Canada Aligns with US on Israel at UN

[KipWellsFan]

The South-African-sponsored resolution was adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council by a vote of 41-2 with only Canada and the United States voting against it.

 

This was the first Middle East resolution to come before a UN body since Stephen Harper's Conservative government was sworn in last month.

 

"It's not a flip to go from neutrality to taking a position," Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said yesterday.

 

full story

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

[samclemens]

its about time that the "51st state" got in line. just kidding...

 

seriously, i am glad about this. we need all the allies we can get right now. canada is pretty important to our country.

[EvilMonkey]

I applaud Canada for taking a stand and demanding that the resolutions be more even-handed.

Gilbert Laurin, Canada's representative at the UN council session, said Ottawa was switching its vote from abstention to a nay because of the failure of the sponsors of the resolution to come back this year with a balanced document. "We have consistently called for more balance in resolutions dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issue."

 

A big part of the refugee problem is the definition of 'refugees' over there. Many of the so-called refugees never lived in the disputed territories. The Palastinian refugee population is the only one that is expanding with time, instead of integrating themselves with another population, or just dying from old age (which over there is probably 40!)

[WilliamTell]

its about time that the "51st state" got in line. just kidding...

 

seriously, i am glad about this. we need all the allies we can get right now. canada is pretty important to our country.

 

We wanted them to be the 14th colony, but anyways great job Canada.

 

Edited March 12, 2006 by WilliamTell

[NorthSideSox72]

Can one of you ra-rah folks on this issue please tell me what is so evil about letting these refugees back to their homes?

[EvilMonkey]

Can one of you ra-rah folks on this issue please tell me what is so evil about letting these refugees back to their homes?

Well, first, most of their homes are not there now. Second, half the people in question were born somewhere other that Israel, so technically, they don't have a 'home' to return to either.

http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html

WHO IS A PALESTINE REFUGEE?

 

"Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than four million in 2002, and continues to rise due to natural population growth.

 

This definition, however, is unique to the Palastinians. Croation Serb refugees were given citizenship in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Children born of these parents were given the new citizenship of their parents, so there is no growing refugee population. The UN's own regugee difinition page makes no mention of descendents being considered refugees, and in other cases doesn't consider them as such.

 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

 

But in the Palastinian case, does. Maybe because if everyone who was originally misplaced is dead, or moved on, there would be no refugee problem for them to beat Israel with? PLus, these people lost their homes in a war. Why SHOULD they have a 'right of return'? Should the Mexicans have a 'right of return' to Texas? I know they are trying to anyway, but should we just hand over El Paso and Dallas?

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, first, most of their homes are not there now. Second, half the people in question were born somewhere other that Israel, so technically, they don't have a 'home' to return to either. 

http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html

This definition, however, is unique to the Palastinians. Croation Serb refugees were given citizenship in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Children born of these parents were given the new citizenship of their parents, so there is no growing refugee population.  The UN's own regugee difinition page makes no mention of descendents being considered refugees, and in other cases doesn't consider them as such.

 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

 

But in the Palastinian case, does.  Maybe because if everyone who was originally misplaced is dead, or moved on, there would be no refugee problem for them to beat Israel with?  PLus, these people lost their homes in a war.  Why SHOULD they have a 'right of return'?  Should the Mexicans have a 'right of return' to Texas?  I know they are trying to anyway, but should we just hand over El Paso and Dallas?

If there are Israelis in the territories that cannot return home, then by all means, let them. But as that does not appear to be the case, I see no reason why it is problematic that this is specific to the Palestinians.

 

As for the Mexicans, that is a very interesting analogy. As in fact, after the wars in the west, many residents of NM, TX and AZ were told by the US that their land grants from Spain and Mexico would be recognized. Naturally, of course, they were not (for the most part), and those states are still feeling the negative effects of that lack of recognition.