# Israel/palestinian confict - where do you think it will end?



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Do you think this will end? Or will it just get worse? What are your thoughts on this conflict? Please, though, no hate mongering, just your calmly stated views.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

It will keep going, for quite some time.

Unfortunatly, the Israelies and Palistinians are locked in a cycle of violence. 

The Palestinians are stuck in poverty under a repressive Israeli government. The only escape is to revolt against the government, and yet those revolts bring more repressive policies against them.

The Israelis are stuck living in fear, with counter-attacks and pre-emptive strikes seen as the only way to defend themselves from Palestinian violence, even though they know it does nothing to deter the violence, or solve the underlying problems causing the revolt.

To add to the problems, hard-liners on both sides have no interest in negotiating a peaceful solution, and it is in their best interests to keep perpetuating violence in spite of negotiated ceasefires.

Thus is why the PLO/Fatah would agree to a cease fire, only to have it breached later in the day by Hamas. Hamas' aims to recapture the whole state of Israel, thus any attempt to negotiate a peace agreement is in direct conflict with their goal of total victory.


----------



## Gene Machine (Sep 22, 2007)

*not much*

this seems to happen periodically, then eventually fizzles out and things return to as much of a normal state as it ever exists. 

It's unfortunate, and for me turns into a real chicken/egg thing in terms of who started what. They've been fighting for so long, it doesn't really matter anymore. They really just have to stop. But they won't.

I don't know, it's hard to be optimistic about anything in the middle east.

G.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Well, I used to think the N. Ireland situation was hopeless, but that's calmed down a lot in the last decade or so. So, it's obvious people _can_ get past sectarian stupidity. Although there are major differences -- no one ever claimed the creator of the universe gave them Belfast for example -- it is possible they'll figure it out. Not an easy situation though. It doesn't help that there are a lot of powerful players making political stances out of continuing the violence and with high stakes for keeping things the way they are. 
Our frontal lobes are still too small, while out adrenal glands are still too big, but there is hope. Getting the neocons out of Washington might help a little too.

I'd like to see all the ideologues and self-proclaimed hardliners on all sides rounded up and thrown into a huge coliseum armed with wifflebats to sort it out among themselves, and leave the regular people to get on with their lives without the endless greed and stupidity.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

devnulljp said:


> Well, I used to think the N. Ireland situation was hopeless, but that's calmed down a lot in the last decade or so.


It helps that the IRA's goal wasn't the the defeat of the whole United Kingdom and the capture of London.



Paul said:


> There is little to no difference between the underlying root causes in Gaza/West Bank/Israel and the underlying root causes in Caledonia, Ontario.
> 
> Discuss.


Yes and no. I think the root cause is the same (one people displaced by another people and forced to live on land 'reserved' for them), but the situations are different (Indian's aren't physically forced to live on reservations, can come and go as they wish, and aren't treated as second class citizens unless they choose to be).


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

screamingdaisy said:


> (Indian's aren't physically forced to live on reservations, can come and go as they wish, and aren't treated as second class citizens unless they choose to be).


I can't imagine this is going to go well...


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

screamingdaisy said:


> Yes and no. I think the root cause is the same (one people displaced by another people and forced to live on land 'reserved' for them), but the situations are different (Indian's aren't physically forced to live on reservations, can come and go as they wish, and aren't treated as second class citizens unless they choose to be).


I agree that the root cause is largely the same, however 
I'm now going to go kkjwpw


Natives in Canada are treated as second class citizens (or even pseudo-citizens) all the time. They have their treaty rights trampled all the time. Their land claims are routinely ignored - it just doesn't make the news very often, and when it does it is easily ignored by most people (Caledonians excepted). Many reserves have little better than third world conditions (No/infrequent electricity, sanitation etc.). It is truly shameful.

The difference is time (lots more years have gone by in Canada) , numbers (many more people in Gaza) and unity (Native bands are all fairly disparate entities with little central gov't while the folks in Gaza have an elected Parliament that (in theory at least) represents them as a whole).

matt


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> It'll end when one side is gone.
> 
> Discuss.


The other side won't be gone until the world only has one person left in it.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

screamingdaisy said:


> (Indian's aren't physically forced to live on reservations, can come and go as they wish, and aren't treated as second class citizens unless they choose to be).


Actually Indians live in India. We are better known as Aboriginals or North Amercian Native.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Paul said:


> It'll end when one side is gone.
> 
> Some folks might find the following a bit harsh, but I think it apt:
> 
> ...


