Bob

My position is that Canada and other free nations should all withdraw from the UN. The UN should be dismantled. Allow states to make their own direct relations with one another. We don't need this bureaucratic "forum" to give soapboxes to failed states and dictatorships at the expense of the West (primarily America). The West is literally paying the way for this farce to continue, which runs contrary to all the values it claims to promote. There is no value in a politicized institution largely dominated by Islamic dictatorships and their allies. The UN is certainly not an "open forum". Dissenting views are silenced all the time. The UN does not objectively carry out its mandate and certainly does not "expose, track, or report the bad in all countries". Indeed, the opposite is true - with the UN almost exclusively focusing on Israel and other non-issues while ignoring real problems. Do I really need to provide examples, current and historical, of major events the UN and its subsidiaries ignored? Committee chairs rotate alphabetically? What in the world are you talking about? Perhaps there is one or two committees in the UN (it is a labyrinth of subsidiaries and committees and groups) with alphabetical rotations, but many of the subsidiaries are headed by and composed of states that are elected. There is no legitimate defense of the UN. It achieves nothing that couldn't otherwise be more effectively achieved outside of its auspices. Moreover, the UN drains energy and money and time that could otherwise be used towards successfully addressing relevant issues. Disbar the UN, now. Actually, I saw a video with Ezra Levant on YouTube expressing this exact position. What a breath of fresh air it is to hear a reasonable perspective advanced in the Canadian media (we'd never hear anything of the sort from the CBC). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xug1ASfHYBo

Exactly. The "international community" passed a resolution to partition the remaining ~20% of the British Mandate for Palestine into two states, another Arab state and a Jewish state. Did that resolution really do anything? No, it didn't. The Arabs invaded and lost. It really drives me nuts when people say things along the lines of Israel being "given" to us by the powers that be. It was fought for and built up by the Jewish people (honourable mention to some non-Jewish minorities). And it continues to be fought for and built up by the Jewish people (again, with honourable mention to some non-Jewish minorities).

We get a special sense of entitlement because we refuse to live at the mercy of non-Jews. Like I've said several times in here, we've had enough pogroms, expulsions, and death camps. Thank you very much, but we'll take our destiny into our own hands, from now on. That means statehood. The land was much less "returned" than it was taken back. The powers that be simply acknowledged the inevitable. We were coming here to reestablish our state and assert our national rights. The "illegal immigration" of the early Jewish pioneers wasn't going to be stopped. As far as a peace settlement goes, it's simple. If and when the Arabs/Muslims change (meaning no more incitement to hatred and violence), and reconcile themselves to the permanent existence of Israel as the Jewish state, we can talk. Until then, the status quo will continue.

Well, now you're dishonestly backing away from the natural extension of your statement. You falsely claim that the Arabs never invaded Israel (1948-1949 being the foremost example of Arab invasion, followed by 1973, but there are other examples). You then compare the Arabs to the Poles, as if they constituted a sovereign state invaded by Zionists. You then describe the Arabs as "minding their own business" (when they were murdering Jews in pogroms decades before Israel's reestablishment), until "their land was taken away from them". I accurately described your statements. Now you're backing away from them. Typical.

Ah, the classic false narrative. Although your entire post is based on false suppositions, one of your major problems is being unable to differentiate between privately owned or leased land and sovereignty. You seem to think that Arabs living scattered around the pre-Israel British Mandate for Palestine consititues sovereignty over the entirety of the land. Living somewhere doesn't mean you have sovereignty over the land. Even if they had had sovereignty over the land (which they did not), you think we would care? You think the Jewish people will continue to accept stateless and fragmentation while living at the mercy of the Gentiles? You don't think we're a bit tired of pogroms, expulsions, and death camps? You don't think we were going to reclaim our homeland, one way or the other? Basically, you view Israel as an unjustifiably established state that occurred at the expense of another people (the pre-"Palestinian" Arabs). Unfortunately, you don't realize that these Arabs were given the opportunity to be granted sovereignty over most of the land (after about 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine was cut off for "Transjordan"), and they rejected it and chose to go to war. They viewed, and still view, the entirety of the land as belonging to them. And therein lies one of the primary drivers of this conflict. You cannot compromise with a people that overwhelmingly views the entirety of the land ("from the river to the sea, 'Palestine' will be free!") as belonging to them. Things could have been different had the Arabs not rejected the idea of Jewish independence in Israel. Imagine the possibility of a binational state with Jews and Arabs living in peace in both Israel and "Palestine". Alas, the Arabs chose, and continue to choose - war and terrorism. This description of the Arabs as noble non-actors who had the rug pulled out from under them is completely untrue. They were opposing (via mass murders/pogroms) Zionism many decades before the reestablishment of Israel. They initiated the violence that culminated in its peak with the civil war of 1947 and subsequent War of Independence of 1948-1949. But of course, the Arabs never "invaded Israel" or "started a major war", according to your delusional understanding of history. If you don't know anything about the history and choose to make things up as you go along, why are you even here?

