naomiglover

I lived in Israel until the end of my teens. However, that doesn't mean that someone who has never been to Israel does not know the simple fact that: The Arab-Israelis accept the state of Israel within the legal and internationally recognized borders.

Or just ask Timothy McVeigh. Allah Akbar?

The Arab-Israelis accept the country of Israel so it's not a fair comparison. It's not ethnic cleansing if they are removed because they are there illegally as recognized by everyone (except for Israel0. If they want to remain there under the Palestinian law, then go for it. I doubt that will ever sit well and that the settlers will ever agree to something like that and they will continue to cause havoc in the territories.

Considering the type of people most the settlers are, yes. I would rather that they were not there. Their only intention is seeing Greater Israel and to prevent a Palestinian State. Having the settlers in the Palestinian territory is like having Hamas settlers in the Israeli territory. Both the settlers and Hamas do not recognize a two-state solution.

And it makes sense to me DogOnPorch... and it makes sense to me. Netanyahu 'agrees to settlement freeze' in tense talks with Obama Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu tried to put on a brave face following the demonstrably low-key fashion in which he was received on Monday at the White House. However, Israeli officials have admitted that the nature of the meeting was “a reprimand” to the prime minister and that Mr Netanyahu conceded on a number of issues, including the settlement freeze and the release of Palestinian prisoners. No official account of the meeting between Mr Netanyahu and President Barack Obama, which took over an hour-and-a-half on Monday evening, has been released by either the American or Israeli sides. Both Mr Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who participated in part of the meeting, cancelled their customary briefings to the Israeli press following the meeting. Mr Netanyahu gave a short interview to Israel Radio before leaving Washington in which he denied that the meeting was tense, terming it instead “positive and focused”. “In the future it will be understood how important this meeting was,” he added. http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/21893/netanyahu-agrees-settlement-freeze-tense-talks-obama

Finally we have an opportunity to get rid of the burden of the settlements. Billions of tax money have been wasted into those meaningless prestige projects which has brought nothing but more conflict, costed the lives of so many Israelis and made Israel a pariah in the world politics. If the settlers don´t want to move, fine, give them Palestinian passports and we can stop wasting our tax money on them. Mazel Tov to your new life as Palestinians.

Hillary Clinton, May, 2009: link Hillary Clinton, November 2009: link

Wow - If this is indeed true, is astonishing. In 2007, he foreshadowed what could happen. Red flag?

What do you think of international law? Do you believe it's okay to violate it in such circumstances? Our western moral standards aside, this mentality you are displaying will never win any wars.

I don't think you get it.

And look at Switzerland. They didn't even get attacked once. Your words of sympathy and your support for the innocence would have more meaning if you did not try to justify the killing of the 1000 civilians in Gaza by the Israeli army. A selective sympathizer is either a racist or a fake sympathizer.

Having had the opportunity to travel to Europe and some parts in the middle east (Israel, Lebanon and Turkey) and witnessing their media and even witnessing some of the media here in Canada, it's become difficult to take the U.S. media seriously. Whether it's the power of the advertisers or other influences, U.S. media, television in particular, has become void of what news is supposed to be: Honest and unlimited information. There are, however, a few in the mainstream U.S. media, who are able to deliver the news without censorship and limitations. One of those is Jon Stewart. Here is an example of an interview that you would not see on any of the major networks. An interview that some groups tried to prevent from happening: Canada U.S. part 1 and U.S. part 2 The audience member who yells "liar" at Barghouti a few minutes in to the conversation is a useful reminder of the challenges of talking rationally about this issue. "People...can't even agree to begin the conversation," Jon says; "how can you remain hopeful?" Barghouti finds hope in the strength of the movement of which he and Beltzer are a part - "a movement of non-violence," he says, and the room applauds. Beltzer talks about how she grew up with an image of Israel as the peaceful party in this conflict, and how her understanding didn't change until she actually spent time traveling around and meeting people. I wish more American Jews were open to meeting Palestinians and encountering the "facts on the ground" - this is exactly what I admire about the work that Encounter does. "Neither group is homogenous, Palestinian or Israeli," Jon points out - another reality which is too-rarely discussed in our polarized and polarizing discourse about Israel and Palestine. "What has entrenched both of these cultures in the self-destructive spiral that they appear to be on?" It's a hell of a question. Thanks, Jon, for being a host to the kind of conversation that I wish our actual mainstream media were capable of. I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore that America's best "fake news" show offers more nunced coverage of these issues than most of the "real news" I see.

They should be treated as a regular person. If their beliefs break the law, then they should be dealt with. Thousands of American soldiers have come to Canada and refused to serve in the military because the U.S. war was in conflict with their moral and ethical beliefs. At the same time, thousands of Muslim soldiers continue to serve in the U.S. military despite being a Muslim. You're still trying very hard to make Islam the issue here.

I admire neither the Taliban or the Israeli military.

I say no as well because I don't think his religion was the cause of his decision. I think it had to do with his mental breakdown and his search to justify what he did.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban have supporters just like the Israeli military has supporters. You bring enough fear into people and use self-defense and protection as an excuse and you are bound to find supporters.

Recall: Adkisson, a 58-year-old truck driver on the verge of losing his food stamps, had 76 rounds with him when he entered the church and pulled a shotgun from a guitar case during a children's performance of the musical "Annie." ... About 200 people from throughout the community were watching 25 children performing "Annie" when the suspect entered the church, pulled out a semiautomatic shotgun and fired three fatal blasts. ... Adkisson "stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of the major media outlets," http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872864

It comes down to how they want to interpret what they think they believe in. 99.99999% do not and have not interpreted the way this guy has and so it's safe to say that it's a problem with the individual.

Were you as threatened when others have gone on killing sprees in the U.S. or does the fear only set in when it's a Muslim?

You don't think countries like the U.S. and Canada profile?

In case you missed the whole thread, there is a debate about Islam being the cause for this killing spree. By the way, your keyboard buttons seem to be stuck on screaming.

So many things can trigger these mentally unstable people to commit atrocious acts. Why is Islam not triggering the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world to do the same? What about the over 3000 Muslims serving in the U.S. military now? Do they not practice the same faith as the guy who went and killed his fellow servicemen? What about the hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in the U.S.? Why aren't they going around killing people? The underlying cause for this Muslim man's killing of 13 people cannot be blamed on religion, just like religion cannot be blamed for the killing of 29 people by the Jewish settler.

Being a Muslim seems to be a good reason to question someone. At least that seems to be the opinion of some of the posters in this thread who will not miss an opportunity to generalize and stereotype Muslims into one group of terror loving psychopaths. That's discrimination.

I'm glad that you don't think he represents Islam. I don't know what the factors are because we don't know enough about this guy and this case. There was a shooting at a church not too long by a right wing nut who read and watched Foxnews pundits. He went psycho at this "liberal" church because he believed the church was perverting Christianity and American values. What do you think the main factos were behind this guy's attack? Religion or a guy who was mentally unstable? I am still trying to get over jbg's comment of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome". It sounds like Glenn Beck is channeling through some people on this board.

Does this Muslim guy who killed 13 people represent Islam as much as the Jewish guy who killed 29 people at a mosque, represents Judaism? What do you say DogOnPorch? jbg?