Paul: I believe you are right. I'm guessing you mean the root causes of hate and greed.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Natives in Canada are treated as second class citizens (or even pseudo-citizens) all the time. They have their treaty rights trampled all the time. Their land claims are routinely ignored - it just doesn't make the news very often, and when it does it is easily ignored by most people (Caledonians excepted).


I'll agree with anyone that the Natives were screwed, but they were a defeated people, even if they were fooled into their defeat. Their land claims are routinely ignored because many of their claims are unattainable (for instance, they currently have a claim in for the entire southern half of Manitoba).



> Most reserves have little better than third world conditions (No/infrequent electricity, sanitation etc.). It is truly shameful.


Our way of life is supported through taxes. Natives on reservations choose not to pay taxes, and although many pay band dues many of those bands are horribly corrupt with no government oversight and a strong desire to keep us out of their affairs, no matter how corrupt they may be. If they were white people we would feel no sympathy for their folly. But because they are Native, we choose to support this way of life and allow it to continue.



> The difference is time (lots more years have gone by in Canada) , numbers (many more people in Gaza) and unity (Native bands are all fairly disparate entities with little central gov't while the folks in Gaza have an elected Parliament that (in theory at least) represents them).
> 
> matt


If Palestinians were paid by the Israeli government to stay away from everyone else the war their would probably come to a screeching halt.



guitarman2 said:


> Actually Indians live in India. We are better known as Aboriginals or North Amercian Native.


My apologies. I grew up in Waterford. The Natives who went to my school were not offended by the term Indian, provided that they liked you.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

On a side note, I was going to delete my above post and not touch that subject with a 10 foot pole... but I kinda want to see where it goes. It could be educational, particularly if guitarman2 is involved in it.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Paul said:


> True. Sad, but true.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Paul said:


> It'll end when one side is gone.


Pretty much 

But if it wasn't the Palestinians, hasn't Israel wanted to paint Syria parking-lot-gray for a ****'s age too?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I don't see it ending.

As long as Hamas keeps lobbing missles into Isreal, Isreal will continue to hit them hard.

The cycle of vioulence has been going on for so ling in that region that it doesn't matter who started it.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Maybe when baby Jesus comes back and tells them to knock it off. Until then, I dont ever see it ending. Been going on since the begining of time itself. Religion is resposible for more deaths then anything else in this world.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Not the Six Nations....they were and are a Treaty Ally of the Crown.


I think that part of the problem with Six Nations and some other bands is simply, MONEY!

More specifically, an economy within the reserve to generate it.

When we talk about reserves there is an impression that these are parcels of original wilderness where natives can practice their traditional lifestyle of hunting, fishing and farming. An oasis from the modern world, if you like.

This works much better for the Inuit than for a band like Six Nations. Populations have grown over a few hundred years and there are too many people to feed without mechanization. They need tractors! For generations farming was an income generator on the reserve. Not anymore.

Farmers everywhere today have great problems making a living. Family farms have been sold off for some decades now. In Caledonia they seem to have tried to adapt with a business park and cigarette factories but I can't imagine how that can be successful enough to ensure prosperity for the entire reserve. It requires certain amount of sophistication and education for most modern business, particularly manufacturing. The reserve lifestyle does not cater to homegrown generation of the people capable of filling a business park. There is a natural reluctance of non-natives to get involved because they have no guarantee of any security for themselves or their investment. 

So how does Six Nations prosper in a modern world without the internal resources to do so? Especially when mainstream Canada is having troubles?

And how do they do it from a traditional lifestyle? They can sell bead artwork but it won't generate the money of building a Wii playstation.

No, their economy comes from government money, through a system that is a tragedy of errors. No one can possibly be independent when they are 'on the dole' to someone else. The protesters at Caledonia seem to compensate by turning the stigma of welfare into a sense of entitlement. In effect, they view government money as 'tribute' for stolen land. This sense of entitlement is expanded to view the entire country as originally theirs, even though the population in frontier times was so small as to make vast areas of the country totally unvisited by humans, let alone settled.

A settlement is both difficult and unlikely when on one side you have a government that uses the Indian Act as some kind of socialist social engineering scheme that simply wastes boxcars of money for little actual good and the other side that often is poorly educated in practical subjects like maths and engineering but has a great deal of pride and a huge defensive chip on their shoulder.

I would say we need both sides to sit down and rethink the entire picture of how aboriginals can fit into a modern country and economy. It's obvious that we can't simply keep throwing money at a population that will likely grow every year. Eventually there will be so many millions of natives on the dole that we won't be able to afford it. We're heading into the 21st century with a system designed in the 18th!

