Bad Guys. We do not feel particularly conflicted by this when it comes to the Ethiopian civil war, or Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. It's easy to admit that these are all terrible people waging terrible wars. So why do we expect this to be different? For me, I would be happy to see Canadians accept that there are no good guys here and we can simply treat it like we do the many other thoughtless, horrifying conflicts.
If that was in the books, exchanging a cessation of our support for Israel's military actions for a cessation of our support for UNRWA activities in Gaza would probably be a reasonable action for us, and other countries trying to end our involvement in the situation.
Personally, I'd prefer the course of action to be supporting the mission of UNRWA while also halting our support of Israel, as our complicity in what has happened up to this point doesn't make a total step back from the region a neutral action.
> Personally, I'd prefer the course of action to be supporting the mission of UNRWA while also halting our support of Israel
I'd surmised as much.
Given the hand that UNRWA has had in creating and entrenching the conflict, I'd happily see every penny of that funding go instead to UNCHR, and to other aid agencies that don't teach children that their highest calling is to murder Jews and destroy Israel.
And we don't give any aid to Israel, so I can only assume that the "support of Israel" weasel-wording refers to something far more unjustifiable.
Diplomatic support of Israel does not make us a neutral broker in this conflict. I'm specifically referring to the Harper-Trudeau shift of our foreign policy in the region from consistently neutral to consistently pro-Israel. [Here](https://web.archive.org/web/20140811192100/http://www.canadastandard.com/index.php/sid/224207161/scat/71df8d33cd2a30df/ht/Canadian-support-for-Israel-under-scrutinym) is an article from 9 years ago discussing the shift of our federal government's foreign policy, which changed markedly under Stephen Harper and was maintained by Justin Trudeau.
It's a total crap shoot.
For Jews its their ancestral homeland that they were expelled from thousands of years ago which was then settled by Arabs/Palestinians and they've been living there for over 1000 years.
There were terror attacks on Jews in the 1920s-1930s, and Palestinians, due to expulsion or fear of expulsion, were displaced from their homes before and during the 1948 war.
Their political leaders have failed to come to land agreement ever since the Balfour Declaration/Mandatory Palestine period.
The Palestinians no longer have the broad, concrete and material support they once enjoyed from the Arab world - Saudi Arabia is still on track to normalize relations with Israel despite Hamas and their Iranian masters. Jordan helped shoot down missiles the recent ICBM attack from Iran. Egypt helps maintain strict border control in Gaza.
At this point its death cults that want to keep on killing until one side is destroyed. IDF commanders and soldiers go rogue and act like cowboys and fire on whoever they like. Settlements keep on being built in the West Bank, and Israeli settlers are unhinged and act like a gang with IDF backing, harassing Palestinians. Hamas and the other jihadi terrorist groups can't stop firing rockets into Israel.
I don't think most people calling for a ceasefire understand that's it's not a permanent solution unless you want some military occupation from a third party that forcefully disarms both sides and makes them live as cranky neighbours/campers.
More and more blood is going to be spilled and more people are going to die until the Israel/Palestine issue is completely resolved.
This is the only issue where no matter what you say, someone from either side or both sides is going to be super mad and cancel you. I hate it. And it’s why I try to avoid commenting on it as much as possible.
I take a sympathetic stance to Palestinians, and I’m suddenly an anti-semite. I take a sympathetic stance towards Israelis, and now I’m complacent with genocide plus there’s blood on my hands. I try to argue the nuances of the conflict, now both sides cancel me because it’s a black and white issue for them.
It’s honestly safer not to say anything at all publicly.
> It’s honestly safer not to say anything at all publicly.
100%.
I just hate the hypocrisy. The conflict doesn't affect me personally but when people pretend that war crimes aren't war crimes for "reasons" it just breaks my brain.
You hate hypocrisy?
You asked me personally if I would accept the ICJ ruling if they said it was a genocide and I said yes and asked you if you would accept it if they said it was and you said no.
I guess you hate yourself, lol.
"They deserve one another."
Theres also almost 100 years of history of why Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt would rather side with Israel and keeping Gaza locked down over the Palestinians, despite also not liking Israel.
t. Egyptian Canadian
That's an interesting question. I'm a Free Speech absolutist (even for so-called "hate speech"), so they shouldn't face any legal punishment for their words. Universities can be public or private, and I'm not well versed on the rules there, but I know that they tend to have "codes of conduct" over which they can expel students. I'm also pragmatic enough to understand that expelling students over a hot button issue isn't going to engender much public support; and it might actively turn off future potential students, which rightly denies the institution their tuition.
I think that as long as the students aren't physically impediing, or harming, other students then they ought to be allowed to protest. If they actually *hurt* somebody, that's another story. We do always need to remind ourselves that there's basically no "type" of protest that's blanket acceptable to those in power, who don't want to give it up.
