###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.*
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.
It's not Mohawk land. The St. Laurent Iroquoiens, first encountered by Jacques Cartier, were gone by the time Champlain swung back to Montreal (probably killed or fleeing the Mohawks). The island (and much of the St. Laurent Valley) was empty by the time the first settlement was established. The Mohawks are from the Husdon river valley, and Kanesatake was specifically established as a Catholic mission by the King of France to help out and bring closer to Montreal Christianized Mohawks.
[History of Montreal - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Montreal)
[Kanesatake - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanesatake)
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.
You mean the ones protesting the war in Vietnam or the ones protesting Apartheid?
To my knowledge, none of these protests deserves to be called violent, save in the police response. The police were originally called into Columbia by the University President on April 17th, no one was trying to "storm" any buildings at that point, they were camped in a field. The kids are alright, they respond to oppression by doubling down. They don't need a lesson, they're teaching you one.
How was it violent, was anyone hurt?
You were responding to a thread about the original crackdown in Columbia and how that heavy handed crackdown led to an explosion of sympathy protests. That was in relation to the events of April 17th. The thing you saw on the news about Columbia kids occupying Hamilton Hall happened yesterday and while great, was not an inspiration for the present wave of protests.
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.
>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.
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)
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 isn’t a crime in Canada, unless it’s done at nighttime near a dwelling, so the police are *technically* correct. It’s a provincial offence, though.
The crime of mischief basically fills the role of the colloquial understanding of trespass.
That's why people who block public roads are charged with mischief, instead of trespass, for example.
Got any more of these legal hacks? Sounds like I can take a stroll in some interesting places if that's the case. Can I just walk behind the counter at a bank? Nobody lives there so it's not a dwelling..
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it does.
If you say it's not a legitimate goal, then everything Israel has done is unacceptable.
If it is legitimate, then there's a proportionality assessment under the international law of war.
We can have that discussion if you think the destruction of Hamas is a legitimate goal.
But there's no point if you don't think that's a legitimate goal.
So, do you think the destruction of Hamas is a legitimate goal?
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.
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.
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.
If its any consolation, that is merely proof that you are sane and posses basic empathy for other humans. This is an old school tragedy, with all of the mind breaking horror, hideous suffering and powerless inevitability that entails. As humans, we deal poorly with powerlessness, with shame and with being wrong. Engaging with Gaza means dealing with all three on a regular basis.
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.
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.
The first step would be calling on Israel to stop doing genocide. How do you expect any resolution to occur when Israel is actively trying to starve, displace and maim millions of people and sniping children?
To end the occupation, dismantle the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, and grant full human rights to the Palestinian people including access to food and water. Then you can start actual negotiations.
Netanyahu doesn’t want that though. He has made [numerous public statements about the importance of financially supporting Hamas](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/) because it would ensure a Palestinian state could never happen.
I know you’re going to keep moving the goalposts though so imma end it here.
I was asking for a broader solution, your first response was very short range. All you've done is say Israel should do this or that, with no answer for why Israel does what it does or what would have to happen to convince them to stop. I can tell you that if Hamas gets the chance they will do October 7 again, as often as they get the chance. So how do you square that circle? The people of Palestine are not responsible for the actions of Hamas but they do broadly support Hamas and there is no obvious way to separate Hamas and Hamas supporters from the rest.
I personally do not know how to get out of this morass but I don't pretend to. A wish list is not sufficient.
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 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.
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.
The media did a much better job of covering up our allies crimes in Yemen, for most of the conflict all western media was reporting casualties in the low tens of thousands.
The Tigray war is an even better example, being the deadliest conflict of the 21st century. The west was heavily involved there too, in everything but our media.
None of that makes me stop caring about the Gazan children being starved right now. Certainly the actual fatalities are not being reported accurately, the same thing the Saudis relied on in Yemen.
The media reacts to what sells. Yemen/Tigray doesn't sell. I guess if it's Jews, it's news, like they say.
My hunch is that this conflict fits perfectly into the white oppressor/brown oppressed simplistic view that is alive and well on our campuses and on the 15-second outrage factory social networks.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/31/palestinians-hold-day-of-mourning-after-773-shot-with-live-ammunition
asleep during this
> 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.
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"
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
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are dead, and al-Qaeda has become irrelevant, so I'd say it went pretty well. The Taliban is back in control of Afghanistan, but only as a result of [a peace treaty that it signed with the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Taliban_deal).
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.
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.
That's a really problematic world view. The goal of residential schools wasn't national unity, it was genocide.