Meanwhile, we shouldn't lose sight of the obligation to protect citizens during such protests. Fantino seems to believe that if the townsfolk would just shut up and be quiet while natives roar ATV's through their backyards at night then everything would be just 'tickety-boo'. He obviously thinks keeping the peace is paramount but ignores individual justice. He has cost the OPP so much respect in that town that it will be generations before it might earn it back.

I feel for you, Paul! Keep safe!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> I think that part of the problem with Six Nations and some other bands is simply, MONEY!
> 
> More specifically, an economy within the reserve to generate it.
> 
> ...


Well the natives from "back" home in Sydney seem to have gotten it together and have build a very proserous reserve in Membertou. They have a casino! Supposedly it has a really great restaurant as well.

http://www.membertoutcc.com/


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Well the natives from "back" home in Sydney seem to have gotten it together and have build a very proserous reserve in Membertou. They have a casino! Supposedly it has a really great restaurant as well.
> 
> http://www.membertoutcc.com/


Actually, a casino in Caledonia would probably be a great idea! Unfortunately, prudish old Ontario won't likely allow them to have one.

Ontario has lots of casinos but they like them to be run by the province so that the province gets all the money. There is a casino in Brantford near Caledonia but I don't think it's on the reserve. Perhaps a poster who knows better can correct me.

Still, a modern economy needs more than just casinos to prosper. I don't think there are enough deer in the woods for Six Nations to have a traditional economy. Or catfish in the Grand River.

Different parts of the country are in a different situation. I was mostly commenting on Caledonia, since that was from Paul's thread, where he lives. Some bands have prospered and others haven't. I just don't think there are many that have prospered by continuing to live a 1750's frontier lifestyle.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Religion is resposible for more deaths then anything else in this world.


Thats the biggest load of crap ever perpetuated. Anyone who believes we'd all of a sudden be a peaceful world when religion is scrapped is dreaming. Human nature is responsible for more deaths than anything. Everyone believes in something whether its religion or being as rich as we possibly can. If you take away religion its guaranteed that we'd find some other reason to kill each other.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

screamingdaisy said:


> My apologies. I grew up in Waterford. The Natives who went to my school were not offended by the term Indian, provided that they liked you.


Yeah when I was in school almost 40 years ago it wasn't viewed as a negative term and I really didn't give it a second thought. Possibly with the influx of people from India it became necessary to differentiate our selves from them. Two of my sons best friends come from India. So now it just seems weird to consider ourselves both Indians. Even most of my relatives don't give it a second thought. I'm not really offended but I was never raised on the reserve so I just consciously refer us as either aboriginal or Native out of respect for those of us that may be offended.


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> I think that part of the problem with Six Nations and some other bands is simply, MONEY!
> 
> More specifically, an economy within the reserve to generate it.
> 
> ...


Gee thats a little...RACIST!!
kkjwpw


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I haven't really read this thread, just sort of skimmed it, very fast. I have no idea how it went from Israel/Gaza to Six Nations Reserves, and really don't want to know. I'm just going to say what I have to say, in as simple terms as possible, and then leave this thread.

Can this ever be resolved? No. 

Both claim some fundamental divine right. Peace requires compromise. With Jehovah/Allah on their side, they are right, the other is wrong, they do not have to compromise, they will prevail. It won't stop until one side decimates the other (with or without the help of others).


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

xuthal said:


> Gee thats a little...RACIST!!
> kkjwpw


How so? I may not be politically correct but that's hardly racist. 

If you think I will run away in shame 'cuz you used a scary word then think again. Something is either true or it isn't. It makes no difference about race or culture. In the post you quoted I was referring to MONEY!

It would make no difference if the Six Nations protesters were of any particular race, including white. 

So what's race got to do with it?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> I don't have the intent to cause unneccessary shite here, but I think that it could be helpful to recognize that whilst Gaza City is a world away, Caledonia, (all of the Haldimand Tract actually), is in our backyard.
> .



And gee, it has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> How so? I may not be politically correct but that's hardly racist.
> 
> If you think I will run away in shame 'cuz you used a scary word then think again. Something is either true or it isn't. It makes no difference about race or culture. In the post you quoted I was referring to MONEY!
> 
> ...



Yes I agree racist. That doesn't mean that a part or all of what you say isn't true. Thats the price of speaking your mind sometimes.. Your going to come off sounding racist. I, for one, don't like to throw the term racist around too much as I feel it is sometimes used as a "get out of jail free" card. 

This is where some of your wording can get you in to trouble with those that like to cry "racist"



> would say we need both sides to sit down and rethink the entire picture of how aboriginals can fit into a modern country and economy.


