Figleaf

No no no. That's not how you insult someone's mother. You say ... "Sorry my reply is late, but I was delayed in the line-up to have your mother ... it's not her fault, she was swamped by the overflow business from your sister." Presumably at this point, if your interlocutor is a french soccer player, you will be headbutted in the chest.

My question is: what's the point of negotiating if theonly way the other side will consent to negotiations is if you give everything away before you even come to the table. Put another way: is Israel willing to renounce violence against Palestine or recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist? Exactly. Precisely. As we look at many of the responses here, IF they represent the prevailing Israeli position, it is kind of obvious that there is no real peace option available to the Palestinians.

Thank you for your reply. An interesting pattern is emerging from all these responses. Most people have lots to say about what the Palestinians should do, but usually very little (as here) about question 2. You say the outcome is to be 'trust'. But that is both vague and more notably, useless. What good is this trust supposed to produce for the Palestinians? Is it useful for Palestinians to know that Likudniks trust them not to fight back while settlements are built on their lands?

And so was the Hezbollah terrorists that Israel bombed and the government that was harbouring them (or not enforcing the rule of law within it's land). And so WASN'T the Beirut airport that Israel bombed as an apparent act of collective punishment against Lebannon. Absolutely...I mean...who ever heard of cargo shipments carrying spare aparts and munitions from Iran and syria.....IMPOSSIBLE!!! No impossible, but certainly unproven.

My my, what a comfort. Such a generous timeframe, when dealing with lives and explosives. About 3 times the time necessary for an evacuation and a 1/4 of the time needed to defuse a bomb.....mind you, palestinian terrorists give ample warning too, unfotunately the warnings sound exactly like an arab asking for tahini on the falafel...hence the civilian fatalities You hit the nail on the head. The Irgun, as despicable a group as they were, aimed at primarily a military target and even then tried to minimize loss of life. The goal of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is quite the opposite. Ahh, that's the difference then! Irgun merely killed people with bombs, whereas Hamas has KILLED PEOPLE WITH BOMBS. Or maybe the difference is Hamas has a grievance whereas Irgun had an agenda.

That quiz is exactly the kind of thing this topic is about. This yutz imputes anti-semitism based on whether one matches his political views or not.

Blaming the victim? No, stating historical fact. It just sort of sounded like you were saying if they had given in to the terrorists warnings they wouldn't have had the tragegy. My my, what a comfort. Such a generous timeframe, when dealing with lives and explosives.

And so was the Hezbollah terrorists that Israel bombed and the government that was harbouring them (or not enforcing the rule of law within it's land). And so WASN'T the Beirut airport that Israel bombed as an apparent act of collective punishment against Lebannon.

Remember, the land was conquered as part of a war started by the Arab side. Look, it really does no good to stick to a docudrama script. It's so easily unravelled: 1-'started' by the Arab side presupposes that the declaration of the state of Israel was not a problematic action deemed a cause for war by the Arabs. 2-conquest of land is against international law and in this case specifically disallowed by the UN. 3-You can't lump the 'Arab side' together and use the actions of Arab states to disallow the rights of Palestinians. Okay there's the reasoning you explain to yourself. Now what makes it persuasive to the Palestinians from who peace is being demanded? You've lost me. Suicide Think Russia's holding of Kaliningrad (link) within Poland as an "exclave". And what should this tell me?

The litany of wrongful convictions coming to light proves there are (or were) serious problems with our criminal justice system. Considering the gravity of sending someon to prison for years or decades, it seems to me that it is high time to make the prosecutors and investigators found to have contributed to wrongful convictions personally liable for some part of the recompsne costs. These dangerous bastards have gotten off scott free for too long.

Blaming the victim? So were the soldiers Hezbollah captured last year.

"Suzuki walks out of AM640 after global warming debate Feb, 15 2007 - 3:20 PM TORONTO - Turns out noted environmental activist Dr David Suzuki isn't as mild mannered as you may have thought. He stormed out of our studios this morning after a debate with host John Oakley over the merits of the Kyoto Accord. Suzuki says whether the Harper government agrees or not, Canada is already on board with the plan. Oakley says he welcomes all voices in the debate. Suzuki countered by asking if he'd welcome a creationist to chat about evolution. " This smacks of character assassination. The headline advises that the 'walked out' AFTER the interview. Gee imagine -- walking! As for the rest, who is quoted there? Whose characterization is it that he 'stormed'? Do you have a link? He certainly didn't sound likely to 'storm' during the interview.

The question of "full sovereignty" in the modern world is somewhat irrelevant. The US doesn't govern Canada, for example, but given the geography we each have more than opinions about what happens in the neignborhood. Is that a 'no' on full sovereingty? Interesting, but I think your formula builds in unavoidable stumbling blocks: -whether they would 'need' armed forces is something states generally decide for themselves. Since the Palestinians are an injured party, presumably it would stick in their craws to be told they must be the ones to do without self-defence. -the idea that Israel would get to keep lands it has illegally settled is contrary to the basic principles of international law, and so would be another sticking point, unless something valuable (eg. a Gaza-West Bank corridor) were offered. -it seems rather presumptuous to propose to place restrictions on how compensation money should be spent.