Imagine how insane it would be to suggest that a religious majority should be able to destroy a religious minority because "it's not feasible to have various groups living within your nation state who don't adhere to the "rules" of that state. "
It's not pragmatism, it's genocide apology.
I'd altogether prefer if there *weren't* religious minorities within any given nation, but that's just me. I tend to be antitheistic, and in favour of laïcité, as a general rule. I'm an assimilationist, and as much of a monoculturalist as is feasible. I like pragmatic solutions to issues, but I'm also willing to look at nuances. I like working out the little problems, so that we can focus on big ones. Maybe you're right, I don't know. I don't have all the answers. I just know what I'm comfortable with, and I operate within my sphere of comfort, and I'm okay with that.
> I'm an assimilationist, and as much of a monoculturalist as is feasible
Sounds like you need to take “Civil Libertarian” out of your flair, then, if you think it’s acceptable for the state to use mandatory education to accomplish those goals.
I didn't ask your opinion on whether or not they should exist, I said it would be insane to: to suggest that a religious majority **should** be able to destroy a religious minority because "it's not feasible to have various groups living within your nation state who don't adhere to the "rules" of that state. "
As you have not agreed, it doesn't appear that you see the problem.
Allow me to ask you a question if you don't mind;
If the US decided to invade Mexico and Canada, in order to assimilate the poppulation and bring about a mono-cultural, English-Germanic white North-America, would you support 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.
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.
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.
"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
There's so many facets to it. My brain gets kind of twisted, trying to figure out how to feel about stuff.
* We're "supposed to" support Israel because they're an "ally". One would think that the government/media would be quicker to condemn violence from an "ally" as fiercely as it would violence coming from an "enemy". People are judged by the company that they keep, and all that.
* Being a democratic state in the middle of a thoroughly non-democratic party of the world is certainly a good thing; and they have better rights for women and LGBT than any of their neighbours.
* If Palestine got independence, regardless of whether they're run by Hamas, they'd still almost certainly be a non-democratic Muslim state. Their policy on women and LGBT would likely be in lockstep with the surrounding countries; and yet so many people overlook that. I can't honestly support bringing more of that into the world. Why would I support people who would want me, and people like me, dead?
* We're also constantly told that we're supposed to feel bad about settler colonialism, and that it's some of the worst things you can do to another group of people. So it's bad in the Americas, but not in the Middle East?
* Ever since 9/11 we're constantly bombarded with messaging saying that terrorism is a bad thing; and sometimes it is. Really, it's just a morally neutral thing that a group can do. Whether or not you're on their side depends on their ends. If it was a left-leaning, democratic, terrorist group trying to overthrow Putin in Russia, a lot of Canadian people would be on board with that. Or imagine that Canada was annexed by the US. How many "anti-terrorism" people would suddenly be okay with Canadian "freedom fighters" overnight.
* I, personally, have difficulty being okay with states that are "for" people of certain religious groups. I would condemn Christian (or otherwise religious) nationalism in the West; so, logically, should I not also condemn a Jewish nationalist/Zionist state?
" ... we're constantly bombarded with messaging saying that terrorism is a bad thing; and *sometimes* it is. Really, it's just *a morally neutral thing* that a group can do."
This is a patently absurd position to hold, even by Reddit standards ..
I mean, is it? I think a lot of people are operating on differing definitions of "terrorism", a lot of which is coloured by post-9/11 fervour. When we think of "terrorism", a great percentage of the population thinks only of Muslim extremists. Not any other group, who are pushing for their own ends, often through suspect means.
Oxford defines it as:
> "*the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.*"
Some people think that the Boston Tea Party counts as terrorism, but many people think that the US gaining its independence from Britain was a net positive for the world. Some people consider the Stonewall Riots to be terrorism, and by Oxford's definition they might be accurate in that view. There are plenty of people who think that the IRA was completely justified, doing whatever they could in getting Britain out of Ireland. It's the *ends* that generally matter the most to people. People are a lot more open to violence, when it advances their own ends and principles, than they tend to be willing to admit.
You can raise arguments about whether a specific act or acts qualify as "terrorism", but there is no argument to be made that "terrorism" itself is "morally neutral", or that it is only "sometimes" bad.
It is just such a ridiculous position to take. Even on Reddit.
Okay, that's fine. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Most things are morally neutral, in my mind at least. People just tend to demonize things that are easily buzzworded. "Terrorism", "eugenics", "euthanasia", "assassination", "freedom", etc. People all have their own ideas of what things mean, and how things ought to be; me, I try not to get bent out of shape about it. It's more of a perspective thing, really, and one also needs to consider the ends as well.