I'm not sure how to take this. Is this modern country and economy that aboriginals need to learn how to fit in a "White" modern country and economy? These are the statements that cause fuel to the fire. I'm sure all of us aboriginals would be ever so grateful for you to sit us down and show us how we can fit in. But what took you so long? If you'd just told us hundreds of years ago when you came over uninvited.:smile: Of course I'm just being facetious.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Paul said:


> I don't know...when prior Federal Gov'ts chose solve the "Indian problem" by creating the residential schools to "educate the Indian out of the child", they chose faith based groups, (Christians exclusively, I believe), to actually do the work.


Yes but that wasn't strictly about the natives. it was ANYONE they considered different. In my Granparent's time they had to stop speaking gaelic when they were in sight of the school or risk being severly punished by the penguins. The school system killed an entire language. (pretty much anyway)


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> I don't know...when prior Federal Gov'ts chose solve the "Indian problem" by creating the residential schools to "educate the Indian out of the child", they chose faith based groups, (Christians exclusively, I believe), to actually do the work.



Yes but that's pretty far removed from the issues.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Land claims will never be settled, and they are designed that way. Anyone who knows lawyers working on them will tell you its their retirement fund. As long as those claims can be tied up in court the legal fees keep being pumped into law firms from the tax coffers. There's been many a partnership been paid for with those billed hours. Having audited quite a few bands, I can safely say, the government uses the bands to funnel money out and into pockets. This money bypasses those who live on the reserve, and makes alot of people happy who dont live on the reserve. Im so glad I never grew up on one of them reservations. Once youre there, I dont think you ever leave. My grandma did, but she left behind alot of brothers and sisters whose families still reside there.......


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

Yes i did scream racist in the heat of the moment and some aspects of wild bills post were true,although i dont agree with it it is your opinion wild bill.
Back to the topic at hand,i dont see how it will be solved between these two rivals.If there are nukes involved(and there most likely will be)I see the u.s and Canada having to deal with it.I did hear somewhere that obama wanted to pull out of iraq and send the troops elsewhere.
Starbuck?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

xuthal said:


> Yes i did scream racist in the heat of the moment and some aspects of wild bills post were true,although i dont agree with it it is your opinion wild bill.
> Back to the topic at hand,i dont see how it will be solved between these two rivals.If there are nukes involved(and there most likely will be)I see the u.s and Canada having to deal with it.I did hear somewhere that obama wanted to pull out of iraq and send the troops elsewhere.
> Starbuck?


Well originally I think pulling out of Iraq was one of the promises me made on the campaign trail. However, with the mess that continues to this day the likleyhood of that is slim. But this is what he proposed:

“When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

That being said, now with the ongoing fracas on the strip, there will likely be a shift again. Like someone else said, due to each faction claiming Divine Right it will never be over until an entire people are wiped away.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

To those who tout the many wonderful aspects of proportional representation, I submit Exhibit A: Israel. The Knesset (Israeli parliament) has been the home of as many as 17 parties at once (currently 11, I think). As a result, whichever party has to lead the inevitable coalition has consistently had to yield to fringe parties in ordfer to maintain a viable coalition. I don't know if this has been the _direct_ source of bad policies over the years, or whether things like the current counter-attack simply reflect a military that pursues its own logic in the absence of clear thinking from the current coalition. Either way, things like the West bank settlements have been a major stumbling block infruitful negotiations, and they have come to be principally in deference to ultra-orthodox fringe parties...that Likud has had to rely on to form a coalition majority. In effect, Israel's biggest problem in successfully moving ahead with the peace that everyone wants has been having too much democracy for their own good.

In contrast, the Palestinian side has been hampered by too many voices as well. Sadly, a great many of them have grown up after the 1982 Lebanon invasion and the Sabra/Chattila massacres by Lebanese Phalangist troops (while Ariel Sharon sat by and failed to intervene). The sense of history possessed by that generation (and to some extent on the Israeli side as well), is limited, and of the sort that tends to provoke a sense of moral outrage and motivation to avenge. Of course all parties seem to forget that at one time Israel was a well-functioning country with agreed-upon (at least by the international community) borders and absolutely no desire to expand them, whether for security or any other purpose.

