suds

What does a 'free Palestine' mean to you? If one listens to Hamas, it means a Palestine free of Jews.

Possibly because Oregon isn't the Jew's ancestral homeland? The last time I checked, Jerusalem wasn't in Oregon either. Or perhaps they believed that Jews (like everyone else) should have the right to self-determination? Implying they don't have that right can be seen as discriminatory, and as such can be both antizionist and antisemitic. Most of the divide between left and right I believe is with the zionist movement. Perhaps that should be the topic of discussion.

"Hitler may have had his faults, but he did have the right idea." ???? This proves what a certifiable nutcase you really are.

I agree that 'ideological reasons' are mostly responsible for the tensions at least in our own country. There is this theory of seeing oppression as a binary concept. The world is divided up into 'oppressors' or 'oppressed'. It doesn't matter how old you are, what kind of skin one has, what your beliefs are, you either belong to one group or the other. There is no middle ground. And the left has labelled Jews as the oppressors and the Palestinians as the oppressed. The left may not control the country but they control more than their share of the narrative. This may help to explain the rise of antisemitism.

One of the worst things that happened during that era (for the Allies) was when the Soviets and Nazis signed a non aggression pact with a mutual understanding of how Eastern Europe was going to be split between them. One of the best things that subsequently happened was when the Nazis broke that pact by invading the Soviet Union. Both Nazis and Soviets had aggressive plans to expand their borders by occupying other countries. Why would the allies who chose to protect the sovereignty of central and eastern European countries be interested in joining forces with either one? While only the circumstances of having a common foe led the Soviets to the Allied camp, there was very little trust between them. Joining forces with the Nazis was never seriously considered for obvious reasons.

Well Hitler WAS in fact evil and pretty much had to die. I'm not quite getting your point here. Are you implying he wasn't??

Excellent post! If everyone judged others as individuals and by the content of their character then diversity could be a welcome thing. But we all don't, and our politicians are setting the worst of examples.

There was a time when the Israelis saw Hamas as a far lesser threat than the PLO due to it being less militaristic and political. Can't blame them for that. And then things changed and Hamas become more militaristic and political than the PLO with the emergence of political Islam. That's pretty much the story isn't it?

Great! If this goes ahead it should reduce my monthly Enbridge gas bill by about 20%. And by the way, this 'federal carbon charge' (or tax) is subject to HST.

Is there anyone here who believes that Hamas (and their leaders) are acting in the best interests of the Palestinians in Gaza? After 15 years of Hamas governance how has it really turned out? When you consider the money spent on 300 miles of tunnels and all the weaponry, could it have been put to better use? Is there a reason none of their leaders actually live in Gaza, some of which are allegedly billionaires? I don't put much faith in polls either, especially polls that if answered in the wrong way might put those being polled in an extremely awkward and dangerous position. Now we have this escalation in hostilities. Your thoughts?

Comparing the evils of nazism to vaccine mandates or the state of Israel could be seen as an insult to those millions who actually died because of it or had to deal with the real thing on a daily basis. If Israel is a nazi state then where does that put Hamas who openly calls for the genocide of Jews, or much of the Arab world who actively supported the nazi regime during WW2? There's enough hypocrisy to go around. And then you have Trudeau who uses it for political reasons.

Well there is an old saying.... 'In God we trust, all others pay cash'. I don't put much faith in people to do the right thing. The older I get the more cynical I become. It's better than being a sucker.

Absolutely! I don't trust Muslims any more than I would trust anyone else and through experience, that's not a whole lot. As you say.... trust has to be earned.

Maybe if the international community had stepped up to the plate and not allowed Hamas to take over Gaza in 2005 things would have been different. But no, even though many did voice their concerns they would be shot down as being 'undemocratic'. Or maybe the international community could just do as they always do and throw tons of money at both sides (but a lot more of it) and wipe their hands clean. What the international community could do is put boots on the ground specifically to prop up any future responsible Palestinian government from being taken over by terrorists or outside forces. That might lower concerns.

