Gabriel

That's straight up anti-semitism. If you're opposed to Israel's existence as a Jewish state, you're opposed to the very foundation of Israel. No doubt this view is held by many of Israel's opponents, who reject the reality of Jewish nationhood.

Keepitsimple, at the risk of seeming like a suck-up, let me just say you're easily one of my favourite posters on this board. You stay true to your screen name - keep it simple!

Oh snap. I'm impressed. Let's play again - name ANOTHER matriarchal society.

I am not in agreement with many of the broad opinions I've seen Naomi Klein express, whether it be No Logo, The Shock Doctrine, or her appearances in documentaries like "The Corporation". She seems way too left-wing to me, anti-corporatist, anti-identity, blah blah blah. She doesn't strike me as an honest or scholarly observer.

Hey there Pliny, There is no question that there is fine line between nationalism and elitism. It's important for those who identify themselves as belonging to particular nation that their celebration of particular traits/values/commonalities doesn't lead to a sense of arrogance and superiority - at the very least, not an UNFOUNDED sense of arrogance and superiority. It's not hard to see how an inward focus that a group may have on its values can lead towards a sense of superiority. For example, let's consider my sense of Canadian identity. I consider myself as Canadian as I am Jewish. They are both integral parts of who I am. If I focus inwards too much, and take great pride in democratic values and freedoms that I enjoy as a Canadian, this can lead to sense of superiority towards other groups who don't share these values. Perhaps I may look down on other groups who do not practise or advocate for democracy. Some nationalistic movements in history and contemporary society have elements of racism within them. This is also true among some Zionists and Jews. Is it a pervasive theme in the Jewish community? Absolutely NOT. Do Canadians, overall, have a sense of superiority over others? I would say NO - except with respect to our diet anti-Americanism/anti-Americanism lite :-) I have met Jews who speak disparagingly of Arabs and Muslims. They're out there. I have met Jews who genuinely feel superior to non-Jews. Are they representative of some sort of widespread trend of thought among the Jewish community? Hell no. Does the misconception of Jews viewing ourselves as "the chosen people" and therefore holier than all others actually hold water in the Jewish culture? Hell no. In short, any nationalistic movement needs to be careful that it doesn't leak over into discriminatory beliefs, which can lead to discriminatory practises - especially if the nationalistic movement yields a sovereign state in which non-nation members are a part. In other words, non-Jews in Israel must be treated fairly and equally (for the most part) in Israel, while Israel remains a Jewish country with Jewish character. I agree with your assessment of naomiglover. I believe her dream is a world where there are no varying groups, but simply a large pool of individuals forming one large collective. I suspect that naomiglover views nationalistic identity as some sort of relic of the past, some sort of archaic concept that needs to be done away with over time. She sees no value in preservation of the uniqueness of particular cultures/ethnicities/religions/groups. Her utopia is some sort of Star Trek universe. Finally, remember what I said - I believe there are acceptable forms of minor discrimination that can occur towards the ends of preserving Israel's Jewish character. Take for example the Law of Return that I mentioned - certainly this feel somewhat unfair to non-Jewish citizens in Israel. Why are Jews having such an easy time, while those who aren't Jewish, like myself, have a much more difficult time? I think this is an acceptable form of discrimination. When Israel gives money to certain Jewish interests, I also believe this is often acceptable even though some tax revenues come from non-Jews. It's just the acceptable price that non-Jews deal with in Israel. Extreme cases, which would be abhorrent and would never be tolerated, would be practises that were done to Jews - i.e. restricting non-Jews from education, or specific education, or from certain professions, or banning them from certain public areas, etc, etc.... All in all, non-Jews live quality lives in Israel in the broader context of the Israeli standard of living. Hope I didn't ramble too much there.

Name one matriarchal society.