Since the 1967 war, however (prompted in part by the USSR, via their biased support of Egypt....anyone remember the Cold War?), territory that Israel occupied of necessity in order to avert attack has taken on so many other meanings. Doofuses from the US that suddenly got religion, grew a beard, moved to the West Bank and picked up an Uzi, all in the name of some half-assed biblical assumptions, have now spent enough time in parts of that occupied land that it is now "where they live", rather than "where Haffez Assad (now dead and replaced by his son) can't park his tanks". You may have seen recent attempts by the Israeli military to remove those folks from settlements. Those with a memory long enough will also remember similar confrontations in the news between settlers and soldiers in the Sinai and Gaza, when Israel did a land-for-peace trade with Egypt. Again, I remind all here that those folks are voters and that they elect fringe-party members, via popular vote, whose favour ANY party needs in order to form a coalition. That is precisely how, decades later, both Likud and Labour (the two major parties) find themselves in a position where they are semi-hamstrung in removing those folks, and precisely how you have such lunacies as the "security wall" snaking around in bizarre and often illegal ways.

All things considered, though, a lot of this boils down to who could learn to trust who sooner. Israelis simply want those living around them to stop shooting and lobing rockets, mortar shells and suicide bombers in. Indeed, almost everything you see on the part of the israeli side is borne of distrust. A good 6 months of quiet would do much to woo support for taking bolder steps towards a two-state solution. "Six months?" you say. When you consider how many times there have been lulls for a month or two, only to be followed by a suicide bomber or mortar attacks, a period of some substantive length would be required for Israelis to feel secure enough to back off. Keep in mind, as well, that because of the way that presumably innocuous things (like 12 year olds, ambulances, schools, etc) have been exploited for their seeming innocuousness by those bent on violence, it will take a while before Israelis are comfortable with NOT maintaining surveillance of schools, NOT suspecting 12 year-olds wandering around on their own, and NOT suspect ambulances driving a little faster than expected. Again, the general level of trust on the Israeli side has to be boosted, and given a chance to take root, for more sensible policies to move to the front burner.

On the Palestinian side, it is not at all clear how long a period Israel would have to sit on their hands and avoid responding to isolated attacks, before Palestinians would begin to trust Israel. And therein seems to lie the heart of the problem. The attacks coming from the Palestinian side are largely uncoordinated, coming from a broad and loose affiliation of splinter groups that is simply not coordinated with their own government. Israelis say they cannot trust that what the Palestinian authority declares will somehow represent the state of affairs on the ground. Meanwhile, both the Israeli army and the Palestinian extremists have more than their fair share of trigger-happy 18 year olds among their ranks who do not think in terms of the bigger picture in their actions.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Paul said:


> Why are you not writing op-ed pieces for wider public consumption?


I second that! But in the meantime we get to read some great peices don't we?

Thanks Mark!


Lisa.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> This is where some of your wording can get you in to trouble with those that like to cry "racist"
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how to take this. Is this modern country and economy that aboriginals need to learn how to fit in a "White" modern country and economy? These are the statements that cause fuel to the fire. I'm sure all of us aboriginals would be ever so grateful for you to sit us down and show us how we can fit in. But what took you so long? If you'd just told us hundreds of years ago when you came over uninvited.:smile: Of course I'm just being facetious.


Well, if someone wants to call any disagreement racist there's not a lot anyone can do about that. As far as the quote of my post you listed, I think it only fair to keep it in context. I was talking about aboriginals on the reserve and what sort of economy they need to survive and prosper. 

Aboriginals off reserve are not part of that context. They are making their own way by their own means, getting over-taxed like any other Canadian.

I stand by my words as to the reserve system. Some bands have done well but I think if you looked at them you'd see that they are a lot more modern and progressive than Six Nations. If you want to see a real racist, I suggest you google up the words of some of the protester spokespeople for the natives at Caledonia. You can sum up their position quite simply. "All natives absolutely true! All non-natives are wrong!"

If that's not racist I don't know what is! Such generalizations of peoples are by definition racist. I myself would never apply my exceptions to the SN protesters to all aboriginals across Canada. That would be ridiculous! There are so many different bands in so many different situations. My beef is solely and only with the native protesters at Caledonia. Even then, I respect many of their claims. 

I just have absolutely no respect for many of their protest tactics! They used innocents in the town as cannon fodder with their protest against the provincial government. To me, that is racism on their part! To link this back to the opening post about Israel and Gaza, it's like the argument that Israel hits innocents as collateral damage, mostly because Hamas uses them as human shields. Hamas TARGETS innocents in Israel!

I would suggest that the Six Nations protesters targeted the Caledonia townsfolk!

If they had targeted Queens Park in Toronto, Parliament Hill or even just the local MPP or MP's office I would have cheered them on!

They didn't! They went after their neighbours and their town.

Is that not racist?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Paul said:


> Six Nations *are NOT a conquered people*, they are a treaty ally of the crown.


