Gabriel

So murdering innocent Jews is now simply "breaking the law". Why do you use the same sterile terminology to describe the forging of passports and the murdering of innocent Jews? It's baffling. It is definitely my contention that I'm glad one less terrorist is alive. You can't even bring yourself to describe this piece of shit for what he is - a terrorist, a murderer.... to you, he's simply a criminal. Your moral compass is broken beyond repair. Why do you make posts about the Mossad allegedly forging passports, which is clearly a huge transgression in your eyes.... yet you make no posts about terrorists murdering Jews and others? Why is our outrage reserved for Israeli transgressions (including justifiable cases such as this one), while you are silent when Jews are the victims of Palestinian/Arab terrorism? In short - what is wrong with you?

Zionism doesn't discriminate against anyone. It's a nationalistic movement, plain and simple. You can cry out "Zionism is racism" all you want, it doesn't make it true. Either you don't understand Zionism, which is pretty pathetic for someone who clearly views herself as being knowledge about the Israel-Palestine issue, or you're wilfully dishonest. You speak of "international law" as if it's some indisputable concept, or the highest of all moral standards. International law, whether it be UN resolution or multi-lateral conventions, can still be as misguided and politicized as domestic law. Just because some piece of paper that is considered "international law" say something, doesn't automatically make it valid. Especially considering the fact that international law, in many ways, has no teeth - and is often compiled of largely illegitimate non-democratic countries. When we've got Libya and the USA at the same table, each with an equal "say" on some "international" issue, there's something funny going on. All of this is lost on you, however, god forbid someone might question the reason, wisdom, or legitimacy of your holy grail - "international law".

What about oversensitive ethnic groups? Could a person identified as a "white male" file a claim with the HRC on grounds of discrimination?

How can anyone not recognize the second incident as excessive force? The reason the young dude didn't put his hands behind his back is so he wouldn't fall forward on his. It's OBVIOUS that he was yielding to the police. It's also OBVIOUS that the taller shaved-head police officer in yellow has quite a bit of machismo on his mind. I've seen this type of behaviour in high school. All things considered, it's not a terrible excess, it's not like they shot an unarmed naked child with his hands in the air, but this is still the type of attitude that the police administration should be serious about getting rid of. Spare me the "without context" comments.... if there is any missing context I'm sure it will be made available by the police. My judgement, after watching the video, is that these police officers (at the least the tall officer in yellow with the shaved head) is a too much of a tough-guy in this situation.

Exactly.

I'm not disputing that prominent countries and organizations have official positions that describe EJ as "occupied". What I'm disputing is the legitimacy of those claims. You still haven't answered the question - whose land is being occupied in EJ? As I said, Jordan relinquished control of EJ after it was captured by Israel in the six-day war. So is EJ occupied from the potential Palestinian state that has yet to come into being? DO you not see the grounds for debate, here? Lastly, it's ironic that you appeal to a country like the USA as an authority, given that the USA's semi-official position is that EJ is occupied, considering that the USA holds official and semi-official positions that run contrary to many of your desires/arguments regarding this conflict. I guess you cherry-pick what you like from this country or that organization. You often do this - you appeal to some "authority" to support your position, without simply explaining why something should be or shouldn't be. "International law" this and "the EU" that summarizes much of the support for your "arguments".

See, this is where you're wrong. I think one of the biggest misconceptions of this conflict is the idea that East Jerusalem (and some other disputed areas) are primary drivers of the conflict. More generally, the conflict isn't nearly as territorial as people claim it is - it is ideological. When you see what types of messages Palestinians are exposed to from the cradle to the grave (as well as many other Arabs and Muslims) regarding Israel, Jews, Zionism, the USA, and other big concepts, you start to get an idea of why they behave the way they behave. This isn't to say that Palestinians don't have legitimate grievances, but to obsess over Israeli apartment developments in a Jewish neighbourhood in East Jerusalem misses the bigger drivers of this conflict from the Palestinian perspective. Lastly, my point above is hardly original. It's been said for years by those who've paid attention to the components of Palestinian and Arab culture that contributes to many terrible ideas - hatred of Jews and Israelis and many others (dehuminization of the enemy), rejection of Israel's legitimacy, praising violence and death, teaching falsehood about history akin to libels about Jews and others, etc, etc, etc.... In the broader context, I don't think EJ is nearly as big of a deal as people make it out to be when examining the primary drivers for Palestinian angst.