There may be some legitimacy to the argument that Palestinian territorial grievances manifested themselves, in part, towards the prevalence of hatred towards Israel, its allies, Jews, and many other groups within their society - which of course has lead to suicide bombings and other reprehensible acts. The disturbing messages that are prevalent in Palestinian (as well as Arab-Muslim) society include dehumanization of Jews, Christians, friends of Israel, the West, celebration of terrorism and martyrdom, advocacy of violence, misrepresentations of history (i.e. Holocaust denial), etc.... If Israel were to simply comply with some of the "international law" you and other claim it is violating (i.e. retreating to pre-1967 borders, relinquishing control of EJ, etc), these messages would not disappear. Sadly, these messages and this culture perpetuates itself, it's a vicious circle. What you're ignoring, however, is the broader subscription to this ideology and the terrorism is advocates among the Arab-Muslim population. We've seen this type of violence occur, more often than not, in parts of the world and circumstances far removed from Israel - i.e. bombings in Madrid and London, the Beslan school massacre, 9/11, Munich Olympics 1972, Bali bombings, Mumbai bombings, etc... This clearly paints a picture of the primary driver of this violence being ideological, and not territorial. Your simple mind views the hatred and violence that arises from the Palestinian (and Arab-Muslim) population against Israel/Jews (and perceived allies) as the natural result of real and imagined Israeli transgressions. This conflict is hardly as simple as a chicken-and-the-egg scenario. Equating the problems I've outlined above regarding the disturbing messages that are commonplace among Palestinian (as well as Arab-Muslim) society as simply "symptoms" marginalizes how significant these drivers are towards the perpetuation of this violence. For illustrative purposes it'd be simple to list of endless examples of other peoples who have had legitimate claims of dispossession who didn't resort to violence, but what's the point of even bringing them up? You're hardly an honest participant in this debate, nor do you really care about the affected parties. If this conflict is to be resolved, you'll have nothing else to rant on about - all your superficial knowledge about this conflict will be for naught! What a tragedy that would be for your thin sense of identity.

If anything, we don't revere our military or history enough. Why don't you share some examples of excessive military glorification in Canada?

Even "supplant" is bordering on elite.... I would've used "replace" or "switch".... let me check thesaurus.com.... Who does this Michael Hardner guy think he is?

"Didacticism"? "Hoariness"? Wow, dude... someone's been subscribing to the dictionary.com word-of-the-day email spam. Stop showing off.

True, true

Can you not read and comprehend what Army Guy has said? Where did he call for these professors not to be entitled to say what they think? He's simply calling into question the legitimacy of these claims and the consequences of having such politically-oriented professors educating our students.

This is really unsurprising. Anyone who's been attended a Canadian university recently (or is currently enrolled) will no doubt feel the leftism on campus. It's just the culture of universities. How can it be changed? I don't know. Is it a big problem? Yes, it is.

If you're talking about the banks, they've repaid most (or all?) of that money. But ya, the "stimulus" bill is another thing, altogether. But Bush did it, too.... can he be described as a socialist of one flavour or another?

No matter was adjective you want to put in front of it (i.e. "moderate), I think it's just inaccurate to describe Obama as a socialist. I wouldn't even give him the label "diet socialist".

That video has all the context we need. There's no question that this is excessive force. It's not EXTREME excessive force, but it's definitely excessive. Like I said earlier, a little too much machismo is flowing through the veins of the police officer in the yellow.

I think the recent dispute between Obama and Netanyahu seems to miss the broader issues driving the conflict. Without putting focus on reducing incitement among Palestinians (i.e. the teaching of hate in schools, through media, via public statements, etc), we're never going to achieve a genuine peace based on mutual respect between the two peoples. I know my statement seems to lay the entirety of the blame at the feet of the Palestinians, but I honestly believe that perpetuatiion the culture of hate and violence is the primary driver of this conflict. Debating over the construction of apartment buildings in East Jerusalem misses this point.

You're referring to Topaz? I think I flirted with Libertarian philosophy at one point, but I find it (and other ideologies) to be too ideological (wow, how much more obvious of an observation can I make?). being a Libertarian, though, shouldn't lead one to describe people like Obama as socialistic. Hugo Chavez could be described as a socialist, so how can we even put Obama in the same category? Obama doesn't have some sort of ideological resentment towards economic liberties and free markets in the general sense, and he doesn't advocate widespread nationalization and broad government interventions into the economy. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, though - I think you and I are of the same mind on the matter of what is and what isn't socialism.