I always include that kind of option in a poll. Except, apparently, the Harper government.

I am certainly no saying that, nor endorsing Liberal patronage over Tory patronage. But the bad old days of patronage appointments was supposed to be remedied by the relatively recent (Martin government?) implementation of the selection committees. Which is why the Liberals appointed their own partisans to those committees, right? To make sure there was no patronage? Didn't the Canadian electorate vote the Liberals out of office last round? So what is it you are hoping to demonstrate by digging up history. You're just like the Harper Conservatives. Can't quite grasp that the government is them now.

Gee, look, another gross mischaracterization and distortion of truth form mikedavie00. Is anyone surprised? Suzuki asked him to, and was perfectly comfortable discussing it. ?? The environment IS his political agenda.

Understand this! The U.S military and allies are currently trying to control sectarian fighting and are responsible for law and order in Iraq. ...[insults deleted]. Well, do help me understand, then. If the major sectarians sects of Iraq are each fighting eachother, and in order to halt this fighting the US is fighting against all the fighting sects, who is the US fighting FOR?

You could brush up on your actual knowledge of the war. The only place in Iraq where there are Shi'ites that the U.S. has any presence at all is Baghdad itself. Every other place where they are stationed is a Sunni area. In Baghdad, they are propping up a Shi'ite government and largely fighting Sunnis. So if Iran really is providing weapons to their fellow Shi'ites, those weapons are likely being used to fight the insurgency, and this is just another lying excuse to start another war. http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/nyt-falls-...an-weapons.html We have a double war going on here. The 'war on terror' coupled with 'sectarian fighting'. ... So if the US pulled out, there would only be one war in Iraq. Wouldn't that be progress?

I agree 100%, and when you add on the smarmy CBC style and stagey Canadian acting it makes for pretty bad television.

Ironically, it sounds like Irgun's methods are the model for present Palestinian militants' practices.

Surely the whole Nobel Award structure is all about being liberal darlings! Think of it: Peace? Progress? Use of knowledge to improve human life? It's all about stuff pinkos hold dear and the right reviles.

Your demarkation of a sharp dichotomy between two sides of the electorate suggests a troubling pathology which I hope is not correct. I hope that most voters don't make their choices based on which of two camps they most identify with. As a voter myself, I always hope that whatever party occupies the government will make its decisions based on a rational assessment of the facts as they exist, rather than on a pre-determined view of what suits thier ideology. Historically, it is probably the absence of a sharp defining ideology that has led to electoral success for the Liberal party as well as red tory governments.

The Conservative view that there has been a 'wave' of 'liberal' (whatever that is) influence in the judiciary is itself suspect. It sounds like nothing more that sour grapes about progress in directions they don't like. There we go again... prefab talking points in place of meaning. The conservative contention that judges have gone off on their own and made stuff up is without foundation. It betrays either a misunderstanding of how the justice system works, or a deliberate willingness to poison the well. Interpreting the laws as written is what judges have been doing all along. Interpretation is both unavoidable, and necessarily involves a type of creativity because it is impossible to write legislation that meets every possible eventuality. The fact that right wingers haven't liked those interpretations doesn't reflect on the job the judges are doing. They don't generally have any scope to do differently, and if the legislatures don't like the interprations, they have every ability to recraft the legislation to clarify their intentions. Here is a perfect example of ignorance at work. Rightwingers are all up in arms over the notion of 'reading in'. But they don't understand that 'reading in' is a measure the judges devised in order to AVOID the 'activism' of striking down legislation. When legislation could be seen to be unconstitutional, in appropriate cases the judges will 'read in' the necessary correctives rather than simply toss out the statute. 'Reading in' is essentially a conservatory measure, not an activist one. AND if the legislature feels the judges have read in something wrong, again, it's fully within the power of the legislature to enact differently. If the case could be determined by the letter of the law, there would be no need for interpretation of any kind. But the law itself presumes an element of interpretation and always will regardless which ideology informs the lawmakers. All the less reason for the tories to skew their structure then.

How so? Also, what do your cites there have to do with the topic of whether criticism = anti-semitism? Anti-semitism is certainly out there, but lumping something that isn't anti-semitism with things that are only serves to muddy the waters and make it harder to address the real problem. Consider: an average uniformed person reads that incidents of anti-semtism are on the rise. If he or she interprets that as vandalism against synagogues or attacks on jewish people, he or she will quite rightly be appalled and may act against it. On the other hand, if he or she is led to interpret it as an increase in op-ed peices critical of Israel, will he or she be so moved? I doubt it. Israel's apologists do Judaism no good by diffusing the concept of anti-semitism to include bona fide critics.

I am certainly no saying that, nor endorsing Liberal patronage over Tory patronage. But the bad old days of patronage appointments was supposed to be remedied by the relatively recent (Martin government?) implementation of the selection committees. The Harper policy is a step backward from that brief sign of hope.