Friday, November 16, 2012
Imagine New York under rocket attack from Quebec?
There is no question that Israel will enter Gaza to stop rocket attacks -- just picture what the US would do if New York was under continuing attack from Quebec?
TEL AVIV, Israel -- A Palestinian rocket has targeted Tel Aviv on the third day of an Israeli military operation against the Gaza Strip.
Read more: Story
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Now you mention it that's not a bad idea...
And keeping with that comparison, New York (Israel) would have been killing more Quebeckers (Palestinians) and taking more of their land.
There's two sides, and both are wrong.
Well said, but unfortunately your view (and mine) is fast becoming not only the minority view but one that is met with contempt and hostility in the Canadian left.
Just look at this tweet, as an example:
https://twitter.com/canadiancynic/status/269208876015034368
Sorry Scott, I don't agree -- if Gaza wanted to ignore Israel Israel would ignore Gaza.
Hmm, lets see. After stealing their land and property, ghettoizing their population, and then starving them into acts of desperation and murder, the logical next step would be to kill them all off, outright.
You asked.
All of that could have been prevented if the two parties would have talked with each other.
Both sides do not wish to talk and the leaders from both sides gains political strength from "doing the right thing".
The problem is that being "right" is not necessarily "smart"
James, I am not sure what you disagree with. Both Palestinians and Israelis have done wrongful acts; Palestinians have caused more terror with rockets, harming and killing Israelis, while Israel has harmed and killed more Palestinians.
May disagree over degree, but it should be admitted both sides are wrong.
Hey anonymous, the land issue was actually resolved by a bloodless un resolution. The inability of non-israelis to accept that resolution has been the cause of most of what followed.
Hi Morton,
I have a general comment about the law, can you critique?
I believe that in law, every case is unique and the competent jurist is guided by principle, not precedent.
Judgements frequently contradict each other and if a precedent were a binding rule that could be wrapped around a new cause of action, there would be no need for Judges. We could merely give lawyers the authority to draft the judgement and instruct the Judge to sign it, which is what in fact happens when the process is corrupted.
Consequently, a Judge who makes a comment like "my hands are tied" or "I am circumscribed by law" is merely caving in to the prejudice of a previous judgement and that is not acceptable.
Phrases like "equality under the law", "justice for all", and "equal protection under the law" are not just words. They are enduring, inviolable principles and any Judge who allows a "precedent" to get in the way of that is not competent enough to serve on the bench.
Do you agree?
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/k1pdr8
All this could have been avoided if Isreal had not assasinated JABARI.
Post a Comment