I don't think it's accurate to describe Obama as a socialist. As far as I know, "socialism" is a somewhat subjective term. To me, a true socialist advocates large-scale nationalization, beyond simply broad-ranging government intervention into the market. Obama is certainly to the right of Jack Layton, so if Obama is a socialist (which he isn't), what does that make Jack Layton? Supporting a socialistic policy in one dimension, i.e. single-payer healthcare that apparently Obama supported way-back-when, doesn't make someone a full-blown socialist.

Feel free to keep on displaying your hypocrisy, is France racist if its immigration policies tend to favour certain ethnic groups? How may Indians speak French? Very few, so France's immigration standards regarding language proficiency give strong advantage to certain ethnic groups, i.e. Frencophones from Canada, former French colonies like Haiti and Algeria, etc. The same is true for Israel, of course it is looking for those who speak Hebrew (outside of those who come to the country via the Law of Return), which primarily will be Jewish people. Given the fact that Jewish identity is only quasi-racial (we're a multi-ethnic group of people with diverse backgrounds), Israel's immigration policies cannot be described as even slightly racist. Since you're obsessed with bashing Israel in every which way, of course you will throw away all sense of logic and ignore any country's prerogatives regarding immigration. Is China racist if its immigration policies heavily favour certain ethnicities that largely speak Mandarin or Cantonese? Is that discriminatory or racist? Why do you insist on always being ridiculous?

You're either wrong or lying. Here is a link to the official information - . Let's also be serious for a moment... do you think there is some significant amount of Arabs being discriminated against who live outside of Israel and want to make Israel its home? If anything, the opposite is true - look at the huge number of Arabs in EJ that REJECTED Israel's offer to them of citizenship papers. It is unbelievably frustrating to discuss these matter with you, as you always lying or just dead wrong. Let's be serious for another moment - who do you think wants to make Israel their homeland? Overwhelmingly Jews. As stated above, Israel has a legitimate objective towards managing its demographics in order to preserve its Jewish character.

Epic reading comprehension fail.... clearly what jbg is saying is that the tradition in English-speaking countries goes back thousands of years - in other words, the tradition in English-speaking countries predates the language itself. Stop trying so hard to score points.