Saipan, it was quite ridiculous (and also offensive) for WIP to engage in self-righteousness as if Canada is sacrificing for Israel. As if Canadian soldiers are fighting our wars and taking on terrorists in and around Israel, and as if Canada is supporting Israel in a material manner. Not that Harper's political leadership isn't appreciated, he is taking the moral stand by supporting Israel and rejecting the "both sides are equal" line of deceit, but WIP's feigned outrage at his new "responsibility for guaranteeing Israel" and "supporting" Israel's actions that he disingenuously describes ("blockading civilian populations" and "shooting demonstrators") is some unbearable burden on his shoulders. Just for fun, WIP, what other type of population could a state blockade? You described the Gazan population as "civilian", as opposed to what? Do you think Israel has restrictions on the transfer of products and people into and out of Gaza across its shared and Mediterranean borders just for the hell of it? I also like how stone throwing agitators from an enemy country crossing into our country while chanting "Allahu Akbhar!" are described as "demonstrators". As it that term captures the full context of the situation, and isn't being used intentionally to drop the relevant context in order to misrepresent the hostilities that occurred recently in the Golan heights.

So William Ashley, which Canadians should be arrested and put on trial for war crimes? According to your analysis, Harper and his defense establishment are war criminals. And what was the basis of your assertion? Gaddafi's daughter's accusations against NATO. And now on a serious note, William Ashley, do you believe that Gaddafi's forces clearly delineate themselves? Do you think they take care to separate their infrastructure of war from civilian infrastructure? You don't think we have combatants and their weapons embedded within the civilian infrastructure - in apartments, in schools, in government offices, in hospitals, and in civilian vehicles (on both sides of this conflict)?

Nobody is blaming China for anything. You're the one who went into a nonsensical series of posts in response to the OP, suggesting that someone China is a freer country than either Canada or the USA. You sure do have a strange tendency to misrepresent the truth when the discussion is related to human rights abuses in China. Perhaps you feel this is an act of loyalty to your state.

So, you're suggesting that this affair is an example of a guilty man roaming free, exposing the facade of "democracy" in the USA? Personally, I always suspected that this was set-up simply to get money from a rich man, and if I feel more conspiratorial, perhaps there was some political motive to tarnish this man's reputation, as well. Although I must admit, I haven't really followed the events at all. I just find it quite hard to believe that man of his stature would attempt to rape a housekeeper in a luxury hotel.

Well, obviously that tank operator did not intend to deliberately harm the iconic "tank man". This is stupid. Peaceful protests take place all the time in free societies like America, and these governments don't call in the military to roll in with tanks to deal with the demonstrators. You seem to be implying that freedom to demonstrate and assemble is more heavily restricted in America than it is China. If that is your assertion, well... I really don't know how to respond to something so absurd. I wish that were true, but unfortunately Canadian cops don't do a good job in managing rioters and agitators. A recent example of the ineptitude of Canadian police can be seen in Vancouver where they stood by like a bunch of morons while rioters destroyed property, looted merchandise from stores, and overall wrought havoc after game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals. Again you seem to be trying to assert that Canada and the USA are actually less free to demonstrate than in China. This is quite ridiculous coming from someone who (I think) lives in Canada and is originally from China.

Good for the American Supreme Court, this entire class action lawsuit was a blatant attempt to steal money from the world's largest retailer based on false allegations. Just a bunch of greedy lawyers conspiring to steal money, and finding plenty of similarly greedy current and/or former Wal-Mart employees to go along with them in their false allegations of gender discrimination with the hopes of making a fast buck. Who could believe, that a modern corporation like Wal-Mart, in this day and age with widespread infection of political correctness and leftism, would engage in some systemic discrimination against women? It was so absurd, but it shows how much traction absurdity can gain in our societies.

I found this video awhile ago, it's simple but it's powerful - an Israeli-Arab who appreciates the blessings of living here.

I don't support ethnic cleansing per se, but as I've said many times in here, we've got thousands of good reasons to want protection from these people considering the way they are. Those thousands of good reasons all have first and last names. Of course the "Palestinians" may change towards the better in the future, but I see no reason to be optimistic, if anything they are worse than they've ever been. I'm not entirely comfortable with a fifth column in my country composing 20% of our population, who are largely hostile to our basic values and supportive of terrorism against us. It's hard to imagine any other country tolerating such a minority among its population.