You're unable to make a distinction between Zionism as a nationalistic movement and measures that have been used by various individuals/groups at different points in time towards achieving Zionism's goals. Certainly Zionism has had a share of reprehensible supporters, such as Yigal Amir or Asher Weisgan. You are either intentionally misrepresenting Zionism by describing it as racist (there have been racist Zionists who earned infamy) or you're too simple-minded to make the distinction between terrible acts done by terrible people in the name of Zionism and Zionism as a movement. More broadly, it's clear that you don't really care about the conflict and aren't sincere about wanting a solution. When someone like yourself spews rhetoric like "Zionism is racism", it demonstrates that either A. you don't really understand what Zionism is, and therefore you shouldn't participate in serious debate about the Israel/Palestinian-Arab conflict, or B. you're intentionally dishonest and inflammatory.... and therefore a troll. The fact that you put so many caveats around your Jewish identity tells me that you do not identify yourself as a Jew. That's fine. As for what kind of Jew I am - I'm just Jewish. I don't hesitate to answer such a question with simplicity when asked. When asked: "who are you?" - my answer is simple... I'm Jewish. Nice and easy. I'll also assume that you have some sort of resentment towards strong senses of identity. In your view, we're all just people. I'll assume further that you believe religion and other components of individual and collective identity are irrational concepts that people cling to. I've read enough of your posts to get an idea of what kind of person you are. The hypocrisy, however, is your excessive criticism of Israel, and by extension Jewish and Zionist identity, while simultaneously sympathizing with the concept of Palestinian and Arab identity and nationalism - why the disconnect? Zionism has always been and always will be honourable, nonsensical posts to the contrary from no-nothings like yourself won't change that. If you really are sincere in your claims to care about justice, then you'd drop the inflammatory bullshit rhetoric. The truth is, you don't care - you just want something to be pissed off about. I'm guessing whatever elements of Jewishness are within you give you a sense of personal credibility when speaking on this issue. Here's a tip - being Jewish doesn't necessarily attach credibility to your claims.

There's much more to the establishment of Israel than the UN. Israel's independence, and subsequent border changes occured DESPITE the UN. The suggestion that somehow the UN was the primary instrument behind the establishment of Israel is absurd, and displays supreme ignorance. You misread my post, I'm mocking your constant references to international law and description of the ICJ as the "highest court in the world" (it is hardly the highest court in the world). Such a statement displays, again, your ignorance of the philosophy of law and politics. You still haven't addressed the simple question - whose land is being occupied in East Jerusalem? If you want to obsess over legalities, start with that one.

There's quite a bit of irony in Houle's letter as events have unfolded at the U of O. Do you think those protesting against Coulter demonstrated the values Houle mentioned in the last paragraph of her letter to Coulter? Any honest observer knows that Canadian university campuses are virulently left-wing. There is no culture of honest debate, civility, respect, or tolerance (might as well mention the lack of honesty and intellectual integrity, as well!). On a personal note, I'm not very distressed that Ann Coulter wasn't given an opportunity to talk - I don't find her interesting or intelligent. She doesn't really contribute to any political discourse in a meaningful way, and she's not bright enough to give original intellectual insights into contemporary political issues. I'm semi-concerned, though, that this shit-down of Coulter's speaking engagement reflects Canadian universities' extreme leftist culture rather than sincere rejection of inflammatory nonsense. Will Canadian university students throw their arms up when distasteful leftists try to make an appearance?

The reference to Micronesia is naomiglover's attempt at parroting Finkelstein's typical silliness, in case any of you didn't know. I love all these appeals to "international law", and how the ICJ is the "highest court in the world". What a joke, rooted in complete ignorance or the law and of politics.

Exactly. Occupied FROM whom, exactly? In reality, East Jerusalem is in semi-limbo, as Jordan relinquished its claims to it after it was captured by Israel. In all seriousness, though, these minor details mean nothing to me. All of Jerusalem belongs to Israel unless Israel decides to put it up for negotiation.

