Bob

I'm not sure what your point is. Either way, I really don't care and you're not going to get me to accept the Arab violence against the early Jewish immigration to this land which started in the late nineteenth century. They are responsible for the consequences of their actions, and they will continue to bear responsibility until they change.

Yeah! Fry 'im 'cause he's an "elite"! Get that bankster gangster!

That is absolutely not what I meant to say. What I meant was that I find it hard to believe that man of such stature and achievement has an interest in raping housemaids in hotel rooms. Your assumption is that I meant to portray DSK as a target or a set-up, not for lack of desire to rape women, but only because he's afraid of the consequences. Perhaps that's how you view DSK, but that's not my view. Assuming I'm right, DSK is not the first wealthy man to be targeted by false accusations of rape. I just find it hard to believe that a Ph.D. man like DSK, who headed the World Bank, is into raping housemaids. Sorry, it just doesn't jive with me. I suspect that he did have sexual contact with this woman, perhaps some oral sex or something like that, which is likely the "source" of forensic evidence that the prosecution claimed to have that supported the alleged victim's accusations. Now she's trying to get some easy money from the NY Post by suing them for "defamation".

Well, Israel is largely free, secular, and democratic. So there's nothing wrong with characterizing this country in such a way and drawing real parallels between Israel and certain other Western democracies. So you can "object" to this accurate description all you want, it'll just illustrate your ignorance and/or dishonesty. The rest of your description of Israeli society and internal dynamics is so off the mark and loaded with ignorant assumptions so as not to warrant a serious reply. What I found particularly rich was your statement that Canada is "writing blank cheques" to Israel? Really? Since when? When's the last time Canada sent Israel a shekel? I find it so repulsive when a Canadian like yourself masquerades as being concerned about Canada - as if your hostility to Israel and constant misrepresentations of contemporary events and history is the product of you wanting to operate in Canada's best interest. You mask your politics as some sort of deluded patriotism, where you feel like Canada is being harmed because Harper is assertively supporting Israel on the political stage. I have strong reservations about the worldview of the so-called neo-conservatives, but you're greatly mischaracterizing them. Rightly or wrongly, they sincerely believe that aggressive democratic reform is in the best interests of America, and the broader Western world. Every sentence in this ridiculous paragraph is packed with false assumptions and misrepresentations. It would take too much effort to really address this stupidity. Primarily, though, you act as if the Six-Day War was the start of the conflict rather than a significant event in the broader context. More specifically, the events of the Six-Day War were a consequence of... what exactly? Everything was fine and dandy before June 5th of that year? Clearly you like to arbitrarily pick starting points for historical analysis, as if the capture or Gaza and the West Bank is when and where it all started.

That organization is non-partisan. Subscribing to a worldview that supports great global involvement and support for democratic reform isn't partisan. Many Republicans and many Democrats fall on varying sides of that perspective. I respect that foundation much more than the link provided to electronicintifada.com, which might as well name itself electronicmassmurder.com or electronicjihad.com. The very URL is offensive. Did you even read M. Dancer's link? It's short and brief, and Schanzer is a respectable guy. As I've already said, the relationship between the IHH (the charity that organized the first flotilla and Islamist ideology and terrorist groups is well-documented. It's not our problem if you don't know this or refuse to see it.

So what you're basically telling us is that the video made available of the events, as well as the video of the agitators on the Mavi Marmara before their departure and prior to the incident isn't enough information upon which to have a deep understanding of what took place. You think there are some "secret tapes" which would somehow change the story, and what any honest observer knows - that these "activists" were certainly not peaceful, and wanted violence and martyrdom. You will continue to be steadfast in describing the IDF as the "aggressors" when the Mavi Marmara refused instructions and assaulted soldiers when all other options had been exhausted to enforce the blockade. I bet if we were to dig a bit deeper, you'd go so far as to suggest that the blockade on Gaza is immoral or unjustifiable. Why don't you just come out and say it? Why waste our time discussing this incident when view the IDF as enforcing an illegitimate military condition? Everything the IDF does, in your view, is immoral in this instance, as you reject the legitimacy of the blockade. Conversely, the flotilla in your view, is justified in trying to break the blockade, which invariably places the flotilla "activists" as engaging in self-defense against an unjustified seizure. And why were those nine people killed? Were they singing and chanting kumbaya while IDF soldiers executed them? Let me tell you something, if you assault and give me reasonable cause to have concern for my health and safety, I reserve the right to do whatever is necessary to protect my health and safety. That may include killing you. If I get injured in the process and you die as I defend myself, there is no moral equivalency to be drawn between the two of us. I won't waste any more time with this, as you're still dodging Captain Ehab's evasiveness when questioned about his feelings towards Hamas. Although it's not a particularly important detail, it's a small example of the solidarity between the organizers and participants of this stunt and Hamas and its ideology. There are many examples out there of this solidarity among the activists, did you not see the videos of the Mavi Marmara agitators engaging in prayer and chanting "Allahu Akbhar" before their "battle with the Jews", and their own statements expressing desire for martyrdom? It's all part of the same tapestry, and it's become clear that your commitment to dishonesty is preventing you from acknowledging this. Lastly, the relationship between the Islamic charity from charity (the IHH) and Hamas is well-documented, which is why they officially backed out of being involved with the second flotilla movement. There is nothing strange about us suspecting the same relationship between the current flotilla and Hamas as existed with the previous flotilla. And there is nothing strange in expecting a commitment to violence among at least a part of the flotilla participants considering they are following in the footsteps of the first flotilla (who you view as the victims).

