I've never seen it, but I'll have to check it out. I've heard a lot of stories of what Israelis do to Palestenians.

It's unlikely that anybody who goes through the checkpoints and is humiliated will become a suicide bomber, however others VIEWING people going through the checkpoint will become suicide bombers.

But that's why I think we need to take a serious look at the "solutions" for problems like terrorism. It's a self perpetrating cycle. When suicide bombings increase, they inact actions that actually increase them, which is why I am a staunch advocate of empirical research into the area.

I haven't seen this, but doubt I could sit through it after some of the other documentaries and news stories I've seen coming from Palestine regarding their occupiers.

I can get better and free care here, so why the hell would I want to cross the border for crappy care that puts me in debt the rest of my life?

Palestine, on the other hand, as the occupee, depends on Israel for health care. What few hospitals they have get bombed constantly. So it becomes ridiculous for Israel to deny the health care and education they took responsibility for by occupying Palestine in the first place.
Clearly your admitted ignorance of the situation makes your opinions irrelevant to the discussion or reality.

Whuh? I guarantee you they wouldn't fucking turn her away and prevent an ambulance from getting to her. I guarantee you they would CALL a fucking ambulance. Maybe with a police escort or something, but they wouldn't just fucking turn her away. WTF?!

Ok, I was going to ignore this thread moving forward, because as I've said, I have no stake or in depth knowledge on the subject.  I want to state my position so it is clear, I don't condone abuse of human rights or any other conflict, especially this conflict.  I believe that the Palestinians should be given back the majority of the land, and if a peaceful resolution is not possible, the post 1948 borders should be seriously considered.  It is a big turd sandwich and everyone is having a good ole bite of it.  

Now, @ natural, if you were at the border having a heart attack, they would definitely call an ambulance and give you a police escort.  If you claimed that you suffer from uterine bleeding, and save any other test (I doubt border guards would check for that) they would tell you to go back to whatever country you came from, Canada or US respectively.  If you don't trust me, go and test that theory, leave all your ID at home, and claim that you MUST cross the border because you pee blood.  Of course it is a heartbreaking fucking moment with a pregnant woman involved, but considering that there is a conflict, you can't just jump on emotional propaganda without considering some analogies. Would I have left her through? most likely, but I understand why some asshole wouldn't want to let her though.  That was my whole 

I'm going to be the better man here and not respond with the same tone. The definition of irrelevant is that it is not connected or applicable.  For example when you say that you can get "free care here" as an answer to my border policy objection, that's an IRRELEVANT point.  I would have otherwise ignored it except that it becomes relevant to point out the definition of the word  When I state an opinion that you disagree with, or plain WRONG, or even stupid, it is connected to the issue, and thus relevant, do you see the difference?  

As I have stated we argue from the same point of view regarding the conflict, I was trying to point out that emotional propaganda is just that... 

Why can't we all just get along?

Edit: fixed quote

I'm going to let this one slide because I don't want to douchejack this thread with a pissing contest.  I will justify my reasoning for making any comment, and it's relevance, and will leave it at that.  The only reason I'm replying is so that I will not come across as defensive and pointless.  

I have read the OP as a comment on an emotional movie, he has even stated how his opinion on the subject was changed.  He had also gone on to list the reasons why his opinion has changed and they were all emotional scenarios.  My reason for commenting was not to change his opinion, or even claim it irrelevant, was to point out that there are two sides to every story.  Any emotionally charged evidence raises flags of propaganda in my view.  That's how it was connected. I also tied in the whole religion sux thing, and is at least in part to blame for the current shit storm...  all of those were relevant points, again, even if I were COMPLETELY wrong,  they were still on point, or connected, or addressing what the OP had said.  If I were to comment on the price of crude oil, or the growth on my left big toe, that would be irrelevant.  The points were "applicable" because they "addressed" the OP.

Your level of reading comprehension, makes this argument an exercise in futility.  I will concede that in spite of the definition of the word relevant, my comment was completely irrelevant and thus retract it.   happy now?

First, I couldn't test that theory, because I'm not a pregnant woman. Second, notice I didn't say anything about letting her across the border. Just about not turning her away. I suppose that could sound like 'letting her through', but it is a difference. They would have had the option to have her wait at the border for an ambulance and/or police, and let the medics figure out what to do. There would have been lots of options. My point was that the US/Canada border would never (I desperately hope, anyway; it would seriously fuck my mind up if it did) just turn her away and prevent an ambulance from reaching her. That's just fucked up. That's treating her like she's a non-person. (Not to mention the baby, but I don't know enough about it to really go there.)

You say "via" which is not the case. The UN does not confer statehood. Never has. That is no place in its charter.

Palestine is already a state. More nations recognize Palestine than recognize Kosovo for example despite the fact the US recognizes Kosovo as a state. The count is 117 or so nations that already recognize Palestine. The US does not require UN membership prior to recognition of a state as a state, nor does any other state.

Becoming a member state of the UN or even an observing state is the objective as it would give Palestine unquestioned access to the UN created courts particularly the International Criminal Court. The key word is state.

===

BTW: If you want a real chuckle look for Danny Ayalon's three part Hasbara promo. Talk about lame script and zero production values ...

There appears to be some serious confusion here. The subject is checkpoints NOT border crossings. These things all happen in the West Bank with the West Bank on both sides of the checkpoint. This is not about getting to hospitals in Israel. It is about getting to Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank.

These checkpoints are solely for the purpose of harassing and demeaning the Palestinians by the military dictators. They are intended to make normal life in the West Bank impossible.

Fair enough. Would you care to take the time to explain the other side of this jewish military dictatorship Israel runs in the West Bank? Or is it not military? Or is it not jewish? Or did the Palestinians elect the Jews to rule them? Is there something you know about it that no one else knows?

Where is it written only the Palestinians have no right to resist a military dictatorship? Why should they not kill of the foreigners? Did not the Poles and the French do the same in WWII? Should they also be condemned?

Get your frigging civilians back in Israel where they belong.

Cititzenship remains what it is. Now about the rest...

Fair enough. Would you care to take the time to explain the other side of this jewish military dictatorship Israel runs in the West Bank? Or is it not military? Or is it not jewish? Or did the Palestinians elect the Jews to rule them? Is there something you know about it that no one else knows?

Where is it written only the Palestinians have no right to resist a military dictatorship? Why should they not kill of the foreigners? Did not the Poles and the French do the same in WWII? Should they also be condemned?

If Palestine can be destroyed, wiped off the map, exterminated, without harm after 2500 years I do not see a problem with getting rid of a shitty little country filled with religious fruitcakes after less than 70. If you do, please explain exactly what that problem is.

If you wish to be taken seriously, if you expect to have an exchange of ideas, you should express ideas instead of feigned frustration in the form of a proposal.

We have all seen the "the absurd cannot be done therefore Israel can keep what it stole" before. We have also seen it in the form of "the situation is impossible so maintain the status quo,"

It is not even clever. The Jews are not absolved of their crimes while the crimes are still in progress.

Which is interesting but you are still NOT telling me why Judaism should be treated differently from any other religion nor its members differently from the members of any other religion.

Please tell me why.

If neither Jews nor Israel is what you see as an example of what you call my bigotry, just what is?