Hey there, Pliny! I'll do my best to answer your question. First of all, "Zionism" isn't defined by some specific group or authority - There is no analogous organization which defines membership to Zionism as the Canadian government is towards defining who is Canadian. Anyone can be a Zionist, as it's a movement. Just as someone can define themselves as an environmentalist or feminist, one can define him/herself as a Zionist. At its most basic level, Zionism is a Jewish nationalistic movement - at its core it advocates for the establishment of a Jewish state as a tool towards to objective of Jewish self-determination. After many centuries of living under the rule of non-Jews and often being persecuted, Zionism was born and evolved as a solution to our victimization. Zionism, originally, was largely a responsive movement towards the persecution of the Jewish people. Those who supported the establishment of a Jewish state and subsequent maintenance and evolution of Israel (largely the crown achievement of Zionism) can identify themselves, at least in part, as Zionists. At the very least, people can support Zionism by supporting its fundamentals - the establishment (done in 1948) and ongoing evolution of the Jewish state - Israel. It should not be surprising that the majority of people who identify themselves as Zionists are Jewish. There have been, and continue to be, however, prominent Zionists who aren't Jewish. It's an open club, if you will! Those who claim that Zionism is racism are way off base. While there is some element of overlap that occasionally occurs between nationalistic movements and prejudice/exclusionary practises, these less-than-endearing situations should not be viewed as a natural component of Zionism (or any other nationalistic movement). When nationalistic movement develop and evolve, occasionally the movement can advocate harshly discriminatory practises. A prominent example would be nAzi Germany, which not only defined the people it was "for", but also the people it was "against" (Jews, communists, etc). Have no fear, though, Zionism doesn't contain with its core any supremacist views. As in Canada, anyone can apply to be a citizen of Israel - regardless or religion, race, ethnicity, etc. It should be noted, however, that Jews from abroad, with few exceptions (convicted criminals, for example), are guaranteed citizenship to Israel. Israel has a Law of Return, which allows all Jews around the world to make Israel their home if they so wish it. This can be viewed as unfair to non-Jews, and somewhat discriminatory. For example, let's assume that I am an Arab businessperson living in Israel and I want to bring my family to Israel from abroad. Certainly I will have much more difficulty and will have many more requirements (sponsorship, waiting lines, etc) to fulfil in order to achieve my objective. The Jew across the street, however, who is an unemployed loser, can bring his entire unemployed loser Jew family over to Israel with much less red-tape. So me, the tax-paying productive Arab, am feeling discriminated against in one way or another. Do you see now how in some situations Israel's methods towards reinforcing its Jewish character can be controversial? Consider also that Israel engages in activities, governmentally and privately, to preserve and enhance its Jewishness. Personally I think this is excellent and needs to be encouraged. Any inconvenience or discrimination experienced by non-Jews as a result of these activities is perfectly acceptable given the greater prerogative of preserving and enriching Jewish identity in Israel. These controversies are largely the product of Zionism as a movement. There's a never-ending balancing act that goes on in Israel between balancing the country's core values of Jewishness and of preserving its Jewish character, while preserving the liberties and freedoms of its non-Jewish citizens. Let's use some perspective and context - Israel isn't barring non-Jews from the government, from universities, from professions, or from entrance to the country. There aren't any signs on restaurants stating "No Arabs allowed!". Inflammatory trolls like naomiglover wash over the entire controversy by decrying Zionism as a racist ideology, without even conceding any legitimacy to Israel's mission to be a safe-haven and home for Jewish persons everywhere (as if that's an illegitimate objective). To people like her, all people are the same and no country should ever take factors like race/religion/culture/ethnicity into consideration when forming public policy. This is an easy argument to make for people who have no identity. In other words, ultra-individualists, as well as ultra-collectivists ("we're all citizens of the world" garbage) take great offence to Israel's Law of Return. Those of us who live in the real world, however, that there are great differences between various peoples, and some cultures/religions/ethnicities deserve some element of preservation against the natural forces of globalization/assimilation/etc. This is to say nothing of the history of persecution we've suffered in many parts of the world over many centuries. If the world can't be trusted to treat us as equals and afford us the same freedoms as everyone else, we need our own state in order to preserve our right to self-determination. This desire can, as I've mentioned briefly above, occasionally infringe in one way or another on non-Jews living in Israel. Let's be clear, though, drawing equivalence between Zionism/Israel and the former apartheid in South Africa is absurd. Citizens of Israel, be they Jew or non-Jew, are not discriminated against in fundamental ways. All people can go to university, buy property, hold virtually all positions/employment (there may be some exceptions, i.e. security positions in the government which are only open to persons with particular military experience, where applicants are almost 100% Jewish), file lawsuits/complaints, etc. Arabs have and do serve on Israel's Supreme Court, have representation in the Knesset, hold prominent positions in Academia and Industry, etc. This in no way mirrors apartheid, which is simply drummed up by trolls, anti-semites, and Israel-haters. For curiosity's sake, here's an introduction to laws enacted in other countries that reflect their perceptions of the Right of Return: here.. I could say more but I feel like I've rambled on enough. Zionism isn't without some elements of controversy, as a state for Jews seems to suggest "non-Jews need not apply!". When looking at the reality of the situation, though, the inconveniences and infringements on the rights of non-Jews, in my view, is entirely acceptable towards achieving Israel's broader objective of preserving and enriching its Jewish character. Although I probably don't need to mention this, an example of a related domestic controversy are the language laws of Quebec.

Nazism and Apartheid were movements that contained within them discriminatory values (Jews were less than human, blacks were less than human). Zionism doesn't advocate any type of Jewih superiority. You're wrong again. Why are you such a pathological liar?

I really think this will be my last post in response to you, ever. You're clearly ignoring a valid point that's been raised by myself and DogOnPorch - the question being: from whom is EJ being occupied? From a non-existent country known as Palestine? In order to be occupied, land must be occupied FROM a state, and Jordan relinquished its claim to EJ. This is a legitimate legal question. Anyways....