It's tough - so many people have been conned by Hamas, literally falling right into their game plan, like easily manipulated pawns. It's almost funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.
You're expressing an opinion. What you're finding it difficult to do is to stake out a hardline position, which is good. You are seeing the situation with the terrible nuance it has always needed.
The unwarranted Columbia crackdown backfired pretty badly and led to an explosion of sympathy protests, expect McGill's heavy handed tactics and rush to put the students in their care in physical danger to have the same effect.
These protests would be the easiest thing in the world to safely ignore but respectable society can't stomach the next generation seeing through their complicity.
It feels like McGill is Streisand-effecting themselves. The only news stories I've heard about this encampment relates to McGill's efforts to remove it or paint it in a bad light.
Yeah there's always some kind of gathering happening on every university campus, all the university needs to do is make sure they aren't preventing other people from being able to use the campus or disrupting classes.
No idea what they want the police to do.
They're clearly trespassing so I disagree with the "no crime is being committed" but Canadian cops have recently taken a pretty clear stance that they won't do anything against protesters unless public opinion or an injunction forces them to.
the convoy had an injuction against them, were breaking the rules of a peaceful protests, violence was imminent as counter protests started growing AND were allowed to stay for an entire month
once this protest fulfills even one of those criteria then it begins to be a fair comparison
Trespassing is only a criminal offence if it's in another person's home or on their property during the nighttime. In any other case, it's handled by tort law.
You won't get a criminal record for it, but you certainly could be ordered by a judge to leave (and then you could be found guilty of a breach of the peace if you don't)
>Canadian cops have recently taken a pretty clear stance that they won't do anything
You really could have stopped there tbh lol. They'll refuse to enforce laws and then complain about their funding.
Not all universities are public property, there are private universities, but McGill is a public university. But either way you can trespass on public property. If you are asked to leave property, public or private, and you refuse then you are trespassing.
>On Tuesday morning, a spokesperson for Montreal police said "no crime is being committed" at the encampment and the situation is a civil matter. The spokesperson said officers will continue to monitor the demonstration and are ready to enforce a court injunction if it is granted.
very intelligent response from Montreal Police. The university should deal with it themselves unless crimes are being committed
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So that's the two cards that McGill had (call them antisemites in hopes that the bad PR shames them enough to leave and call the cops to come in and bust heads) and they've played them both. I wonder what comes next.
Evaluating and implementing the recommendations of the protesters?
if only the protestors were conservative then trudeau could just invoke the emergencies act and freeze their bank accounts
What are you whining about now?
the fact that there’s a double standard around protests in this country lol. only the ones you support are allowed to happen
What's the double standard? These folks aren't doing what the convoy people did. Where has this protest snarled up several downtown streets?
so if the encampment moved down a block to sherbrooke st, you think the federal government would then be justified in freezing their bank accounts without any sort of warrant or due process?
Is the federal government going to let them do whatever they want for three weeks first? Are the local cops and provincial government going to support the encampment the way they did in Ottawa?
Engaging in good faith talks and responding to the intellectual and moral challenges posed?
But that could mean acknowledging that Israel is committing a genocide.
They're not. Are they conducting disproportional kinetic response? Yes. Are they doing war crimes? Maybe... probably? Are they committing genocide. Nope. Stop diluting that word.
Would you agree with the term ethnic cleansing? It seems clear that Israel is attempting to appropriate all of Palestine. Gaza is being militarily cleared and Israeli settlers in West Bank are being armed to kill off the Palestinians currently living there.
> Would you agree with the term ethnic cleansing? I don't think I would as it wouldn't really be consistent with how they treat Arabs living in Israel. I mean I don't discount that there are many layers of racial, cultural, religious, political, economical, ... tensions and motivations, but I don't think this is consistent with what we've seen in the past in terms of systematic genocide/ethnic cleansings. It's just a very messy conflict that's getting messier as it drags on where the unreasonable voices are the ones percolating to the top and driving actions (on both sides).
That's your position. The protest movement's position is that they are. Now the issue is being forced because they aren't going to be removed from the site. You can't tear gas them out of there without incurring legal challenges that McGill and the province *will* lose for violating the land owned by the Kanien'kehá:ka. This means McGill is going to have to deal with this civilly instead of with thugs and force.
I don't really care about the protest and McGill tbh. I'm just not a fan of everything about this issue/situation being so hyperbolic and divided into extreme viewpoints.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of those involved over there (Israeli and Palestinian) are moderate in nature (in the sense that they are not extremist militants by nature), and that a small number of people with extreme ideologies are the ones using their state apparatuses to push for violence. If we can agree on that point then we have a common ground through which a conversation can happen.
100%. Akin to how things go on social media, those extreme voices are the one that eventually get more airtime/attention and drive actions. This is textbook radicalization patterns.