Interesting. Since Israel was only created in 1948 I agree! But what we really want to know is .... what's your solution that would be acceptable to the majority of Israelis and Palestinians?? We know how Gaza turned out after the Israelis voluntarily left and then got sucker punched when Hamas took control. What's to stop the same from happening if they voluntarily left the West Bank? Are Palestinians that different between Gaza and the West Bank? What's to stop a civil war in the West Bank from taking place and having Hamas take control? At the very least, Israel should want their security guaranteed and they don't put much trust in the UN to any large degree.

In my opinion there's a fundamental difference between 'Israel's right to exist' and 'Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state'. Has the Palestinian Authority ever recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? I don't believe it has. On one hand, the Balfour Declaration (1917) recommends a vague use of the term 'Jewish homeland'. But the UN resolution 181 (1947) uses the terms 'Arab state' and 'Jewish state' in its description of the partition of British Palestine. I would have to believe that any 'Jewish state' (or 'Arab state') would require at least a majority of Jews or Arabs to function as such. Since demographics do matter (more so for the Jewish state) you can see where the 'right of return' becomes such a concern.

First of all, it wasn't a church, it was a hospital (parking lot) in Gaza, that took the brunt of the blast. Secondly, what would lead you to believe that the Hamas government would require Israel's permission to bring in neutral 3rd party inspectors?? **As for the rest of your post... either attribute your little rant to something I've posted or don't expect a reply. Offer something sensible and I'll take the time to offer something in return.

Yep, and it was a Democrat President (FDR) in the U.S. who besides refusing to allow the ST.Louis to land also stripped Japanese Americans of all their assets and placed them in internment camps.

You can say a lot of things about Israelis but you can't say they depend on others to fight their wars for them. That's nonsense. Zionism was around a long time before Canada (and the US) refused the MS ST.Louis to land its Jewish refugees in 1939. 254 of the refugees ended up dying in NazI concentration camps. The holocaust was a big factor in increased Jewish immigration to Palestine. And then there was the guilt thing that many in the west had for the Jews and I would include myself there. The Israelis knew in every war they were involved in that if they lost that was the end of them. They would literally be driven into the sea. It's what makes them the way they are, and fight the way they do.

Gee, this Biden sounds amazing! So why do 66.7% of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track?

So indigenous people being conquered and leaving (for whatever reason) makes them lose indigenous status and gives it to the conqueror? Interesting.

'decolonization'..... the undoing of colonialism. the cultural, psychological, and economic freedom, for indigenous people with the goal of achieving indigenous sovereignty. 'indigenous'..... being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place. Or sharing common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands. Question.... Is it not true that Jews and Palestinians share a common genetic ancestry in these lands? Is it not true that Judaism's holiest sites are in Palestine and far out date Islam? Is it not true that Jews far outnumbered Arabs specifically in the city of Jerusalem in the late 1800's during Ottoman rule and decades before the British took over? So how is it possible that Jews are not considered indigenous to the state of Israel but are considered 'colonizers'?

I agree except for the fact that Hamas controls the site. And if they had any evidence at all that the IDF caused the blast and not one of their own rockets then the logical thing would be for them to bring in UN inspectors. Not doing so says a lot especially when Israel flat out denies it.

Satellite imagery can give a definitive view of the bomb crater and the extent of damage done and it doesn't match up with any ordnance in use by the IDF. It might not be absolute proof but lacking the ability to do any kind of independent search for bomb fragments it's as good as it gets.

If they get 'rid of Gaza', then what happens to the Palestinians living in Gaza? Do they become Israeli citizens? Or do they re-occupy Gaza? 300 miles of tunnels under Gaza with God only knows what's in them. Whether it's regime change, occupation, unconditional surrender, or whatever.... nothing is going to be easy if the plan is to get rid of Hamas. What is the end game supposed to look like?