I didn't want to get into that, as I think it's above BC_Chick's head. The point is she's trying to suggest that anti-Semitism (which manifests itself in war and mass murder campaigns) from the Arabs/Muslims isn't a big deal because the Arabs/Muslims would hate anyone who "took their land". As if that's supposed to make me feel better. As if that someone changes the thousands of reasons we have to be extremely concerned about these people, and those thousands of reasons are buried in cemeteries in Israel and abroad. "It's nothing personal, they hate all the infidels!"

American Woman, this is the untold story with respect to mainstream media North America (and Europe, in my view). When's the last time CNN ran a news piece about how endemic this sort of incitement to hatred is in Arab/Muslim societies? So when the ordinary citizen is kept in the dark about these realities, he or she is likely to assume (in a myopic way) that the Israeli/Jewish society and Arab/Muslim society are more or less the same. It's sort of a default assumption that we're all pretty much the same. It's a fatally flawed assumption, of course, and an assumption that is exploited by certain elements to lead you to believe that "both sides" are moral equivalents. As I already said, I guess "both sides" were moral equivalents in WWII. The Nazis had their perspectives, too. I'll make one more general comment, and this relates to the reflexive criticisms of "racism" from the usual suspects in response to critiques of cultures and societies. We judge cultures and societies from a broad level, and as collectives. There were obviously intelligent and good-hearted Germans during WWII, but that doesn't mean German culture and society was a failure in that context. Thankfully, Germany has arguably redeemed itself and joined the small group of civilized states. In the same vein, we shouldn't be afraid to call out Arab/Muslim societies for the failures they are. They are inferior to our societies, and deeply flawed and in need of reform. Even worse, these problems cannot be ignored as they are directly affecting the West (9/11 being exhibit A, as it were, although terrorism against America and the West from Arabs/Muslims predates 9/11 by decades).

If you actually think that incitement to hate isn't the primary driver of this conflict, spend some time browsing videos from these channels on YouTube. Palestine Media Watch MEMRI Here's just another video, where Hillary Clinton acknowledges how the indoctrination of children towards sick values is a form of child abuse. Can you imagine seeing this type of vileness in your society directed towards children? Of course not, but it's the norm on the other side.

It's not just us claiming it's Jewish land, it's us taking our destiny into our own hands and reestablishing our state. This is an expression of our independence and self-determination. Those are non-negotiable issues. The Muslims, on the other hand, have plenty of states occupying plenty of land that pretty much belongs to them. Of course none of these countries are democratic or comply with basic standards of freedom and liberty, but hey, "Palestine" belongs to them. For us this is existential, for them it's an issue of machismo.

With all due respect, American Woman, I think you're missing the point here. Dre is clearly engaging in a sickening attempt to characterize Israeli/Jewish culture and society as being just as guilty of prejudice and hatred as Arab/Muslim culture and society. He knows better, and if he doesn't - he should. The types of messages and narratives that are common in Arab/Muslim society are so despicable as to have no parallel in Israeli/Jewish culture. Your focus on the Arab/Muslim refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is somewhat irrelevant to this issue. What needs to rejected on its face is any assertion by people like dre that there is some sort of moral equivalence between our Israeli/Jewish society and Arab/Muslim society with respect to incitement to hatred. This is probably the hundredth time I've posted such a message in these forums, but this point is so crucial that it is worthy of repetition. The messages and dishonest narratives of history that are prevalent at all levels of Arab/Muslim society (TV news, TV dramas, movies, plays, newspapers, radio, textbooks, magazines, websites, statements from political and/or religious leaders, NGO statements, summer camps, etc) have no parallels in Israeli/Jewish society. Off the top of my head here are some examples of reprehensible conduct that is commonplace among them. - Glorification of suicide bombers and other terrorists: Massive banners and posters in their honour throughout their communities, naming things in their honour such as streets, public service buildings (like hospitals) and services (like scholarship funds). This also includes praise from all levels of social leaders, such as academics, politicians, and religious figureheads. This also includes dressing up children (including infants) in suicide-bomber and terrorists costumers for festivals and other events. - Demonization/denigration of Jews and incitement to hatred: Regular anti-Semitic cartoons that mirror the messages of Nazi Germany depicting the Jew as greedy, evil, and ugly. Television shows, movies, plays, animation and other children's shows, and other media that construct narratives of evil Jews, whether it be the Israeli soldier raping and/or murdering the young Palestinian girl in front of her family (as was seen in the recent anti-Semitic Turkish drama series), or others caricatures of the evil and soulless Jew. - Blatantly dishonest historical revisionism: denial of the Holocaust (such as Hamas' removal of all Holocaust education in Gazan schools), the destruction of historical artifacts in Jerusalem's Old City obtained through illegal archaeological operations, and regular dissemination of information denying the Jewish connection to this land (such as Palestinian ministers of information and culture denying historic Jewish presence in this land through "academic" reports). Look, I can go on and on, but as I've already said, people are welcome to view MEMRI and Palestine Media Watch videos on YouTube to see for themselves. The vicious hatred against Jews (and often Americans and other Westerners) is endemic to Arab/Muslim socieities. It is not on the fringe like it in our societies (i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church), it is the mainstream. See for yourself and ask yourself, "Could I ever expect to see these types of messages tolerated in my society?" Here are random examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtt8V25lGmc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64JIgs5C6k There are literally hundreds of videos out there that are translated, and of course the Arabs/Muslims never cease supplying this hatred for us to see. And of course, dre and the others would lead you to believe that "both sides" are equally complicit in propagation of this hatred, and this type of incitement. As if our two societies are moral equivalents. I guess even in WWII, there were "two sides" to that conflict.