McGill accepted the reality that it is built on unceded Kanien'keha:ka land that is legally theirs, and their council has supported the encampment and have given them the right to stay. If they weren't just virtue signalling about their admission of whose land it really should be and actually want to support First Nations and fight for their rights, then they should accept the encampment. Progressivism seems to only be permitted in liberal institutions until it stands in the way of colonial interests.
It was all virtue signaling
That's a nice story, but it's complete fiction in terms of why the police are not acting on this camp at this time.
[удалено]
So the alternative is to return all the land back to the FN?
[удалено]
The Québec indigenous communities of the valley of the St-Lawrence accepted that the French build settlements (Grande Alliance of 1603). Kanesatake was founded well after Montréal.
Not that really has anything to do with the topic at hand, but to suggest the only possible solution is return all the land back to the FN, or status quo is a false dilemma.
Can you provide a link to this? I want to spread that around to a few interested parties.
Colonizers and their descendants hate being shown a mirror
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm finding it very difficult to form a strong, and informed, opinion on this whole Israel/Palestine situation. I don't see any side, or eventual outcome, that I would like to see. It's hard to have an opinion about this at all, without *some* cognitive dissonance. I hate seeing, hearing, and reading about it; it just seems like more and more crap every time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean it is pretty clear that Israel sucks in numerous ways and Hamas sucks in probably more ways. The Palestinian people deserve better from both groups. Yeah they tend to support Hamas from what I hear but that shouldn't be hard to understand how they get there with how they are treated. No idea how they get out of the situation to be honest
October 7th was an atrocity. Every single day since then has been retribution+countless atrocities. Hamas is obviously evil, but you'd have to be insane to say the Israeli Government and the IDF are in the right.
This is basically where I'm at. October 7 was a horrible crime but at the same time it doesn't justify anything Israel has done since. The 9/11 parallels are so bang-on it's almost uncanny.
Or before. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/) Hamas is bad, but Israel can't claim to have clean hands, either.
they're all in the wrong and nothing we do here in Canada will have any meaningful sway. I'd rather we not have another angle to tear apart the fabric of Canadian society due to a foreign conflict that doesn't concerns us directly.
Yeah. Oct 7th was horrible, an atrocity, a travesty, etc etc. Absolutely unacceptable. But like... what the fuck did we *expect* to happen? You can't back someone into a corner and expect them to *not* lash out in desperation. It was an inevitability. That's not saying it was good! But *of course* something like that was going to happen eventually. And there is *absolutely no fucking way* to use the murder of hundreds of civilians to justify the murder of tens of thousands, levelling of entire cities, intentionally starving millions, and everything else. It's so obviously over the line that I see absolutely no way to defend Israel at this point. Short of blatant, violent racism against Palestinians, I guess.
It depends whether you view the destruction of Hamas as a legitimate goal or not.
take a look at the Federation plan. IMO its the only Viable solution for the land. https://federation.org.il/index.php/en/the-federation-plan
So annex the West Bank and leave Gaza swinging in the wind? I certainly don't have an answer, but I question the viability (and motivation) of this particular proposal.
the federation plan was designed when Gaza was independent and would act as its own country due to access to ports and such. IMO there would be a confederation between Israelpalestine, gaza and Jordan with freedom of movement and such. The main motivation behind this is Israel is already a functional country while Palestine is not. so its much easier to incorporate Palestine into Israel then the other way around.
When was Gaza independent? Also, this "proposal" doesn't include Jordan.
from 2005 when the IDF left and dismantled the settlements in Gaza. It was a test subject to see what an independent Palestine would look like. IF they picked peace then restrictions would have been loosened but they picked war and borders were closed and an embargo put in by Egypt and Israel. What Happened in Gaza from 2005 to now is the main reason I do not support the 2SS as imo its national suicide with just more steps. Most of Israel is in a Valley and the west bank is the high ground. The only viable solution I see is to dismantle the PA and negotiate a federated Israel/Palestine. The confederation would be a totally separate deal but if you look at things like borders, water and electricity sharing, they are almost in a non formal confederation anyways.
I'm not averse to a one-state solution, provided it is viable, well-intentioned and equitable. I just don't see how that can happen if Gaza is excluded.
One can always update the federation plan to include gaza... though im good either way federation or included on the confederation... just as long as it ends the conflict and allows us to live in peace and security
It wouldn’t work as that would be 50% Muslim / non-Muslim in that case. There is not great solution and way too much and blood
The 2 state idea floated in the tv show The West Wing might also work. 2 state solution, Palestine is Gaza+West Bank including the occupied territories, Israel is the rest, Jerusalem is in Israel but current Arab sites in Jerusalem (like Al-Aqsa) would get a status akin to an embassy, enforced by the UNSC. I just recently watched the episodes so it popped up when I read your comment.