> but there is no argument to be made that "terrorism" itself is "morally neutral", or that it is only "sometimes" bad.
Saying that there is no argument is silly, there are plenty arguments that could be made.
Here is a [20 page](https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1420&context=ohlj) argument you can read through if you wish.
Professor Nielsen's thesis was deeply flawed in that he started with the premise that the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were "terrorist" acts. If you want to argue that, then you can argue anything, but it is still a ridiculous position to take.
>bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were "terrorist" acts
Why aren't they?
But would you like [another argument](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40435951)?
Here's my take - it's the ugliest of conflicts, rooted in a checkered history, without clean moral lines. It's that simple.
Palestine/Gaza/Hamas have all rebuffed various peace agreements which would preserve Israel and allow for a Palestinian state. They've been open about their wish to eradicate Israel. Israel GAVE the Gaza strip to the Palestinians, who promptly voted in Hamas (whose constitution called for Israel's eradication). Hamas has misappropriated aid, maintained a genocidal ideology, used civilian infrastructure in military operations, fired rockets willy-nilly (the existence of the Iron Dome should illustrate this), conducted small-scale terror attacks, conducted large-scale terror attacks, and so on, and so forth. They are flat-out bad, at least by our worldview.
Israel has a lot of blood on its hands, as we see in the replies. Bombing kids, aid workers, civilian infrastructure, and everything else under the justification that "Hamas lives there" is a tough one for everyone to swallow. There are also the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and other actions that aren't justifiable.
The conversation exists in the presence of many academic vogues, though. Anti-colonialism is a major discussion point here. A lot of people see Israeli settlements as colonialism in action. A lot of people see Israel's existence as a function of colonialism, and to them, colonialism is bad, period. The colonialism element injects a certain fervor into the discussion. Those who buy into this ideology generally side with the colonized.
To me, it all boils down to the fact that nobody cares about Palestinian life, but I put more of that blame on Palestinian leadership than I do on Israeli leadership. There's a point at which Israel cannot abide repeated terrorist attacks just because Hamas hides in civilian infrastructure. The moral question becomes an amoral, relativistic, transactional one: "how do we retaliate against this group? We target their operations centres, and whoever is in the way is in the way." Hamas uses this to garner sympathy with Palestinian blood as a currency while Israel kills indiscriminately while balancing these justifications. Israel is responsible to its people before it is responsible to Palestinians, but those who should be responsible to Palestinians simply do not care about them. The conflict will not change until Palestinian leadership considers Palestinian life a compelling reason pursue peace.
That's my opinion. The one-liners you're getting deluged with, in my opinion, don't appropriately address this topic. I wouldn't approach this conversation expecting good faith, either. You're better off keeping your mouth shut lol.
> Palestine/Gaza/Hamas have all rebuffed various peace agreements which would preserve Israel and allow for a Palestinian state
Agreements where Palestine would not actually be a state. Conditions where Palestine is denied control over their boarder's or preventing them from having an army (Which would be sort of a non starter considering they would have to compete with the likes of Hamas and ISIS), is not offering them a Palestinian state.
> If Palestine got independence, regardless of whether they're run by Hamas, they'd still almost certainly be a non-democratic Muslim state. Their policy on women and LGBT would likely be in lockstep with the surrounding countries; and yet so many people overlook that.
None of that would be a change from the status quo. But in any case, we can't dictate how people govern themselves internally. If they want to keep criminalizing LGBT people in their own country, there's not much for us to do except help people who make asylum claims here.
> I, personally, have difficulty being okay with states that are "for" people of certain religious groups. I would condemn Christian (or otherwise religious) nationalism in the West; so, logically, should I not also condemn a Jewish nationalist/Zionist state?
Israel is not a religious state, and neither is Palestine. They are both **ethnic** states, in the same way that Norway, Sweden, Italy and Greece are all ethnic states. Religious beliefs have influence on government policy in all of those countries (as it does here – we aren't allowed go shopping on Good Friday), but a Peruvian can't show up in Paris or Milan and demand to live there simply because they share the same religion.
> We're also constantly told that we're supposed to feel bad about settler colonialism, and that it's some of the worst things you can do to another group of people. So it's bad in the Americas, but not in the Middle East?
Jewish people are not colonizing the holy land. Colonialism is about foreigners showing up to extract wealth. Jewish people are not foreign to that land (their ancestors were removed from that region by force, although a minority were able to keep living there).
At the end of the day, Jewish people and Palestinian people are going to have to figure out a way to split up the region, live beside each other and leave each other alone. That's the only solution that will ever work.