Just for the sake of clarification, are you suggesting that there are still holes in the video record that have yet to be filled because of the Israeli confiscation of much of the video equipment? Remember that some video and photos were not seized by the IDF for one reason or another, and made it into the media. The most prominent examples were the images of the battered IDF soldiers. Are you really trying to tell me that we can't have an excellent grasp of how events unfolded until the "mystery footage" is released? You think that all the video that's been made available doesn't provide enough context? I am probably wasting my time speaking with you, considering I think you were serious when describing the IDF as "the aggressors". I am not here to defend Ezra's interviewing style, but he asked a legitimate question of this captain's Ehab to try to get him to take a position on Hamas. Now you're deflecting in order not to address the Captain's deflection! Don't you see how pathetic that is? I am making a simple point, that this captain's tacit support for Hamas shouldn't be surprising - that "pro-Palestinian" movements, particularly this flotilla (its organizer and participants), tend to be supportive of Hamas, and by extension, Hamas' ideology.

I remember reading the news articles about the IDF being concerned of a sulhpur attack on soldiers, with intent to murder. You find that surprising? Is it hard for you to believe that certain elements on one or more of these ships have extremely violent intentions? Did you not see the videos from the first flotilla, where a bunch of angry Muslims were chanting "Allahu Akbhar!" and wishing to become Shahids (in their own words!) after a prayer session and inspiring speech from some religious leader about "battling the Jews"? Did you not see the violence they used against the soldiers in the plethora of videos available online? I get the impression that you really think that all of these ships are exclusively packed with aging hippies wearing silly t-shirts ("stay human") and keffiyehs. Are you really that naive? Lastly, was Captain Ehab's response to Ezra's inquiries about Hamas not revealing? I expected such an answer, which was in fact a dodge, but you seem to be avoiding the issue entirely as if it isn't just another small illustration of the solidarity between many "pro-Palestinian" movements (particularly this flotilla) and terrorist organizations like Hamas.

Although suggesting that Hamas "is behind the flotillas" is a bit of a stretch, bloodyminded, don't be so naive as to assume that there isn't any connection between the organization and participants of this flotilla. Hamas is the ruling government of Gaza. There is no way to do such a thing without dealing with them. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the IHH charity and its links to terrorism, both materialistically and otherwise. As a small example, watch this video where the captain of one of these ships attempting to go to Gaza (he's from Montreal) cannot bring himself to say a bad word about Hamas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqppKgiU8nM Now, one could suggest that perhaps he's fearful of Hamas, and understandably can't criticize Hamas. I believe that he is a supporter of Hamas, though.

Look, the Palestinians are responsible for their own perceptions of history and contemporary events. We cannot take responsibility for their views. More importantly, this suggestion that "any nation would respond in a similar manner" is wrong. That's just conjecture. Had these Arabs been different, current events and history would have been much different. Their hostility to our return and national aspirations, manifested via mass murder, war, and terrorism, is the reason things are as they are. If they had been open to our return, they could have been a much bigger part of the reestablishment and ongoing development of Israel.

So as long as we sign an agreement things will be fine? An agreement is only as good as the signatories' commitments to upholding their obligations. Do you think the Palestinian met their commitments under the Oslo accords (particularly with respect to incitement and terrorism)? No, they didn't.

In all seriousness, even if we accept the silly assertion that Israel had official involvement in the development of this hoax video as is being alleged (rather than simply unknowingly linking to the video via the Israeli MFA website in an effort to criticize the flotilla), can we not find endless examples of Pallywood productions that are not only confirmed but far more egregious? We've had Palestinians and their supporters produce all kinds of fake scenes and false narratives. One of the more well-known examples includes the Mohammed al-Durrah incident. More recently, we had the video of the young Palestinian kids assaulting the car of a Jewish "political" personality (I know at least one of his young sons was in the backseat, perhaps both of them) seen here: And then of course we had the Mavi Marmara incident where the very video that the violent agitators produced in order to create a negative image of the IDF actually backfired. I also remember the Palestinian newspapers describing the murder of the Fogel parents and three of their young children in Itamar as the crime of an angry "foreign worker" who wasn't paid what he was owed (in an attempt to suggest that somehow the Fogels were dishonest people). My point? The trail of lies and deceit from the Palestinians and the broader Arab/Muslim society eclipses anything you can associate with Israel or the Jewish people. Even more absurd is how they can cling to these false narratives when demonstrated false via video evidence. Remember, even after the Mavi Marmara footage was released and made available to anyone willing to watch it, we still have people (including several MLW forum participants who shall remain nameless) suggesting that the IDF were the aggressors against "peace activists". How can we argue with such a commitment to deceit?