I never said Zionism was a Jewish idealism. How can you not understand that Zionism is simply a nationalistic movement for the Jewish people? We don't need your permission to view ourselves as a distinct nation and desire our own right to self-determination, which has manifested itself in part through the formation of a state of our own - Israel. I don't know what your level of education is with respect to political science, but I'll assume you don't know much (no offence intended). When I use the term "nation", I am describing a group of persons who typically share a sense of history, common purpose, and destiny. Additionally, nations typically have other cohesive elements, including but not limited to religious beliefs and cultural/political/social values, language(s), and cuisine. Unfortunately, Jewish history is marred with horrendous persecution - which contributed greatly to the Zionist movement. If the world won't allow us to live as equals among them in their states, then we must have our own where we can live freely amongst ourselves. To compare the movement of Zionism, which has persevered towards an amazing goal in the face of major obstacles - to Bolshevism, Nazism, Apartheid and other horrendous ideologies is absurd. Nobody will take you seriously if you sincerely hold such a ridiculous perception of Zionism. There is no legitimate argument to be made in support of your statement drawing equivalence between Zionism and racism. Is Canadian patriotism racism? Was America's movement and war for independence racism? Are Palestinian desires for full-autonomy and their own state racism? At best, one can criticize the means that some Zionists utilized towards achieving the goal of Zionism, but to describe the movement itself as racist is simply incorrect. If you cannot understand this basic component of the story of Israel, you have no place even engaging in a discussion about the Israel - Palestinian/Arab conflict. Why don't you just come out and identify yourself as an atheist? How can you say "no land should be allocated to a specific group"? What do you think a country is? Does Canada belong to Canadians? I expected that my sincere probing into your fundamental beliefs/opinions would reveal nonsense. I'll assume that many historical events which you would describe as "black marks" were indeed heroic and necessary towards the birth of Israel. You're getting off-topic, anyways. You still have not answered one of my basic questions - are you opposed to all forms of nationalism rooted in racial/religious/ethnic/cultural identity?

I agree, it's an extremely difficult balancing act between freedoms and security. It's very naive to think that wholesale free speech doesn't entail serious risks, but on the other hand there is a risk that restrictions on free speech (i.e. HRC as an governmental entity) can be politicized improperly. In other words, those charged with enforcing limits placed on free speech must be trusted not to abuse their power. I do believe that we need limitations on free speech beyond the obvious crimes of uttering threats and slander, in order to restrict speech that advocates against core values and freedoms - which I concede are broad concepts. Using broad terms, however, gives flexibility to those enforcing restrictions on free speech. The challenge, obviously, is selecting the right people for the job. I'm just not comfortable with the assertion that absurd and horrendous statements will be rejected by the majority of our society without the need for regulatory mechanisms. Perhaps I just don't have the same trust in the common person that some of your hardline free speech advocates have. I just don't have faith that the common man and woman will necessarily know an absurd claim when they see one. We need some form of Big Brother.

naomiglover - How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make absurd statements such as "Zionism is racism"? You and I have had our share of contentious exchanges on this board, but why not make an honest effort to examine this situation rather than being so dogmatic in your anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist rhetoric? As far as I'm concerned, being anti-Zionist is synonymous with being anti-Semitic - I don't care if you say you're Jewish. Being Jewish by birth (or by choice, if you sincerely identify yourself as a Jew), doesn't give you any immunity from being described as anti-Semitic based on your statements. An off-topic question to examine your personal convictions on these matters - are you opposed to the Jewish people having a state of our own? If you are, do you also strongly oppose other forms of nationalism that are rooted in ethnic/religious/cultural/racial identities?

Wow... who is this guy? Is he new to the MSNBC line-up? I recently subscribed to the "news bundle" with Rogers so that I can now get Fox, a side "benefit" is that I also get MSNBC (which has some fantastic business specials and shows like Mad Money!). This guy is even more out there than Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (two high-school graduates!). This is some of the most outrageous "journalism" I've ever seen.

I agree. Eliot Spitzer has a pretty clear opinion of when and how government should get involved and manage parts of the economy - which is a large component of this lecture. Watch the lecture if you've got the time, it's fantastic. I can't say it enough, this man is brilliant, and he is an excellent communicator. It's a shame that such a capable politician was lost to a scandal. Even the brilliant can behave stupidly, of course! Spitzer also seems to make it quite clear that his days of politics are over.

Wow. Who cares about these allegations of yours? If you don't want to watch the video or comment on its content.... why even post in here? The man is hardly a buffoon.