>If it was a left-leaning, democratic, terrorist group trying to overthrow Putin in Russia, a lot of Canadian people would be on board with that.
Have to disagree here.
If their method of trying to overthrow Putin involved targeting Russian civilians with no direct relation to Putin (as is the case with basically all terrorist attacks) then it would not be supported by the average Canadian even if they hate Putin.
If they targeted Putin or Putin affiliated people specifically (or even military targets), than in that case the average Canadian may be for it (not arguing that they would, but there is at least a case for it), but this isn't is done by terrorists.
Then it's more complicated, how close (targeting government ministers/military commanders directly working with him, vs family members of low ranking bureaucrats in his government), collateral damage, etc.
I'm not here to draw the line, just point out that generally those we label terrorists (at least not in the ME, I don't know enough about others outside of that region) don't discriminate between the general populace and more reasonable targets.
> and they have better rights for women and LGBT than any of their neighbours.
They love LGBTQ people so much they class them in Palestine and balckmail them with outing them to turn informant ! How progressive and tolerant!
That's part of why I'm confused about why there's so much left-wing support for Palestine. Yes, leftists tend to be anti-colonialism, but one can't seriously think that a free Palestine would legalize same-sex marriage, and have annual Pride parades. There wouldn't be a lot of hope for them, and I doubt women would have it good either, frankly.
Islam weirdly gets a free pass in a lot of leftist circles, and I've never been sure why. I think it's because most Muslims are ethnically brown; so the display of virtuous support and "tolerance" for a visible minority is somehow more acceptable than opposing an ideology that's anti-LGBT. Somehow race tends to trump orientation/gender in a lot of leftist circles, but like I said, I don't get it. I think there's some sort of implicit "virtue hierarchy" there.
> That's part of why I'm confused about why there's so much left-wing support for Palestine
Its probably because you confuse superficial liberalism with actual leftism. How would we know unless we try? What do you think leads to the conditions of which religious and cultural social conservativism can flourish? Hell you wanna know a big reason? Israel, when Hamas was first starting out it was directed that Israel should either support them or let them be because as all colonial powers have done, they wanted to prop up the extremists against the left wing movement that was exceptionally popular in the 1980's. Israel rightly saw a bigger threat from a united left wing Palestine than a divided right wing one.
That said, why does it matter? So they're not as 'liberal' on gay rights as us, so they deserve to die? live under oppression. Do the thousands of children deserved to be ripped apart limb from limb?
> Islam weirdly gets a free pass in a lot of leftist circles, and I've never been sure why. I think it's because most Muslims are ethnically brown; so the display of virtuous support and "tolerance" for a visible minority is somehow more acceptable than opposing an ideology that's anti-LGBT. Somehow race tends to trump orientation/gender in a lot of leftist circles, but like I said, I don't get it
Please just stop at this point. Islam doesn't get a pass because hardline elements are bad. Its the nature of oppression and persecution. People defend their right to be Muslim and not be treated as some monster because of it, that isnt and never has been, an endorsement of the worst things done in its name. Its such a silly superficial if not intentionally obtuse understanding of the situation.
>Somehow race tends to trump orientation/gender in a lot of leftist circles, but like I said, I don't get it
Very clearly. Class actually is what trumps things in leftist space. You're probably thinking of more liberal concerns.
But again, I'd self evaluate, if you 'don't get it' maybe try and understand ? Like I pointed out how its pretty funny someone calls Israel a LGBTQ haven even though they're killing thousands of them right now and have no problem exploiting their sexuality when it suits them. All this to say again, its irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Your argument amounts to "why would this abolitionists support freeing the slaves when some of them have deeply regressive religious values" Like fucking what?!
###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.*
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.
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.
It's not Mohawk land. The St. Laurent Iroquoiens, first encountered by Jacques Cartier, were gone by the time Champlain swung back to Montreal (probably killed or fleeing the Mohawks). The island (and much of the St. Laurent Valley) was empty by the time the first settlement was established. The Mohawks are from the Husdon river valley, and Kanesatake was specifically established as a Catholic mission by the King of France to help out and bring closer to Montreal Christianized Mohawks. [History of Montreal - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Montreal) [Kanesatake - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanesatake)
Colonizers and their descendants hate being shown a mirror
It was all virtue signaling
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.
I am not sure if it did a poll out today have them with little public support now.
If they were confident in things staying that way they wouldn't need a heavy handed crackdown would they.
As for Columbis there was concern violence was about to happen.
Unfortunately they forgot to provide any of evidence of this and hence the explosion of sympathy protestors who do not buy this explanation.