Looks like some dummies at the Israeli MFA thought this was some sort of ticket to a successful undermining of the flotilla event. Mind you, if they sincerely believed it was a legitimate video, I can't entirely blame them. It would have contributed to smearing this flotilla. I'm sure the irony is not lost on you that we have openly gay people who are showing solidarity with a population that is highly anti-gay. Even if we make the assumption that the hostility towards gays is only actioned by a minority of Gazans, or that support for such hostilities is only advanced by another minority of Gazans, the silence of these self-described "activists" on the matter of discrimination against gays in Gaza and the broader Arab/Muslim society is telling. There's something very counterintuitive about pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli "activists" who are openly gay. Imagine Jews advocating on behalf of German civilians in WWII (an extreme comparison, I admit), and protesting against the Allied campaign. Or another example, Kurds protesting against American military operations in Iraq while claiming to be concerned about Iraqi civilians.

If Israel was actually involved with this behind the scenes, which I doubt, it shows major stupidity. As if there isn't enough real information out there upon which to criticize the flotilla of agitators. Particularly with respect to freedoms for LGBT persons, there's no need to manufacture such silliness - the Arabs/Muslim give us plenty of examples of their discrimination against this group.

I don't think you understand the pot and kettle analogy, considering that I think all civilized states should withdraw from the UN, Canada and Israel included. You obviously thought you were putting me in some tough position, assuming that I support the Israeli government in a lock step manner. I have no problem condemning the Israeli government for weak and self-destructive policies.

The West hasn't been entirely helpful towards this conflict, especially with America playing both sides of the fence. But it's a mixed bag and a long story I don't really want to into right now. But to suggest that the responsibility for this conflict and its perpetuation isn't primarily on the shoulders of the Arabs and Muslims, as you are blaming the West exclusively for these problems, is absurd. To blame the West for these problems conduct is ridiculous, as if the Arabs and Muslims are non-players and not responsible for their own actions. It's just hollow anti-Western rhetoric. Not unexpected from you, though.

What in the world would make you think that I support Israel's involvement in the UN? It's the exact same thing - it's a product of leftism and deference to this "authority" that is the UN and all of its affiliates. Still, Israel is a very small player in the UN. It's not as if Israel's withdrawal would break the bank of the UN, as would be the case in the event of America's withdrawal. It is a testament to the left-wing media of America that discussion of pulling out of the UN is non-existent.

There were also two sides to WWII. "Neutral" is synonymous with "not taking a principled stand". Harper's taking a moral stand on this conflict, which is unpopular with many.

It's funny how Zionism is decried and labelled as some sort of unnatural foreign invasion, yet Arabism is the natural state of affairs. Arabs belong here, we don't. Apparently we're all from Germany and Poland, and should go back to living under their rule. The anti-Zionists want to condemn us to eternal statelessness and the inevitable victimization that goes along with it. "Don't worry Jews, we'll be nice to you this time. Trust us. Cross our hearts and hope to die!"

If Canada and other free and prosperous countries withdraw from the UN, it would collapse. Why this hasn't happened yet it a product of leftism - subscription to the empty promises that the UN represents.

So what does Sir Bandelot's position boil down to? He's equating this: German invasion of Poland. With this: Zionist pioneers fleeing the Holocaust. After all, the early Jewish immigration that precipitated the reestablishment of Israel was somehow akin to a military invasion, such as when Germany invaded Poland in 1939.

I just think there's something quite unimpressive about deferring one's position on an issue to an as of yet unrendered decision from the SCoC. Of course their ruling is quite final and binding, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue at hand, right now. There's something quite absurd about challenging the definition of "terrorist activity" on the grounds that one's deeper moral convictions (i.e. religion) are personal characteristics upon which a person cannot be discriminated against. I believe the reasoning behind the classification of a crime as "terroristic" is to give extra gravity to the crime, and with it more severe consequences. Mind you, I don't see much utility in classifying crimes as "terroristic" or not from a legal standpoint. But hey, if the government wants to send a message that there is something particularly egregious about crimes and attempted crimes informed by religious/ideological perspectives, good for them.

Good for Michael Coren. I enjoy his analyses and commentaries, although I think his regular rotation of contributors was a little weak. I hope he does well with Sun TV. I watch a lot of his stuff on YouTube, now.

Capricorn, I like how Black Dog equates objections to funding nice interests such as this interpretive dancing lady with opposing valid public endeavour such as transportation and defense. He basically implied that you were some sort of anarchist due to your questioning the public utility of funding such artistic pursuits from the public purse.

OK, I lied, I have been somewhat following events. From what I read, the forensic evidence hasn't been revealed to the public. All we know is that the prosecution claims to have forensic evidence that is compatible with the claims of the alleged victim. More recently, there have been reports that the prosecution is very concerned about new things they've learned that damage the credibility of the alleged victim. I think it's all a scam, but who knows?