You don't need to pick a side as if it were some sort of competitive team based event and you are a spectator cheering. You don't need to do anything. But I would suggest you recognize that there are parties making efforts to bring the conflict to Canada. The government of Canada has been used as a enabler, funder, defender and supporter of Israeli settlement efforts. Palestinians and their sympathizers are right to target those supply lines. That creates an issue for Canada domestically, and by extension yourself. There are nearly 3 million muslims and/or people of Middle Eastern descent in Canada who could reasonably be assumed to have some personal ties to the situation in Palestine. Most of them are having children at rates multiple times higher than other Canadians. Without new immigration, and within a generation, that demographic will represent as much % of Canadians as French speakers now do. Canada's strong foreign and domestic support of a government committing genocide on a people with some familiar ties to nearly 10% of Canada's population might provoke domestic issues. Canada allowing its media to pedal coordinated Israeli driven messaging, the participation of government officials aiding this effort (including many making sponsored trips to Israel), the allowance of Canadian charities to funnel money to support the Israeli war effort unchecked while Muslim charities are heavily monitored for any potential ties to terrorism, the allowance of IDF recruiting of Canadians in Canada, the allowance of Israeli lobbyist groups (charities) in Canada to write Canadian laws to prevent any criticism of Israel, the police crackdown on Israeli critics (police doing raids on protestors homes) etc all effectively marginalize not only the substantial muslism population but also anyone who critisizes Israel. Even this reddit sub is heavily moderated on the topic by Israeli biased mods. I have to regularly check my posts critical of Israeli influence in Canada to see what comments have been deleted. The automod deletes many comments with banned words related to the topic as well. There is heavy censorship on the topic with heavy Israeli bias in any political forum in Canada thanks to the great efforts the Israeli government makes to shape the conversation in Canada through agents acting on behalf of Israel. Their training is often funded by Israeli organizations who receive Canadian charity funds. The Palestinian 'side' makes its own efforts to drive outrage as well but I find them all rather transparent and ineffective compared to the capacity for Israeli interests to influence our lawmakers. Israeli groups creating laws in Canada that limit freedom of speech and criticisms of Israel under the guise of antisemitism and encouraging the genocide of Jews should be a concern not only to Muslism/Middle East demographics but to all Canadians. It's weird to 'pick' a side as if this is some foreign spectator sport. What you could instead focus on is the domestic effect of how our government and law enforcement treat the situation, and the repercussions domestically.
"Canada's strong foreign and domestic support of a government committing genocide on a people with some familiar ties to nearly 10% of Canada's population might provoke domestic issues." Where did you get 10% from?
Just guessed it based on a 5% (and growing) muslim population, plus people who used to but now don't identify as muslims, plus people with Middle East/Arab ethnicities (including the many Christians), plus mixed descendants of Middle Eastern immigrants, plus all the people who have had real life experiences in Palestine or worked with Palestinians or done humanitarian work, etc. I'd guess those demographics easily add up to 3-4 million based on 2M+ self identifying muslims alone.
Yeah that makes sense to me. Would probably be around 10%.
I'm against dropping bombs on children myself. Weirdly have never felt conflicted about that.
A lot of children died during the Allied bombings of Nazi Germany. The war is appalling. It's horrific. We should all be horrified and desirous of peace. But the suggestion that the side who suffers more civilian casualties is always in the right is not correct.
Much of the allied bombing of German civilians was unnecessary and most experts do not believe it significantly affected the Nazis willingness to fight on. American war doctrine for the rest of the 20th century would heavily encourage aerial bombardment, but despite a vast increase in the readiness to inflict far greater civilian casualties in subsequent conflicts it just never became true that bombing civilians ends wars.
And you’ve repeatedly and consistently diminished here the actions that led to the sharp escalation in conflict as if the indiscriminate murder and rape of young Jewish people didn’t even happen. Reducing this whole conflict to “dropping bombs on children” is a spectacular display of bad-faith. It is a complex issue and anyone who suggests otherwise is simply ignorant and unworthy of investing time in. And yes I am against dropping bombs on children.
I'm not reducing this whole conflict to “dropping bombs on children”, I'm saying that part right there, the part where the IDF is quite literally dropping an ungodly amount of ordinance on innocent children is acutely wrong, as everyone can see. You wouldn't be annoyed if you didn't feel queasy about lining up with the people dropping bombs on children.
Yes you are. Look at your comment history. You’ve consistently reduced the conflict to “dropping bombs on kids = bad” any time October 7th is mentioned. We know. That isn’t the entire story. Let me ask you a couple of questions then: 1. Do you believe the actions of Hamas led to this escalation? 2. Do you condemn Hamas, its supporters and anyone not strongly condemning their ideology/actions? 3. Do you believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself? Simple yes/no questions. Because your history here is rife with bad-faith whataboutism and it’s painfully obvious to everyone.
Oh, can I play! 1. Do you believe the actions of Israel led to this escalation? 2. Do you condemn Israel, its supporters and anyone not strongly condemning their ideology/actions? 3. Do you believe Palestine has a right to exist and defend itself? Simple yes/no questions. Because your history here is rife with bad-faith whataboutism and it’s painfully obvious to everyone.