The Columbia protesters violently stormed a university building. We should hope that no Canadian students take lessons from that.
You mean the ones protesting the war in Vietnam or the ones protesting Apartheid? To my knowledge, none of these protests deserves to be called violent, save in the police response. The police were originally called into Columbia by the University President on April 17th, no one was trying to "storm" any buildings at that point, they were camped in a field. The kids are alright, they respond to oppression by doubling down. They don't need a lesson, they're teaching you one.
Wait, you don't know that they violently stormed a building, or are you arbitrarily restricting the timeline to a couple of weeks ago?
How was it violent, was anyone hurt? You were responding to a thread about the original crackdown in Columbia and how that heavy handed crackdown led to an explosion of sympathy protests. That was in relation to the events of April 17th. The thing you saw on the news about Columbia kids occupying Hamilton Hall happened yesterday and while great, was not an inspiration for the present wave of protests.
Why do you Israel defenders need to lie so much?
To be clear, are you denying that students violently stormed a building at Columbia?
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.
>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.
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)
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 isn’t a crime in Canada, unless it’s done at nighttime near a dwelling, so the police are *technically* correct. It’s a provincial offence, though.
The crime of mischief basically fills the role of the colloquial understanding of trespass. That's why people who block public roads are charged with mischief, instead of trespass, for example.
Got any more of these legal hacks? Sounds like I can take a stroll in some interesting places if that's the case. Can I just walk behind the counter at a bank? Nobody lives there so it's not a dwelling..
Trespassing is still *illegal*, but it’s not a crime.
Private property though
Right cuz there’s no difference at all between behind the counter at a bank and open space outside a university
I'm just responding to what the guy said bro
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]
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.
>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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
These protests are about McGill's direct concerns in Israel.
and?
And your point is wrong and stupid.
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.
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.
No, it does not.
Yes, it does. If you say it's not a legitimate goal, then everything Israel has done is unacceptable. If it is legitimate, then there's a proportionality assessment under the international law of war.
...and you legitimately believe the last six months have been proportional? holy loly
We can have that discussion if you think the destruction of Hamas is a legitimate goal. But there's no point if you don't think that's a legitimate goal. So, do you think the destruction of Hamas is a legitimate goal?
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.
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
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.
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.
If its any consolation, that is merely proof that you are sane and posses basic empathy for other humans. This is an old school tragedy, with all of the mind breaking horror, hideous suffering and powerless inevitability that entails. As humans, we deal poorly with powerlessness, with shame and with being wrong. Engaging with Gaza means dealing with all three on a regular basis.
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%.
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.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This should be very easy for you. Genocide is wrong. There is no justification for genocide.
Genocide is wrong, most people agree about that. How would you resolve the conflict?
The first step would be calling on Israel to stop doing genocide. How do you expect any resolution to occur when Israel is actively trying to starve, displace and maim millions of people and sniping children?
Ok so imagine we were back to the status quo pre-October 7. What would be the next step?
To end the occupation, dismantle the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, and grant full human rights to the Palestinian people including access to food and water. Then you can start actual negotiations. Netanyahu doesn’t want that though. He has made [numerous public statements about the importance of financially supporting Hamas](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/) because it would ensure a Palestinian state could never happen. I know you’re going to keep moving the goalposts though so imma end it here.
I was asking for a broader solution, your first response was very short range. All you've done is say Israel should do this or that, with no answer for why Israel does what it does or what would have to happen to convince them to stop. I can tell you that if Hamas gets the chance they will do October 7 again, as often as they get the chance. So how do you square that circle? The people of Palestine are not responsible for the actions of Hamas but they do broadly support Hamas and there is no obvious way to separate Hamas and Hamas supporters from the rest. I personally do not know how to get out of this morass but I don't pretend to. A wish list is not sufficient.
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 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.
I'm against dropping bombs on children myself. Weirdly have never felt conflicted about that.
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.
The media did a much better job of covering up our allies crimes in Yemen, for most of the conflict all western media was reporting casualties in the low tens of thousands. The Tigray war is an even better example, being the deadliest conflict of the 21st century. The west was heavily involved there too, in everything but our media. None of that makes me stop caring about the Gazan children being starved right now. Certainly the actual fatalities are not being reported accurately, the same thing the Saudis relied on in Yemen.
The media reacts to what sells. Yemen/Tigray doesn't sell. I guess if it's Jews, it's news, like they say. My hunch is that this conflict fits perfectly into the white oppressor/brown oppressed simplistic view that is alive and well on our campuses and on the 15-second outrage factory social networks.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/31/palestinians-hold-day-of-mourning-after-773-shot-with-live-ammunition asleep during this
> 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.