I have meet many people over the years that have falsely believed that aborginal peoples are a conquered people. They are not.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> If I can sum up here: Wild Bill knows what racist is, and it isn't Wild Bill.
> 
> Perhaps your words were poorly chosen, but you have now decided to stand by them. Your position is that negotiations need to establish how to assimilate First Nations into modern society......sorry WB, but if you can't see that that reeks of White Man right, First Nations wrong, then you are just as guilty as those you condemn. Six Nations are NOT a conquered people, they are a treaty ally of the crown. They have a completely different bargaining position than virtually every other First Nations group in Canada. For good or ill that is the legacy we have.
> 
> What you call neighbours, the Six Nations consider occupiers. Perspective matters, and yours is not the only valid perspective.


Absolutely they have the right to chart their own path! I never said they didn't!

I DID point out that perhaps the reason for some of their lack of success is how well their chosen path doesn't WORK!

More directly, they don't seem to be economically self-sustaining or sufficient! They don't seem to want to practise a traditional lifestyle of hunting and fishing. Who can blame them? I'm not fussy about a coonskin hat myself. However, they don't seem to have much besides cigarette factories and government money to support a modern lifestyle either.

I may have implied negotiations but not that they had to assimilate. Just that they have to develop a culture that can survive on its own! Taking government welfare forever won't cut it. If they have a different path that WORKS then they're welcome to it!

Give me a truckload of that Indian Act Budget and any path I take will appear to work too! However, if you cut the money off I'd be likely to fall on my ass if I hadn't come up with something else practical on my own.

About the only thing Six Nations has produced that I respect is Derek Miller, possibly the greatest bluesman in Canada, if not North America! He follows in the tradition of Robbie Robertson of The Band.

Nothing says Six Nations people have to integrate into the 'white man's world'. I'm just saying that they haven't carved out their own world, either. If they have to subsist on government money then they are and can never be independent. The Six Nations protesters seem to think that their future is in getting a big wad of money as a settlement today. My point is that unless they build themselves up any money is irrelevant. The settlement money will eventually be gone. What will they do then?

is it racist to comment on how successful is a particular culture? Or does the Emperor have no clothes?

Meanwhile, you attacked me over the legitimacy of their claims (with which I had said I had little or no quarrel) and totally ignored my point about the evil of their TACTICS!

I've gotten used to that.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

*back to Gaza*

I just found this article and it's not a bad idea although I highly doubt it would fly:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/klein?rel=hp_currently


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Absolutely they have the right to chart their own path! I never said they didn't!
> 
> I DID point out that perhaps the reason for some of their lack of success is how well their chosen path doesn't WORK!
> 
> ...


K now this over generalizing is starting to annoy me. Couldn't even get through your whole post with the racist remarks. I get it we're just a bunch of cigarette manufacturing coonskin wearing so and so's. And the rest of us are just fat ass welfare collecting bums.
Have you ever been down to Six Nations? Go visit. Pretty sure you won't be scalped. No 100% guarantee though. 
Theres banks down there and even a struggling radio station. Which I had the pleasure of starring on with one of the bands I play in.Not a big listening audience but the call ins that were listening and the radio station staff were great. The point is that, although there's a cigarette factory down there and smoke shacks every 10 yards, there is a whole lot more as well.
There are those that stick up for their rights lawfully and civilly and there are some that choose violent tactics. Heck there are some that are there for no other purpose then to raise stink and act unlawful. 
Then there are those who don't get real political and choose to live as best they can with what ever crap their given. My family that live down there are very peaceful and hard working. They are much too busy working and surviving to be standing on protest lines.
And hey I don't drink firewater and haven't for some 28 years. I've been told I belong on "Thats Incredible".


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

K read the rest. You are totally un****en believable.



> About the only thing Six Nations has produced that I respect is Derek Miller, possibly the greatest bluesman in Canada, if not North America! He follows in the tradition of Robbie Robertson of The Band.


With your ignorance you'd have done great in the old deep south as a landowner.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/3808/famous.html


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

> is it racist to comment on how successful is a particular culture? Or does the Emperor have no clothes?i


I don't know, why don't we start with how successful the Canadian government is. They can't even decide who's going to run this country and we've got a coalition type coo possible.
And lets look at the GTA as an example of how Miller rapes the taxpayers. I can understand you'd like the aboriginal people to take a full share in that. Misery loves company.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Paul said:


> Why are you not writing op-ed pieces for wider public consumption?










Great idea - I've often thought that reading mhammer's posts.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> This is sooooo not where I thought this thread would go, but I guess I opened this can of worms. Sorry Terry, I didn't dream that we'd end up here.