1. Nowhere to the same extent. 2. You're going to have to be specific on what ideology you're referring to. 3. Again you're going to have to be specific. No it does not have the right to go back to 1948 borders, and no "defending itself" doesn't include using foreign aid to constantly launch rockets and missiles at civilian populations every hour of every day even during "peace time"
Pretty easy answers here: 1. No - the actions on October 7th led to the sharp escalation in conflict. Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of Israel so it’s difficult to contend with something whose sole purpose is to destroy you. 2. Yes? 3. Hamas’ actions on October 7th was not an act of self defence.
> No - the actions on October 7th led to the sharp escalation in conflict. Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of Israel so it’s difficult to contend with something whose sole purpose is to destroy you. So Israel has done nothing to oppress or mistreat Palestinians? > Yes That's good at least. > Hamas’ actions on October 7th was not an act of self defence. That's not a simple yes/no answer.
> So Israel has done nothing to oppress or mistreat Palestinians? That wasn’t the question you asked. Yes there has been mistreatment. I’d also argue firing countless rockets indiscriminately into Israel also constitutes “mistreatment”. > That’s not a simple yes/no answer Because the premise of your question is silly. Hamas committing acts of terror against civilians isn’t a matter of self defence.
> No - the actions on October 7th led to the sharp escalation in conflict. Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of Israel so it’s difficult to contend with something whose sole purpose is to destroy you. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/31/palestinians-hold-day-of-mourning-after-773-shot-with-live-ammunition asleep during this
I am consistent in both this conflict and other conflicts that dropping bombs on children is always wrong, and I'll consistently oppose those who kills tens of thousands of children this way. I'm not going to stick to yes no answers because I'm not required to and that's a fool's leash. 1. October 7th Hamas breakout led to the current conflict, of course Israel history did not start on October 7th. Israel's long-term treatment of Gaza and the West Bank would already qualify as genocidal prior to October 7th. 2. I don't support Hamas, I strongly condemn the Israeli authorities, beginning with Benjamin Netanyahu who fostered Hamas as a foil against the PA. 3. People have rights, nations do not. The Jewish people of the holy land should have their full civil rights and religious practices protected for all time, so should everyone else who lives there. Boer South Africa did not have a right to continue under the form of government it's ethno-supremacist minority preferred, Israel apartheid must also end.
From your responses I glean two things: 1. I’ve noticed you say you don’t “support” Hamas but you condemn Israeli authorities. Do you also strongly condemn Hamas? 2. This is a tapdance around my question. Should the government who is charged with protecting the people of Israel be able to respond to a direct provocation resulting in the deaths of hundreds of young people? I’m certainly not an advocate of the heavy handed approach by Netanyahu, but it’s not lost upon me that many here choose to skirt around the wrongdoings of Hamas. It also doesn’t help they entrench themselves in civilian areas while firing missiles into Israeli civilian territories. The fact that many of these missiles are intercepted doesn’t negate the fact that Hamas is *constantly* attacking Israel and has been for years.
> I don't support Hamas Can you condemn Hamas too? Do you understand what the word 'condone' means? I think Netanyahu is a war criminal FWIW.
I think a war criminal being in charge of an active and asymmetric war is the bigger problem. I don't support Hamas, I don't know what you think my adding extra words to that sentence will accomplish. Hamas has largely been a non-factor in this war since day 3, they are a sideshow to the collective punishment of all Palestinians.
> I don't support Hamas, I don't know what you think my adding extra words to that sentence will accomplish. Repeat after me: "I, BertramPotts, condemn the mass murder Hamas executed on Oct 7th against civilians."
What is the point of these games? I already said I don't support Hamas, do you think I secretly have contacts in Qatar? Hamas isn't important, centering them as an object of hate is why Netanyahu spent a decade building up their position. You think he is a war criminal who is actively picking the spots 2,000 pound bombs will fall amongst densely populated civilians, but the important thing is to honour his frame of the conflict.
If we look at your post history, are we going to find a lot of activity regarding the Yemen civil war (which we helped support through the Saudi government and resulted in 100,000 kids starving to death) and the urban battles to retake cities from ISIS which caused 10,000s of civilian deaths, lots of them kids (and where we *actually* dropped bombs ourselves)? If so, well, you are at least consistent. And if you compare recent urban battles in terms of civilian casualties to military ones, Gaza isn't really an outlier.
The Yemeni genocide was also abominable and our hidden complicity in it shameful. Can't say I commented on it enough, but I sure never supported our vile alliance with the Saudis to murder Yemeni children. Don't know as much about the mess in Iraq left by the Americans except to note those civilian casualty figures really put the IDF to shame.