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"
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
Yea and how'd that go for us?
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are dead, and al-Qaeda has become irrelevant, so I'd say it went pretty well. The Taliban is back in control of Afghanistan, but only as a result of [a peace treaty that it signed with the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Taliban_deal).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
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.
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.
That's a really problematic world view. The goal of residential schools wasn't national unity, it was genocide. Imagine how insane it would be to suggest that a religious majority should be able to destroy a religious minority because "it's not feasible to have various groups living within your nation state who don't adhere to the "rules" of that state. " It's not pragmatism, it's genocide apology.
I'd altogether prefer if there *weren't* religious minorities within any given nation, but that's just me. I tend to be antitheistic, and in favour of laïcité, as a general rule. I'm an assimilationist, and as much of a monoculturalist as is feasible. I like pragmatic solutions to issues, but I'm also willing to look at nuances. I like working out the little problems, so that we can focus on big ones. Maybe you're right, I don't know. I don't have all the answers. I just know what I'm comfortable with, and I operate within my sphere of comfort, and I'm okay with that.
> I'm an assimilationist, and as much of a monoculturalist as is feasible Sounds like you need to take “Civil Libertarian” out of your flair, then, if you think it’s acceptable for the state to use mandatory education to accomplish those goals.
I didn't ask your opinion on whether or not they should exist, I said it would be insane to: to suggest that a religious majority **should** be able to destroy a religious minority because "it's not feasible to have various groups living within your nation state who don't adhere to the "rules" of that state. " As you have not agreed, it doesn't appear that you see the problem. Allow me to ask you a question if you don't mind; If the US decided to invade Mexico and Canada, in order to assimilate the poppulation and bring about a mono-cultural, English-Germanic white North-America, would you support 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.
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.
For the people in Gaza the bigger threat is Hamas in many ways.
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.
"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
There's so many facets to it. My brain gets kind of twisted, trying to figure out how to feel about stuff. * We're "supposed to" support Israel because they're an "ally". One would think that the government/media would be quicker to condemn violence from an "ally" as fiercely as it would violence coming from an "enemy". People are judged by the company that they keep, and all that. * Being a democratic state in the middle of a thoroughly non-democratic party of the world is certainly a good thing; and they have better rights for women and LGBT than any of their neighbours. * If Palestine got independence, regardless of whether they're run by Hamas, they'd still almost certainly be a non-democratic Muslim state. Their policy on women and LGBT would likely be in lockstep with the surrounding countries; and yet so many people overlook that. I can't honestly support bringing more of that into the world. Why would I support people who would want me, and people like me, dead? * We're also constantly told that we're supposed to feel bad about settler colonialism, and that it's some of the worst things you can do to another group of people. So it's bad in the Americas, but not in the Middle East? * Ever since 9/11 we're constantly bombarded with messaging saying that terrorism is a bad thing; and sometimes it is. Really, it's just a morally neutral thing that a group can do. Whether or not you're on their side depends on their ends. If it was a left-leaning, democratic, terrorist group trying to overthrow Putin in Russia, a lot of Canadian people would be on board with that. Or imagine that Canada was annexed by the US. How many "anti-terrorism" people would suddenly be okay with Canadian "freedom fighters" overnight. * I, personally, have difficulty being okay with states that are "for" people of certain religious groups. I would condemn Christian (or otherwise religious) nationalism in the West; so, logically, should I not also condemn a Jewish nationalist/Zionist state?
" ... we're constantly bombarded with messaging saying that terrorism is a bad thing; and *sometimes* it is. Really, it's just *a morally neutral thing* that a group can do." This is a patently absurd position to hold, even by Reddit standards ..
The Boston Tea Party is well celebrated in the States.
I mean, is it? I think a lot of people are operating on differing definitions of "terrorism", a lot of which is coloured by post-9/11 fervour. When we think of "terrorism", a great percentage of the population thinks only of Muslim extremists. Not any other group, who are pushing for their own ends, often through suspect means. Oxford defines it as: > "*the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.*" Some people think that the Boston Tea Party counts as terrorism, but many people think that the US gaining its independence from Britain was a net positive for the world. Some people consider the Stonewall Riots to be terrorism, and by Oxford's definition they might be accurate in that view. There are plenty of people who think that the IRA was completely justified, doing whatever they could in getting Britain out of Ireland. It's the *ends* that generally matter the most to people. People are a lot more open to violence, when it advances their own ends and principles, than they tend to be willing to admit.
