KeyStone

Three years is a long time. We could turn that question around. Why doesn't Israel give Palestine its own country for three years? I think if you examine the most recent ceasefire, between Israel and Hamas, you will see that Hamas actually did a pretty good job of living up to its terms of the agreement. Israel on the other hand did not.

Well, you are right about many of these Arab countries being significantly backwards when it comes to human rights, particularly those of minorities. But prosperity brings with it education - and with education people become much more tolerant. The dictators in Saudi Arabia remain an exception of course - but we love them anyways, because they give us oil, and buy our weapons. As much as Hussein was criticized, Iraq was actually a very progressive country for that region.

Well, first of all, I concede that there are people who hate Jews. And it is possible that they used the rally as an excuse for Jew-hating. That does not mean that the majority feel this way, or that the Aryan Guard was supported or encouraged in any way. In fact, given the fact that there are no pictures, I think it's a safe guess that members of the Aryan Guard who participated were not visible racists. Because, believe me, if they were visible, we'd be seeings lots of photos. So, all we have is a writer from the staunchly pro-Israeli National Post stating that racists were in attendance. Big whoop. The organizer of the rally said he told them he didn't want them there.

It kind of seems like a vicious Catch 22. Israel won't agree to change restrictions and end the occupation unless the attacks stop. Hamas won't agree to end the attacks unless restrictions are eased and the occupation ends. It's sort of like a primitive form of E-Bay. The seller won't send until they get the money. The buyer won't send the money until they get the package. Somebody has to give. And of course, all of this needs to happen with the understanding that there will always be some Palestinians who will want to fire rockets at Israel. The important thing is that the government of Palestine acts to stop and imprison the people that do. The sad part about all of this, is that there is room for happiness on both sides if the end state can be reached, but it seems impossible to get there.

Exactly. 1) Subject people to harsh occupation, while encouraging more Jews to move to Israel and more settlers to move into the occupied territory. 2) Tell the Palestinians that you won't make any concessions until they stop the violence. 3) Block every effort for the Palestinians to have an effective voice, or for conditions in Palestine to be known. Then either: 4a) If the Palestinians don't do any engage in any hostilities - just ignore them! 4b) If they do engage in any hostilities (no matter how minor) - accuse them of being terrorists and blow the sh*t out of them. It's like having a boss who says: "If you hadn't asked for a raise, I would have given you one"

Now, that is a good point. The other Arab nations seem to argue on behalf of Palestine, but they don't do much for them. I think that for many of them, they might just use Palestine as a pawn to try to get the 'unclean Jews' out of the holy lands.

Name one thing that the UN or international law has actually done to Israel? I'm not talking about finger-wagging - actual action"?

Well Jerry. There is a lot you say that I agree with. There is no need for the disclaimer. I think everybody here recognizes that world policy is not being shaped by the consensus that we come up with. It is simply a way of keeping mentally sharp, as well as trying to influence those on these boards. I think that it is much easier to see the wrong that Hamas is doing to Israel. The wrong that Israel is doing to Gaza (prior to the recent campaign) is no less wrong, but is more complicated to understand. I am sure that the people in Gaza who live with next to nothing, largely as a result of the conditions created by Israel - such as denying them the right to trade with other nations, feel justified in what they do as well. Things are desperate - and the people are not happy. Of course they want peace - but not at any price - not at the price of slavery or destitution.

That's kind of like saying the only justification for bombing Gaza and killing 300 children is bombing Israel and killing 300 children. Did Palestine commit the first violence - arguably, yes. Although you can stretch it back 50 years and obfuscate it, but for the sake of moving things forward - let's say yes. Does that mean that the first to commit violence is always in the wrong, no matter what the circumstances?

Praised/Condemned isn't really doing something, it's saying something. I'm talking about sanctions/ending trade agreements/ stopping the sale of weapons/military retribution - something.

Alright, now I'm convinced. Thanks.

It still doesn't say that they are in violation. I guess I assumed that if they were in violation, then the IAEA would come out and make a statement to that effect. Your quote shows that they aren't willing to agree to the voluntary snap inspections to demonstrate that they are in compliance. For instance, if I get pulled over for a suspected DUI, and I refuse the breathalyzer, that does not mean that I am a drunk driver, it means that I am not cooperating to demonstrate that I am not a drunk driver. I know it seems picky, but it is an important distinction.