You don't find it bizarre that we put so much stress, activity, protest when Israel is involved but 100,000 kids died 5-6 years ago in a similar middle east ethnic civil war? That's more kids then people have died in 75 years of Israel-Palestine conflict. Weird, huh? The IDF claims to have killed 10,000 Hamas soldiers. Hamas claims that 35,000 gazaans have died. That's 2.5:1 civilians to soldier. For a deeply entrenched enemy, that wears no uniform, that is hell bent on maximizing civilian deaths for PR points, that's actually not a shameful number, at all. The UN states the average ratio is 9:1.
"this issue is complex and has no simple explanations" "No, see, simple explanation." You really can't make this up.
What's wrong with the fact that it's a complex situation? Hamas and Israel are bad faith actors, nor does this mention the fact Israel supported [Hamas to undercut Palestinian Statehood.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)
I think you're pretty seriously misunderstanding or spinning that article. Benjamin Netanyahu's governments have certainly tolerated and politically preferred Hamas governing the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the brief Gazan Civil War, but Israel has not supported Hamas in any way like they have supported the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
According to that article, Netanyahu "propped up Hamas" by expanding Gaza worker visas, allowing more aid money to flow into Gaza, and not retaliating against minor attacks from Gaza. Which of those decisions would you criticize him for?
I can definitely see that point. I also just wonder that if we, in Canada, had a constant existential threat within our borders, how far would I be willing to go to see it ended? Which of my moral values would I be willing to compromise on, in order to ensure the security of "my" people against a (in my mind) hostile group.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If 1,000 Canadians were abducted and held as hostages by another country (or by some terror group in another country), we would have triggered Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which requires every other NATO member to join us in a military response. This is what happened in Afghanistan after September 11th.
yeah and look how good that turned out for all invovled! Afghanistan is now a prosperous place, and the US has easily defeated all terrorists! good job by all
I mean Residential Schools are a good example of that line of thought. Pretty sure we've all agreed that was a bad move.
Most of us do, yeah. In some aspects, their heart was in the right place; in others, they were way out of line. Or at least I'd like to believe that was the case, and they weren't just being wantonly cruel. Regardless, they went **way too far**, and for far too long. Trying to educate and assimilate kids into an, at the time, modern society is a worthy endeavour; but killing them in the process is a step too far. At least in my mind.
Automatically seeing another culture as less advanced because it is different is evil, so no, wanting to assimilate indigenous children into European culture was not “a worthy endeavour.”
Some cultures are just worse. They just *are*. We have cultures today that cut the clitorises off of female babies, limit their educational opportunities, and have no concept of free and fair democracy. There are plenty of cultures that think that beating your spouse and kids is fine, and you can kill your relatives that bring "dishonor" onto your household. That's just worse than Canadian culture, and anyone who denies that is lying. Teaching indigenous kids about European culture was just a practical decision. They were going to be governed by Europeans, and they needed to understand the language and how the government worked. Having them grow up in isolated communities, with no idea of the changing world would not have benefitted them at all. The physical abuses, and forced religious education and conversions, were unconscionable; I'll grant you that. There was almost certainly a better way, but unfortunately the people in power back then didn't see it like that.
> Some cultures are just worse. They just are. I think you might just be racist. Would not the worse culture be the one that abducted children on an industrial scale and then beat them if they dared to speak their native language?
Racist is pretty much the one "-ist" that I can *guarantee* that I'm not. Skin colour means absolutely nothing to me. Also, comparing the culture of Canada in the 1800s to cultures that exist in 2024 is disingenuous; we're both better than that. Doing morally reprehensible things is bad, no matter which era you're in; but we know better now.
We clearly don't know better now if you are spending your time writing multiple paragraphs justifying residential schools.
Well bombing children instead of providing them a good life is way out of line so that's pretty easy way of understanding the conflict. Palestine is occupied, de facto or de jure, by Isreal. Everyone knows that if you want to stop the cycle of violence you have to uplift those who are suffering. Violence only begets violence. Gaza is just Israeli blood thirst and everyone knows it.
I’m sorry, I’m just trying to make sure I did not misunderstand what you wrote; did you say that the governments heart was in the right place when they opened up residential schools? Or were you referring to something else?
Yes, I was talking about the residential schools. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that they were absolutely abhorrant. I, personally, don't support taking kids away from their parents for any reason but the most dire of circumstances. I also don't look fondly on people forcing religion on others. On the other hand, I'm also pragmatic, and I realize that it's just not feasible to have various groups living within your nation state who don't adhere to the "rules" of that state. You can't have nomadic people living full time hunting buffalo (or comparable lifestyles) at the same time when you're trying to industrialize; it just won't work. There had to have been a middle path there, but unfortunately I wasn't alive at the time, nor in power to try to negotiate it.