No problem Paul. I know Wild Bill is a respected guy on these forums and I'm willing to completely give the benefit of the doubt that maybe he unintentionally tripped his words and this is not what Wild Bill is meaning. If it is then I'm speechless.


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> I just found this article and it's not a bad idea although I highly doubt it would fly:
> 
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/klein?rel=hp_currently


It would be nice if it could work.A boycott on isreal to end this mess just isnt realistic.If it did work it may only be for a short time before they're back at it again and the cycle continues.The religious factor or lack there of is the main problem.People will use any tool they can to justify a war.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Bill, these are YOUR words, not taken out of context:
> 
> _"...we need both sides to sit down and rethink the entire picture of how aboriginals can fit into a modern country and economy." _
> 
> ...


It's funny, but it seems to me that I say one thing and you take it to mean something completely different. Almost like you can't wait to set me up as some racist strawman.

First off, when I say that aboriginals should fit into "a modern country and economy." I'm not saying that country should not be Canada. Or their own nation. It could be but that's not what's important. 

What's important is what works! As for compromising, when did I say that the burden was solely on First Nations? Did someone pull that out of their butt and stick it on me? Where did I say that Canada has been doing everything right in the relationship? Seems to me I implied that the Indian Act has been a colossal failure, giving chiefs Cadillacs while letting band members starve on some reserves.

As for "discounting an entire people", nope! I discounted ONE reserve! Solely and only for backing if at least silently the protesters and their tactics!

I recognize that not everybody on that reserve is politically active but still, it's their reserve and if the protesters are not acting in their name then it's up to those members who disagree to publicly take a stand. If some KKK type started a protest in my home town I would be first in line when he preached in the park with a basket full of tomatoes! If I stayed home I would feel guilty.

I would not say that I am the only judge of a successful culture. Neither are you! The only true judge is Mother Nature! A successful culture can survive on its own. A culture that needs outside support is inherently parasitical.

And Terry, I would include Toronto and Dennis Miller in that definition! I guess that makes me a racist against Torontonians.

If someone wants to change my mind against Six Nations culture then it's simple, give me examples of how they support themselves and don't need federal money!

And don't confuse the issue by implying that I hold this view against every individual who lives on Six Nations. How could I hold such a view? I've never met them all! I hold this view against every Six Nations resident who supports the TACTICS of their protest! I have no quarrel with their claims. They lost me when they moved against the townsfolk. By the time they burned out the hydro transformer and knocked out the power for the entire region for a few days I was LONG gone!

Blocking bridges and roads, confiscating homes, terrorizing old folks, beating up cameramen, trying to run down officers with cars, beating up an old man on a construction site and putting him in the hospital with brain damage...these are not actions against an uncaring or oppressive government. These are actions against individual innocent people. Nobody roared through Dalton McGuinty's backyard on an ATV at night! 

All these actions have been against the people of Caledonia. Just for being white, I guess. 

But then, I guess because I'm against such actions I must be a racist. Gee, I never knew! Maybe I should be buying rockets for Hamas to fire into Israeli schoolyards, to atone for being such.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> It's funny, but it seems to me that I say one thing and you take it to mean something completely different. Almost like you can't wait to set me up as some racist strawman.
> 
> First off, when I say that aboriginals should fit into "a modern country and economy." I'm not saying that country should not be Canada. Or their own nation. It could be but that's not what's important.
> 
> ...



You may be the only one that doesn't see your remarks as even borderline racist at minimum. I'm not sure I even understand where you're going with this anymore. I for one in no way support the violent tactics taken in the Caledonia situation and I empathize greatly for the townspeople who have been hung out to dry by the government. Although the natives who partook in violent acts to drive the agenda, or perhaps their own agenda, are reprehensible and in no way can justify their actions the government is equally irresponsible for their lack of action.
I also believe that there is a great many native persons both famous and non famous that have been produced by the six nations. No more no less than any other race in our great country. 
Whether you meant to or not, you've taken the negatives and applied them in some way to all. To even suggest that Derek Miller is the only thing you respect that has come from the six nations, is not a statement of of praise for Derek Miller but one of hate and contempt for the six nations people.

This statement doesn't even make sense and is irrelevant to the discussion of racism since torontonians aren't a race.


> And Terry, I would include Toronto and Dennis Miller in that definition! I guess that makes me a racist against Torontonians.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Thread is now locked.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

*I came to see Feerless Freep and ah aiiiiiiiiiims to see him!!*

As much as I respect the right of the moderator to close what can easily become a contentious thread, I worked on this response all afternoon and I have to park it *somewhere*, if only to be able to thank those who offered me appreciation. Feel free to close this one up immediately after my post, Jeff, if it strikes you as appropriate. Or just leave mine up for a day and take it down again.

