Canada to recognise Palestinian state at United Nations
-
Yes, I read that part. You clearly didn’t. Nothing in there is an immediate commitment to recognize Palestine as a state. At best “work towards a two state solution” means “someday maybe Palestine might get to become a state if we’re all feeling really generous.”
The recognition vote in the UN is upcoming. How are they supposed to make their stance before the conference.
-
If so, great! I remain skeptical given our PM’s recent use of phrases like “Zionist Palestine”, an inability to use the word ‘genocide’ to describe the ongoing genocide, and the lack of any meaningful action thus far.
Even the sanctions placed on two Israeli politicians in June don’t have real teeth; a previous update (Feb 2025) to Canada’s sanctions rules actually allows the foreign affairs minister to issue permits overriding restrictions. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/sanctions/esv-vec.aspx?lang=eng
As I said in my other reply though, I genuinely hope you’re right - but I don’t see it as a foregone conclusion yet. Important to keep the pressure on our MPs.
I managed to get the office manager at my local constituency office on the phone on Friday, and was assured that I’ll get a call back from my MP tomorrow. If I do, I’ll ask directly what the plan is, and push for this to happen!
I can just barely understand avoiding the term genocide but what Israel is doing and proposing to do further is textbook ethnic cleansing and is equally egregious. We can’t even officially call it ethnic cleansing. There’s zero ambiguity on that definition.
-
The recognition vote in the UN is upcoming. How are they supposed to make their stance before the conference.
Well, words would be the usual method. Like, you know, spoken, or written, either is good. That’s the usual method of conveying your stance on something. Not really sure what other answer you would be expecting there.
-
Well, words would be the usual method. Like, you know, spoken, or written, either is good. That’s the usual method of conveying your stance on something. Not really sure what other answer you would be expecting there.
Uhhhh… Like in a tweet?
-
Someone explain this to me: https://iris.org.il/images/israel-and-arab-world.gif
All the countries in yellow are Arab.
The little tiny slice in the middle in blue is Jewish and in that blue even the West Bank and Gaza are part of that blue island and are mostly occupied by the Arabs.
And these Arab nations believe that the Israel should not belong to the Jews and some (strongly) believe they should be wiped off the earth.
Why? Why is not the 99% of that land that belongs to the Arabs not enough for them?
Where are the Jews supposed to go?
If the existence of the state of Israel requires the extermination or forced relocation of the people of Palestine, then it should not exist.
If the existence of the state is Isreal does not require the extermination or forced relocation of the people of Palestine, then what Israel is doing is indefensible.
You know these facts. They are self evident. There is no way to defend Israel’s actions without ultimately arguing against Israel’s right to exist at all, which is why you’re hiding behind this disingenuous mask of “Just asking questions” and constantly talking around your meaning instead of outright saying it.
-
Uhhhh… Like in a tweet?
What was your exit strategy from this reply?
Because if I said “Yes” then your next step is to quote the part of the tweet that you think backs up your assertion. Only, you already did that. And I already pointed out that it doesn’t say what you think it says. So in what possible way did you imagine that this line of argument was going to end up with you looking good?
-
What was your exit strategy from this reply?
Because if I said “Yes” then your next step is to quote the part of the tweet that you think backs up your assertion. Only, you already did that. And I already pointed out that it doesn’t say what you think it says. So in what possible way did you imagine that this line of argument was going to end up with you looking good?
“Canada supports a two state solution”
Name the two states, go on. Say it.
-
“Canada supports a two state solution”
Name the two states, go on. Say it.
I addressed this back in my original comment. At this point you’re just embarrassing yourself and wasting my time. I’m not going to bother replying further, you clearly need to get back to school and learn some basic reading comprehension.
-
I addressed this back in my original comment. At this point you’re just embarrassing yourself and wasting my time. I’m not going to bother replying further, you clearly need to get back to school and learn some basic reading comprehension.
What’s the problem, why can’t you say the two states being referred to?
-
Who? If you could even just point to someone describing how this would work, that would be helpful. But I’ve never seen anyone actually explain how this would actually work. The only one state solutions offered is Netanyahu wanting to annex territories or nutjobs that want to ethnically cleanse (or worse) Jews from the region.
Just look at the population numbers… A one state solution would have Jewish majority. Do pro-Palestinian radicals really want a one state solution with Palestinians being a minority in a state that’s majority is Jewish? There’s a lot of dark intentions of those that want a one state solution. Or they just don’t know what they’re talking about.
Piece of shit
-
It is not about you, Jan. We just want to stop the organized starving of kids to death.
…which semites are you anti…the israelis or the palestinians?..
-
so which are not semites, the israeli or the palestinians?..
-
Israeli, duh. They’re Europeans
-
The fact that you understand that raping children is not okay but you don’t mind if they starve to death tells me you are not a serious person.