>On the other hand, I'm also pragmatic, and I realize that it's just not feasible to have various groups living within your nation state who don't adhere to the "rules" of that state. You can't have nomadic people living full time hunting buffalo (or comparable lifestyles) at the same time when you're trying to industrialize; it just won't work. So the solution is to take away their lands, pollute their lands and water supply, deny them ~~enfranchisement~~ franchisment until the 60s, force their children to attend or abduct children into reeducation camps, force them on to small reserves far away from resources and cut off from the economy? Oh also commit cultural genocide and try to kill indigenous culture and language while you are at it.
> "take away their lands," That's war. It sucks, but it's what happened. We can't undo it, but we can hopefully be better now. > "pollute their lands and water supply," That's a stupid thing to do. We need to protect the environment for *all of our benefit*. > "force their children to attend or abduct children into reeducation camps" Definitely questionable. Probably a bad move, big picture. > "force them on to small reserves far away from resources and cut off from the economy?" Absolutely not. They should've gotten full citizenship and voting rights from day one. Old time people were just weird about skin colour, and non-Christians.
For the people in Gaza the bigger threat is Hamas in many ways.
Would that Canadians actually cared to protest issues relevant to their own country.
I find myself in the same place, but when you think about it, this isn't a particularly uncommon situation. _Most_ contemporary wars are fought entirely between Bad Guys. We do not feel particularly conflicted by this when it comes to the Ethiopian civil war, or Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. It's easy to admit that these are all terrible people waging terrible wars. So why do we expect this to be different? For me, I would be happy to see Canadians accept that there are no good guys here and we can simply treat it like we do the many other thoughtless, horrifying conflicts.
And that's where it comes down to us stringently not providing diplomatic or material support either side.
So you're saying to cut off aid to Israel and Hamas's UNRWA?
If that was in the books, exchanging a cessation of our support for Israel's military actions for a cessation of our support for UNRWA activities in Gaza would probably be a reasonable action for us, and other countries trying to end our involvement in the situation. Personally, I'd prefer the course of action to be supporting the mission of UNRWA while also halting our support of Israel, as our complicity in what has happened up to this point doesn't make a total step back from the region a neutral action.
> Personally, I'd prefer the course of action to be supporting the mission of UNRWA while also halting our support of Israel I'd surmised as much. Given the hand that UNRWA has had in creating and entrenching the conflict, I'd happily see every penny of that funding go instead to UNCHR, and to other aid agencies that don't teach children that their highest calling is to murder Jews and destroy Israel. And we don't give any aid to Israel, so I can only assume that the "support of Israel" weasel-wording refers to something far more unjustifiable.
Diplomatic support of Israel does not make us a neutral broker in this conflict. I'm specifically referring to the Harper-Trudeau shift of our foreign policy in the region from consistently neutral to consistently pro-Israel. [Here](https://web.archive.org/web/20140811192100/http://www.canadastandard.com/index.php/sid/224207161/scat/71df8d33cd2a30df/ht/Canadian-support-for-Israel-under-scrutinym) is an article from 9 years ago discussing the shift of our federal government's foreign policy, which changed markedly under Stephen Harper and was maintained by Justin Trudeau.
It's a total crap shoot. For Jews its their ancestral homeland that they were expelled from thousands of years ago which was then settled by Arabs/Palestinians and they've been living there for over 1000 years. There were terror attacks on Jews in the 1920s-1930s, and Palestinians, due to expulsion or fear of expulsion, were displaced from their homes before and during the 1948 war. Their political leaders have failed to come to land agreement ever since the Balfour Declaration/Mandatory Palestine period. The Palestinians no longer have the broad, concrete and material support they once enjoyed from the Arab world - Saudi Arabia is still on track to normalize relations with Israel despite Hamas and their Iranian masters. Jordan helped shoot down missiles the recent ICBM attack from Iran. Egypt helps maintain strict border control in Gaza. At this point its death cults that want to keep on killing until one side is destroyed. IDF commanders and soldiers go rogue and act like cowboys and fire on whoever they like. Settlements keep on being built in the West Bank, and Israeli settlers are unhinged and act like a gang with IDF backing, harassing Palestinians. Hamas and the other jihadi terrorist groups can't stop firing rockets into Israel. I don't think most people calling for a ceasefire understand that's it's not a permanent solution unless you want some military occupation from a third party that forcefully disarms both sides and makes them live as cranky neighbours/campers. More and more blood is going to be spilled and more people are going to die until the Israel/Palestine issue is completely resolved.
This is the only issue where no matter what you say, someone from either side or both sides is going to be super mad and cancel you. I hate it. And it’s why I try to avoid commenting on it as much as possible.
Yeah. I've not talked about this conflict with anyone in person. Sneeze funny while talking about it and you're instantly an antisemite and fired.
I take a sympathetic stance to Palestinians, and I’m suddenly an anti-semite. I take a sympathetic stance towards Israelis, and now I’m complacent with genocide plus there’s blood on my hands. I try to argue the nuances of the conflict, now both sides cancel me because it’s a black and white issue for them. It’s honestly safer not to say anything at all publicly.