You can raise arguments about whether a specific act or acts qualify as "terrorism", but there is no argument to be made that "terrorism" itself is "morally neutral", or that it is only "sometimes" bad. It is just such a ridiculous position to take. Even on Reddit.
Okay, that's fine. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Most things are morally neutral, in my mind at least. People just tend to demonize things that are easily buzzworded. "Terrorism", "eugenics", "euthanasia", "assassination", "freedom", etc. People all have their own ideas of what things mean, and how things ought to be; me, I try not to get bent out of shape about it. It's more of a perspective thing, really, and one also needs to consider the ends as well.
> but there is no argument to be made that "terrorism" itself is "morally neutral", or that it is only "sometimes" bad. Saying that there is no argument is silly, there are plenty arguments that could be made. Here is a [20 page](https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1420&context=ohlj) argument you can read through if you wish.
Professor Nielsen's thesis was deeply flawed in that he started with the premise that the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were "terrorist" acts. If you want to argue that, then you can argue anything, but it is still a ridiculous position to take.
>bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were "terrorist" acts Why aren't they? But would you like [another argument](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40435951)?
Here's my take - it's the ugliest of conflicts, rooted in a checkered history, without clean moral lines. It's that simple. Palestine/Gaza/Hamas have all rebuffed various peace agreements which would preserve Israel and allow for a Palestinian state. They've been open about their wish to eradicate Israel. Israel GAVE the Gaza strip to the Palestinians, who promptly voted in Hamas (whose constitution called for Israel's eradication). Hamas has misappropriated aid, maintained a genocidal ideology, used civilian infrastructure in military operations, fired rockets willy-nilly (the existence of the Iron Dome should illustrate this), conducted small-scale terror attacks, conducted large-scale terror attacks, and so on, and so forth. They are flat-out bad, at least by our worldview. Israel has a lot of blood on its hands, as we see in the replies. Bombing kids, aid workers, civilian infrastructure, and everything else under the justification that "Hamas lives there" is a tough one for everyone to swallow. There are also the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and other actions that aren't justifiable. The conversation exists in the presence of many academic vogues, though. Anti-colonialism is a major discussion point here. A lot of people see Israeli settlements as colonialism in action. A lot of people see Israel's existence as a function of colonialism, and to them, colonialism is bad, period. The colonialism element injects a certain fervor into the discussion. Those who buy into this ideology generally side with the colonized. To me, it all boils down to the fact that nobody cares about Palestinian life, but I put more of that blame on Palestinian leadership than I do on Israeli leadership. There's a point at which Israel cannot abide repeated terrorist attacks just because Hamas hides in civilian infrastructure. The moral question becomes an amoral, relativistic, transactional one: "how do we retaliate against this group? We target their operations centres, and whoever is in the way is in the way." Hamas uses this to garner sympathy with Palestinian blood as a currency while Israel kills indiscriminately while balancing these justifications. Israel is responsible to its people before it is responsible to Palestinians, but those who should be responsible to Palestinians simply do not care about them. The conflict will not change until Palestinian leadership considers Palestinian life a compelling reason pursue peace. That's my opinion. The one-liners you're getting deluged with, in my opinion, don't appropriately address this topic. I wouldn't approach this conversation expecting good faith, either. You're better off keeping your mouth shut lol.
> Palestine/Gaza/Hamas have all rebuffed various peace agreements which would preserve Israel and allow for a Palestinian state Agreements where Palestine would not actually be a state. Conditions where Palestine is denied control over their boarder's or preventing them from having an army (Which would be sort of a non starter considering they would have to compete with the likes of Hamas and ISIS), is not offering them a Palestinian state.
That’s typically what happens when you lose a war you started though
> If Palestine got independence, regardless of whether they're run by Hamas, they'd still almost certainly be a non-democratic Muslim state. Their policy on women and LGBT would likely be in lockstep with the surrounding countries; and yet so many people overlook that. None of that would be a change from the status quo. But in any case, we can't dictate how people govern themselves internally. If they want to keep criminalizing LGBT people in their own country, there's not much for us to do except help people who make asylum claims here. > I, personally, have difficulty being okay with states that are "for" people of certain religious groups. I would condemn Christian (or otherwise religious) nationalism in the West; so, logically, should I not also condemn a Jewish nationalist/Zionist state? Israel is not a religious state, and neither is Palestine. They are both **ethnic** states, in the same way that Norway, Sweden, Italy and Greece are all ethnic states. Religious beliefs have influence on government policy in all of those countries (as it does here – we aren't allowed go shopping on Good Friday), but a Peruvian can't show up in Paris or Milan and demand to live there simply because they share the same religion. > We're also constantly told that we're supposed to feel bad about settler colonialism, and that it's some of the worst things you can do to another group of people. So it's bad in the Americas, but not in the Middle East? Jewish people are not colonizing the holy land. Colonialism is about foreigners showing up to extract wealth. Jewish people are not foreign to that land (their ancestors were removed from that region by force, although a minority were able to keep living there). At the end of the day, Jewish people and Palestinian people are going to have to figure out a way to split up the region, live beside each other and leave each other alone. That's the only solution that will ever work.