I think the other thing to remember is that suicide attacks are also motivated by desperation, and a feeling of having no hope. We, in the Western world, as much as things aren't perfect, have much to hope for and live for. Many Palestinians do not.

Hmm, I can't get your link to work or find admission of Iran, or anything official saying that they were in breach. However, for the sake of argument - let's say that you are right. Given the circumstances, you can understand why Iran would not be completely forward. Israel took out similar reactors in Iraq, and nobody did anything about it. More recently, Israel asked the US for permission to make a strike on Iran's facilities. This of course, is the country that built weapons secretly, and continues to lie to the world about their existence - but proceeds to lecture other countries on building nuclear energy. So, you believe that because Iran has a lot of oil, then they shouldn't need nuclear energy, and developing it, is just a cover for developing nuclear weapons? Don't you think that even if they have oil, they might want other sources of energy, or might want to save their oil to sell to other countries? I see. So you think that another nation should do the enrichment, so that Iran has the same fuel, but does not have the technology or capacity to divert it to weapons? Well, the problem with that, is that Iran does not have control of its own resources then. Particularly at a time when the nations of the world are all threatening sanctions against them - does it make sense to put the country's energy in the hands of someone who could just decide to strip it from you on a whim? Would Canada want France to give us our enriched uranium or would we want to have that control ourselves? The NPT actually suggests that the nuclear countries are supposed to help the non-nuclear countries acquire energy, in exchange for not developing weapons. In the case of Iran, they have not only not helped, but they have actually done everything possible to deny them. So, in fact, I would say that the nuclear nations are in breach. These are reasonable compromises - as long as those nations do not look to exploit the situation and as long as Iran has full control over its nuclear energy, such that no nation can arbitrarily take it away.

It's an interesting argument. I think one of the reason that suicidal warriors have such a bad rap, is because lately - most of them have targeted civilians. Reflecting back now, I think many people see a sense of honour in the Japanese kamikazes.

The link you gave me does not show that they are in violation. It shows that they objected to snap inspections which were voluntary to begin with.

That is a good point. But again, we are talking about energy, and not weapons.

1) The translation is debatable. 2) At no time, was the method of Israel's vanishing mentioned, nor Iran's active participation. 3) Ahamdinejad has since clarified and expressed that he wished it to happen through political means. 4) Mccain's bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb-bomb Iran comment was just as bad of a comment. Please elaborate what you mean by that. I'm not sure that we have put other countries up to that same level of scrutiny when they have acquired nuclear energy. Iran has been open about the centrifuges, and they are necessary to enrich uranium for nuclear energy. Granted, they could be used to help enrich uranium for nuclear weapons as well. However, there is no evidence that is their intention, nor have they constructed anything that is used for nuclear weapons, but not nuclear fuel. The same could be said for any Arab country that develops nuclear weapons. Does that mean we should deprive all Arab nations of nuclear energy? You don't need to convince me that Iran having nuclear weapons is bad. I get that. Although, I do believe that the other nations having nuclear weapons is not a good thing either. However, Iran has done nothing to relinquish its right to build nuclear energy, and it can be done in a way where inspectors constantly monitor it to ensure that weapons are not being produced.

Iran has not violated the NPT. The US claimed that it did, but they dropped their claim. Why do you say that? I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. Because they want nuclear power, you figure they don't want it for civilian nuclear power? Huh? Better for who?

I don't think tax cuts are going to do all that much for the economy. For spending to work, it has to be targeted correctly. Randomly giving it out, in the hope that people will spend it in the right place, is a lot less effective than actually spending it in the right place. Government needs to take a firmer hand right now and invest/loan to industries that are sorely needed. Specifically, our finance sector, auto sector and housing sector are all taking hits. We need to spend money here. These three sectors are all critical - especially housing and finance. Fifty years ago, tax cuts and random money being given to people would have been more effective, because there was more protection and less globalization - therefore the money would have stayed in the economy and bounced around a few times. Now though, a $1000 given out to someone might result in it being spent at Wal-Mart - 30% stays in the economy. 30% goes to China etc and 40% goes to the US. Ideally, what we need right now are things like the Business Development Bank, programs like that encourage home-buying, a better model for financing such that it is not so interconnected, so that it doesn't all collapse if one of the big ones collapses. But no one wants to do what needs to be done, they just want to shout the popular mantras of tax relief.