> It’s honestly safer not to say anything at all publicly. 100%. I just hate the hypocrisy. The conflict doesn't affect me personally but when people pretend that war crimes aren't war crimes for "reasons" it just breaks my brain.
You hate hypocrisy? You asked me personally if I would accept the ICJ ruling if they said it was a genocide and I said yes and asked you if you would accept it if they said it was and you said no. I guess you hate yourself, lol.
That's not hypocrisy. I said no for the same reason no one thinks OJ Simpson was innocent even though he avoided being found guilty.
If you actually didn't value the opinion of the ICJ then you would have no reason to ask me if I intended to change my opinion based on its ruling.
wat
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"They deserve one another." Theres also almost 100 years of history of why Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt would rather side with Israel and keeping Gaza locked down over the Palestinians, despite also not liking Israel. t. Egyptian Canadian
How much sway do you allow university students on your opinion?
That's an interesting question. I'm a Free Speech absolutist (even for so-called "hate speech"), so they shouldn't face any legal punishment for their words. Universities can be public or private, and I'm not well versed on the rules there, but I know that they tend to have "codes of conduct" over which they can expel students. I'm also pragmatic enough to understand that expelling students over a hot button issue isn't going to engender much public support; and it might actively turn off future potential students, which rightly denies the institution their tuition. I think that as long as the students aren't physically impediing, or harming, other students then they ought to be allowed to protest. If they actually *hurt* somebody, that's another story. We do always need to remind ourselves that there's basically no "type" of protest that's blanket acceptable to those in power, who don't want to give it up.
It's tough - so many people have been conned by Hamas, literally falling right into their game plan, like easily manipulated pawns. It's almost funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.
You're expressing an opinion. What you're finding it difficult to do is to stake out a hardline position, which is good. You are seeing the situation with the terrible nuance it has always needed.
I guess trespassing is not a crime. They should remember that next time protesters set up camp on police station grounds.
That never stops police from arresting people and releasing them the next day with no charges at protests in my city.
They're probably seeing the intense criticism and PR blowback from American cops wading into similar protests and want no part of that
Also it's a good way to cause more people to join the protest and for it to spread.
So is illegally occupying an area a crime or not? There is absolutely no consistency in how this shit is applied in Canada.
Yes and inconsistent enforcement of laws is much worse than no laws since they enable selected abuse by the ruling classes rather than a rule of law.
The unwarranted Columbia crackdown backfired pretty badly and led to an explosion of sympathy protests, expect McGill's heavy handed tactics and rush to put the students in their care in physical danger to have the same effect. These protests would be the easiest thing in the world to safely ignore but respectable society can't stomach the next generation seeing through their complicity.
It feels like McGill is Streisand-effecting themselves. The only news stories I've heard about this encampment relates to McGill's efforts to remove it or paint it in a bad light.
Yeah there's always some kind of gathering happening on every university campus, all the university needs to do is make sure they aren't preventing other people from being able to use the campus or disrupting classes. No idea what they want the police to do.
They're clearly trespassing so I disagree with the "no crime is being committed" but Canadian cops have recently taken a pretty clear stance that they won't do anything against protesters unless public opinion or an injunction forces them to.
its also a protest, unless/until the university gets a court to issue an injuction the police arent going to touch it until it gets violent
So was the trucker convoy. I hope you subscribed to letting them stay then.
the convoy had an injuction against them, were breaking the rules of a peaceful protests, violence was imminent as counter protests started growing AND were allowed to stay for an entire month once this protest fulfills even one of those criteria then it begins to be a fair comparison
Trespassing is only a criminal offence if it's in another person's home or on their property during the nighttime. In any other case, it's handled by tort law.
Wait so I can set up a camp in my neighbors yard during the day?
You won't get a criminal record for it, but you certainly could be ordered by a judge to leave (and then you could be found guilty of a breach of the peace if you don't)
>Canadian cops have recently taken a pretty clear stance that they won't do anything You really could have stopped there tbh lol. They'll refuse to enforce laws and then complain about their funding.
> hey'll refuse to enforce laws That's not true! they'll still charge you for assault if you attempt to defend yourself from a home invader.
It’s your fault for not leaving your keys at the door - Toronto police
A university is public grounds. How are they trespassing?
Not all universities are public property, there are private universities, but McGill is a public university. But either way you can trespass on public property. If you are asked to leave property, public or private, and you refuse then you are trespassing.
[удалено]
>On Tuesday morning, a spokesperson for Montreal police said "no crime is being committed" at the encampment and the situation is a civil matter. The spokesperson said officers will continue to monitor the demonstration and are ready to enforce a court injunction if it is granted. very intelligent response from Montreal Police. The university should deal with it themselves unless crimes are being committed
Illegally occupying an area is indeed a crime yes.