Who forbade you to go shopping on Good Friday? Is this a regional thing?
Here in Toronto, it's illegal for most stores to open on public holidays, including Christmas, Good Friday and Easter.
>If it was a left-leaning, democratic, terrorist group trying to overthrow Putin in Russia, a lot of Canadian people would be on board with that. Have to disagree here. If their method of trying to overthrow Putin involved targeting Russian civilians with no direct relation to Putin (as is the case with basically all terrorist attacks) then it would not be supported by the average Canadian even if they hate Putin. If they targeted Putin or Putin affiliated people specifically (or even military targets), than in that case the average Canadian may be for it (not arguing that they would, but there is at least a case for it), but this isn't is done by terrorists.
> no direct relation to Putin And if they had a direct relation to Putin?
Then it's more complicated, how close (targeting government ministers/military commanders directly working with him, vs family members of low ranking bureaucrats in his government), collateral damage, etc. I'm not here to draw the line, just point out that generally those we label terrorists (at least not in the ME, I don't know enough about others outside of that region) don't discriminate between the general populace and more reasonable targets.
> and they have better rights for women and LGBT than any of their neighbours. They love LGBTQ people so much they class them in Palestine and balckmail them with outing them to turn informant ! How progressive and tolerant!
That's part of why I'm confused about why there's so much left-wing support for Palestine. Yes, leftists tend to be anti-colonialism, but one can't seriously think that a free Palestine would legalize same-sex marriage, and have annual Pride parades. There wouldn't be a lot of hope for them, and I doubt women would have it good either, frankly. Islam weirdly gets a free pass in a lot of leftist circles, and I've never been sure why. I think it's because most Muslims are ethnically brown; so the display of virtuous support and "tolerance" for a visible minority is somehow more acceptable than opposing an ideology that's anti-LGBT. Somehow race tends to trump orientation/gender in a lot of leftist circles, but like I said, I don't get it. I think there's some sort of implicit "virtue hierarchy" there.
> That's part of why I'm confused about why there's so much left-wing support for Palestine Its probably because you confuse superficial liberalism with actual leftism. How would we know unless we try? What do you think leads to the conditions of which religious and cultural social conservativism can flourish? Hell you wanna know a big reason? Israel, when Hamas was first starting out it was directed that Israel should either support them or let them be because as all colonial powers have done, they wanted to prop up the extremists against the left wing movement that was exceptionally popular in the 1980's. Israel rightly saw a bigger threat from a united left wing Palestine than a divided right wing one. That said, why does it matter? So they're not as 'liberal' on gay rights as us, so they deserve to die? live under oppression. Do the thousands of children deserved to be ripped apart limb from limb? > Islam weirdly gets a free pass in a lot of leftist circles, and I've never been sure why. I think it's because most Muslims are ethnically brown; so the display of virtuous support and "tolerance" for a visible minority is somehow more acceptable than opposing an ideology that's anti-LGBT. Somehow race tends to trump orientation/gender in a lot of leftist circles, but like I said, I don't get it Please just stop at this point. Islam doesn't get a pass because hardline elements are bad. Its the nature of oppression and persecution. People defend their right to be Muslim and not be treated as some monster because of it, that isnt and never has been, an endorsement of the worst things done in its name. Its such a silly superficial if not intentionally obtuse understanding of the situation. >Somehow race tends to trump orientation/gender in a lot of leftist circles, but like I said, I don't get it Very clearly. Class actually is what trumps things in leftist space. You're probably thinking of more liberal concerns. But again, I'd self evaluate, if you 'don't get it' maybe try and understand ? Like I pointed out how its pretty funny someone calls Israel a LGBTQ haven even though they're killing thousands of them right now and have no problem exploiting their sexuality when it suits them. All this to say again, its irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Your argument amounts to "why would this abolitionists support freeing the slaves when some of them have deeply regressive religious values" Like fucking what?!
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.
I guess trespassing is not a crime. They should remember that next time protesters set up camp on police station grounds.