Iran, as you know, wants to have nuclear power, and has taken steps in that direction. Much of the rest of the world is trying to stop them, despite the fact that Iran has given many assurances that they are not going to build nuclear weapons with the technology. Does the world have the right to try to stop them. Should they stop them? On what grounds?

You're right. They're not timely either. We don't really need any tax cuts right now. Many economists say tax cuts are needed, no matter what the situation is. Considering the massive shortcomings in our health care system, infrastructure and social assistance - I think that surplus could have been better spent. Besides which, in better economic times, it never hurts to pay down our national debt. Well, the US had some pretty massive tax cuts prior to the economic downturn, and it didn't seem to spark their economy (although there was a short spike as they injected billions in spending into their economy) . What it did manage to do was help them to create massive deficits. No. Cutting spending is the worst thing you can do during a recession. During a recession, you want everyone to spend more money to kickstart the economy not spend less. So when Harper talks about 'leading by example', he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. Fortunately, somebody seems to have talked some sense in to him so he's committed to government spending and big deficits which is exactly what this country needs right now. Unfortunately, it looks as if he won't be spending in the right places. Increasing government spending is not alienating. Having an NPA is alienating. Making the seal hunt illegal is alienating. Yelling separatists with such anger that spittle flies out of your mouth, is alienating.

I'm certainly no fan of Ignatieff, and I think he could probably give lessons to John Kerry on flip-flopping. However, I do agree with him that now is not the time for middle class tax cuts. 1) We are already running a deficit. We had surplus after surplus - and then Harper cut taxes - and now we have a deficit. Bush cut taxes in the US and what happened - massive tax deficits. This myth that lowering the tax percentage will somehow cause new business to suddenly appear out of nowhere to replace the lost tax revenue doesn't work. This idea of being competitive for business is good and all - but then the other country lower their tax so they can be lower than us and so on - it's a lose-lose scenario. 2) In this recession, some people will keep their jobs and some people will lose them. When this happens and you have shrinkage - money becomes more valuable on a relative basis - so in essence the working people all have greater purchasing power. It is those that lose their jobs that need the most help at a time like this. Those on welfare etc, are in a better position. But, we need to help those that lose their jobs to find new jobs - rather than increase the money that those lucky enough to keep their jobs receive. 3) Rather than cut taxes and hope that businesses invest it - what if we just invest it ourselves. Let government figure out what needs to be done and do it. Set up crown corporations (non-unionized) to set up an auto-finance business to help the auto manufacturers since the automakers don't know how to do it. Everyone always talks about Ireland being succesful because of lower taxes - but they forget that the government invested massive cash and did central planning to create the Insurance industry that dominates. 4) In terms of business taxes, lowering taxes does not save jobs. Taxes are only paid by companies that are profitable. So, after all the wages are paid, all the execs get their bonuses, all the depreciation, write-offs, deductions etc - then they pay taxes. No one that is supposed to pay taxes is going to go out of business because taxes are too high. To save jobs, you need to eliminate the standard costs of doing business that are paid by all businesses - things like payroll taxes, workers comp premiums, red-tape, licenses etc.

AP is good enough for me if the AP actually claims that Hamas fired the shells. They are not. They are claiming that the Israeli police say that a phosphorous shell landed there. This is not the same thing. Nice attempt. Perhaps you should spend more time in Israel to learn how to be better at deceit. Given the IDF has now hit a UN school and UN headquarters, it seems that the much ballyhooed Israeli care and precision for not hitting civilian targets is just a bunch of hogwash. Of course, everytime that they do hit a civilian target, they always claim that there were terrorists inside. Will they claim that there were terrorists hiding in the UN Headquarters?

Assuming it's true. Do we have any non-Israeli news sources confirming? Or is this just the usual obfuscation conveniently coming at a time when Israel gets caught red-handed using white phosphorous.