That's not what I said. I conceded that your position is principled, but rejected your assertion that mainstream opinion (that I largely share) is unprincipled. You seemed to imply that mainstream opinion regarding reservation/s/resentment towards certain defense attorneys in certain legal cases is reactionary/emotional/unprincipled. You also obfuscated my clear statements by suggesting that somehow I was condemning all defense attorneys or the entire defense component of the legal system. I made it quite clear that I understand and sympathize with the public sentiment that the ad in question is trying to connect with - again, resentment of attorneys who defends animals. You can call these terrorists "suspects" if you wish, but reasonable people know that certain suspects are indeed guilty of their crimes. Reasonable people also do not feel some sort of obsession towards legal processes which results in us referring to persons like Major Nidal Hassan as a "suspect". This is a discussion forum, we can free ourselves from legalities such as that terminology. Here we can speak candidly about the truth. My observation, which I think is accurate, is that your morals/principles lead you to support the process as the highest of our values. My morals/principles, more simply, lead me to be concerned with the ends. Here we can agree to disagree. Put another way, I am more concerned with seeing despicable people punished for their crimes (which I imagine is the opinion of the mainstream) than I am with seeing maximum adherence to the protocols of our legal system (obviously with limitations). Many people have a sense that the justice system often operates in the best interests of the criminals, at the expense of broader values like justice and security. The ad in question taps into these feeling, by connecting the resentment that many folks feel towards the defense lawyers of evil persons. Let's be clear, I am talking about those extreme circumstances where guilt is obvious (OJ Simpson, Major Nidal Hassan, Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo, etc). In no way am I trying to denigrate all defense attorneys or the defense component of our legal systems. Your ambivalence towards the certain guilt of certain individuals is surprising. I do not wish to engage in a discussion about why many individuals (such as the animals I listed above) are guilty of their crimes. I'm not sure if you're trying to misrepresent my words, or not.... are you trying to imply that I'm suggesting that all accused persons of all crimes are guilty? If so, please discern between extremely awful and obvious cases and those cases which aren't as obvious or brutal. You're obfuscating again. The cases being referenced by the ad are of an extreme and personal nature to Americans. The defense attorneys labelled the "Al-Qaeda 7" are those who defended and/or advocated on behalf of Gitmo terrorists. You may wish to constantly refer to them as "suspects" to satisfy your left-wing sensibilities, but most of us are extremely comfortable labelling them as terrorists. By natural extension, many of us have reservations about these attorneys being put into positions at DoJ on the public dollar. Cheney and Kristol are wise to exploit this completely legitimate sentiment among much of the American public - a sentiment I share. I would not want Omar Khadr's attorney(s) or advocates securing public service positions in the Canadian government, for example. Nobody cares about more obscure cases where innocent people were wrongfully incarcerated. You're extrapolating WAY too much and running off into tangents. I think you're in small company by interpreting the ad to be a condemnation of all defense attorneys or of the defense component of our legal systems. Well, I'm a huge fan of Wal-Mart, and it's one of the most ethically-conducted businesses in history - no company has gone to further lengths to improve the working conditions of persons in the factories of the manufacturers with which it was business relationships. Still, your little jab at Wal-Mart is irrelevant and ill-informed. Keep watching those Greenwald documentaries. You're starting to paint a picture of yourself as a left-wing reactionary. From your outrage over a non-offensive ad (one you seemed to describe as the most offensive in a decade!) to the anti-Wal-Mart knee-jerk leftist arguments, I'm starting to form an impression of your politics.... You're again going off on a huge tangent, though. I'd strongly advise you to narrow your focus and not derail this thread, otherwise the discussion becomes a disaster. Are you seriously starting to talk about the Bush family's business dealings in a thread about a conservative ad criticizing Eric Holder's selections of employees at the DoJ? Give your head a shake, you're running into irrelevant tangents left and right. This conversation has become boring.

That's cool. But he's no longer a politician. He's not running for any office. The lecture is still worth watching - watch it.