********************************


Starbuck said:


> I just found this article and it's not a bad idea although I highly doubt it would fly:
> 
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/klein?rel=hp_currently


First, thanks to all for the kudos. I'm articulate, I suppose, but there are folks whose knowledge of these matters outstrips my own by a mile. of course there are a lot of ill-informed blowhards with weekly bylines too, so maybe there's room for me yet.:smilie_flagge17:

Second, while I give her some brownie points for being Stephen Lewis daughter-in-law, there are things about Naomi Klein that often bug me. There is this certainty she has that I find disquieting. That aside, her "BDS" strategy is unpleasant and inappropriate. 

Some reasons. When I was a wee lad, my mom would send me to the store to buy fruit, and would tell me "Buy the apples from New Zealand, not the ones from South Africa. I don't like the way they treat black people there.". I took that to heart, and it was the way we boycotted in the 50's. She was no activitist, but dammit, my mom knew what was right and wrong, and she taught me well. Ultimately, though, even if the boycotting of South Africa would affect principally the white minority there who made minimal efforts to spread the wealth around to the black majority, the nickel and dime stuff didn't add up to anything significant. In the case of Israel, a boycott strategy would also fail to affect the folks whose minds must be changed. Boycotts do nothing to affect the ultra-orthodox in the West Bank settlements who already live with their 8 kids on a shoestring. And if you've watched the soldiers trying to drag settlers out of their homes, you don't really have to persuade that many in the government, so there's already one instance of a boycott not doing what is intended _as a tactic_ (to use her term).

Another part that Klein conveniently overlooks is that, for all its flaws, Israel has some fiscal responsibilities to the occupied territories. I don't think it has kept them very well, but the fact of the matter is that it provides services to the occupied areas: water, educational support, utilities, medical, etc. It also provides subtantial immigrant services to those who have come to Israel from other nations where people got the crap kicked out of them for being Jews; it's not ALL affluent ex-New Yorkers and Torontonians. There's Jews who escaped from Ethiopia, Ukraine, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and other places. Now, immigrant services is not exactly where the lion's share of the budget goes (particularly when you consider the cost of a tank vs a daycare centre or subsidized apartment), and services to the Palestinian territories is also not the lion's share, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the defense budget trumps all of that such that if there is a choice between keeping the populace safe, and providing services to the territories and immigrant populace, you know what will trump what when push comes to shove and dollars/shekels are being squeezed tight. In other words, any boycott will hurt innocents before it helps them. And at a time in American economic history where the appeal of defense contracts, even at the risk of running bigger deficits, is HUUUUUUGE, do you honestly think that any boycott of Israel would impact on their access to and use of military strategy over political strategy? There are families in Ohio and Michigan that need factory jobs desperately, and if it is a defense contractor that provides them, on the public nickel, to a client in Jerusalem, no one in Washington or Cleveland or Flint is going to refuse, whether Obama or Bush is in the White House, or whether they side with Israel or Hamas. Boycotting Israel will not stop the flow of that stuff to Israel simply becuase the US needs it to keep flowing and will happily cover the costs. Not because they necessarily think Israel is doing the right thing, but because they really need the customer.

I might also point out that probably the biggest economic impact on Israel comes not from deliberate boycotts but from drastic drops in tourism whenever the sense of safety is jeopardized for tourists. Mortar attacks from Gaza probably harms the Israeli economy more than boycotting the Israeli economy could impact on the IDF's strategy in response to mortar attacks. You will note that recent rockets have been able to penetrate as far as 40km in from the Gaza/Israel border. Take a moment to consider the possibility that such rocket attacks are hoped to have an impact on tourism more than on the lives and property of the folks who live away from the borders.

So, for a number of reasons, Klein's stance simply doesn't make any practical sense to me. I think I want a big part of what she wants: a peaceful two-state solution with the result that two nations live in harmony, and a diplomatic path to that objective. I don't think she has an accurate sense of what a boycott would actually accomplish. Moreover, it would never have any impact whatsoever on things like rockets smuggled in via the Egypt/Gaza border, so how would it change Israel's response to rocket attacks?

In closing, though, I cannot emphasize enough that, the same way "supporting our troops" can mean the burden and sacrifice of soldiers and military families has one's full empathy, but does not have to mean one supports the *form* of the mission overseas, "support for Israel" or "support for Palestinians" can _also_ mean that the fundamental right to live in peace is supported, though the tactics employed to get there may not sit very well with you.


----------