Wait a minute, you're now suggesting that the ad in question is attacking ALL defense lawyers. I don't see that being the case. Perhaps there is a general resentment to defense lawyers in the broader public, but there is a particular resentment towards lawyers who defend despicable people that most reasonable folks know are guilty of terrible crimes. This resentment is what the ad is tapping into, IMO. You're also incorrectly lumping all suspects into one category - not all suspects are equal. Of course theoretically/technically all people charged with crimes are innocent until proven guilty - but we all know better than that. Some suspects have widely-believed (and accurately believed) to be guilty prior to their convictions. Do you doubt that Major Nidal Hassan committed the mass murder at Fort Hood? Certainly you do not. You are being facetious in merely describing him as a suspect. This may be true in the realm of the courts, but here on an online discussion forum we're more free to be completely honest about these things. Of course philosophically he is innocent until proven guilty, but we all know he is guilty - and there is an understandable resentment among the public towards those who would work towards protecting him. I can tell you that I would probably not think highly of a lawyer who represented a despicable person, and I certainly would NOT want that lawyer operating in the public interest (i.e. a position at DoJ). It's my right to feel that way. I'm sure you're right about some prosecutors pursuing cases more aggressively than necessary, given the nature of the adversarial system. This is also wrong. Given the reality that we're living in 2010, and that Canada and the USA provide the maximum freedoms to those charged with crimes in accordance with the rule of law, I have a hard time believing that prosecuting attorneys, on the whole, engage in as much unsavoury conduct as their defense attorney counterparts - at least with respect to high-profile criminal cases. I reject your argument that your position is based on principle while the mainstream's position isn't. I consider myself an intelligent and rational individual, and I completely understand and agree with folks out there who harbour reservations (or even resentment) towards those who defend despicable people. How can you tell me, honestly, that this position isn't based on principle? The principle the mainstream (myself included) is standing on is right vs. wrong - your position (which I concede is principled in a different way) is grounded in adherence to protocol and not passing value judgments on necessary components of the legal process (specifically the right of all accused persons to a defense). Perhaps I am more emotional than you are, because I simply cannot turn off my moral conscience and view defense attorneys who defend terrorists and murderers dispassionately as operating solely towards a necessary function of our legal system (a "necessary evil" if you will). I look at these lawyers and see them defending animals, which they are of course free to do, but I am also entitled not to like it and NOT want them operating in the broader public interest. Can't you concede that?

Hey DogOnPorch, I know it can be hard to get past the personal catastrophe that we all know about Eliot Spitzer, but this guy really is brilliant. Watch just a few minutes of the lecture and I bet you'll be glued to the whole hour. He's very engaging, enthusiastic, and intelligent. I think he'd make a fantastic politician, aside from the entire prostitution scandal.

I don't think it's unexpected for people to hold reservations about lawyers who defend terrible people. Sure, I know someone has to defend them... but that doesn't mean I want that person... or even NINE of them, working at the DoJ. To be clear, the political ad states that nine of them either represented OR advocated on behalf of the terrorists. Does it surprise you that the broader public holds reservations about lawyers who engage in this type of activity? Lawyers make a choice about who they represent, nobody forces a lawyer to represent an OJ Simpson or a Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka. Again, I know SOMEONE has to do it, but perhaps the public doesn't want that SOMEONE operating in the broader public interest. If you don't get that, you're simply out-of-touch with the mainstream. You seem to disagree with that, which is fine, but that's life - and Cheney and Kristol possess a basic level of political acumen to recognize public aversion to lawyers who defend despicable people, and exploit it to advance their aenda of political opposition to Eric Holder. I partly agree with their position. As I said in my earlier post, this is just another story that contributes to the narrative about Holder being politically out-of-touch with mainstream America, and making choices that offend public sensibilities. Part of me agrees with the ad, I'm not a big fan of Eric Holder given what I've learned about him.

This video is just over an hour, but it's fantastic. This guy, as far as I'm concerned, is very astute with all things political! I know a lot of us complain about how the media is so shallow in its analysis of everything - with a 30-second soundbyte here and an angry partisan back-and-forth there. Here Eliot discusses, among other things, the appropriate role of government in the economy - specifically in the financial industry. He then connects his ideas to the most recent problems: TARP, bank bailouts, CDSs, etc... I think you folks will dig this video. If you follow the links on YouTube, the Commonwealth Club has many fantastic videos (John Yoo, Joseph Stiglitz, and others). Maybe some other Jews in here will get a kick out of just how many Jewish academics are featured! Anyways cheers.

I just watched the ad, it's certainly a little overdramatic, but it certainly isn't even close to competing for the "most repugnant ad of the decade". I think it's entirely legitimate to question the wisdom of Eric Holder's selection of DoJ staff, especially if nine of them represented or advocated on behalf of Gitmo detainees. Even though I'm not American, I do care about what goes on in American politics, and Eric Holder and his crew are concerning. From the infamous "nation of cowards" rhetoric he used shortly after being appointed to AG, to the brief excerpt of him in the ad discussing the takeover of American political power by "progressives", to his selection of the "Al-Qaeda 7", to his support for trying terrorists in civilian courts in NYC, there's a legitimate debate to be had regarding Eric Holder's suitability for the role.