It's not a moot point because anti-Semitism is so prevalent in Arab/Muslim societies, the ongoing perpetuation and evolution of this prejudice perpetuates the conflict. Most importantly, you're overlooking the weakness of your argument that I've already pointed out. Without explicitly stating it, you're suggesting that anti-Semitism among the Arab/Muslim world isn't relevant since the Arabs/Muslims would've developed a similar institutionalized hatred towards another group (i.e. Chinese) had Israel been established by that other group. As we should all feel better all of sudden in light of that fact.

Nobody is disagreeing that the Arabs/Muslims view this land as their own (a false narrative you have tacitly accepted) and that they would likely fight others engaging in what the Arab/Muslims perceive as infidels unjustifiably living independently. Would the Arabs/Muslims have concocted a similar culture of incitement and hatred towards another group? It's likely. Would they have engaged in historical revisionism and denigrated the others group regularly at all levels of their society? Perhaps. What's strange is that you think that this reality somehow bodes well for the Arabs/Muslims. As if somehow their hatred (which I invite you to learn about, I posted some links above) would have been just as vicious and sickening against another group had it been another group reclaiming their land and independence in Israel. is that really a point in favour of the Arab/Muslim narrative? That's what your argumentation boils down to - that they would have engaged in just as vicious a campaign of war, terrorism, and incitement to hatred of any group they viewed as unjustifiably living independently in land they falsely to be their own. It's as if their propensity to this cultural sickness of hatred somehow deflects from the reality - rampant anti-Semitism with deep roots going much deeper than just Israel. "They would've engaged in the same campaign of mass murder and incitement to hatred, no matter who established Israel, so it's ok!". You're also completely glossing over how the indoctrination of hatred in these societies perpetuates and exacerbates the conflict, and is one of the primary (if not THE primary) drivers of the conflict today.

You'd have a point if it was their land to give in the first place. You'd have an even better point if the issue of Jewish statelessness at the time was non-existent. We've had enough of your pogroms, expulsions, and death camps, thank you very much. It was nice while it lasted, but enough was enough. I could care less if some Arabs were opposed to our reclamation of our land and our reestablishment of our state, and ongoing rejection of Arab/Muslim imperialism. You know, they could've been a part of this country, but they chose war, and continue to make that choice every day. And the rest, as they say, is history.

You'd have a point is virulent anti-Semitism wasn't a fundamental tenet or Arab/Muslim society. The Mufti is just one historical of the manifestation of this widespread prejudice. Since contemporary European society doesn't have nearly the volume, intensity, and widespread acceptance of anti-Semitism as does Arab/Muslim society, you have no argument. You're trying to suggest (and it's like you're ignorant enough to believe this) that anti-Semitism is no more prevalent among the Arab/Muslim society than any other group of people in this world. That's just not the case. When I start seeing hundreds and thousands of ordinary Canadians chanting "death to the Jews!" after their Sunday morning prayers on a regular basis, the Ottawa Citizen regularly running reports about how the Mossad and Zionists were responsible for 9/11 and send sharks into Egyptian water to murder tourists, universities rewriting history and defining "real Jews" from "fake Jews", and our politicians regularly espousing the evil of the Jews, you'll have a point. Until then, DogOnPorch's references to the Mufti are fair game, because anti-Semitism in the Arab/Muslim world is worse than it's ever been. Try all you want to spread the lie that only a tiny minority of these people are consumed with these prejudices, because many of us know better.

It's quite transparent how desperately the usual crowd tries to wash over the Mufti's association with the Nazis. As if "Palestinian" and the broader Arab/Muslim societies are overwhelmingly anti-Semitic. Any cursory examination of their cultures instantly reveals anti-Semitic themes that are common. Don't believe me? Go watch MEMRI or Palestine Media Watch videos that display the kind of hate messages and incitement that are prevalent. Go check out theInstitute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in Education that reports on incitement in Palestinian education. It's there for you to see, there is no more excuse to be ignorant. Dre, bud, and BC_Chick would have us believe that hatred, incitement, and indoctrination is either a) non-existent, exaggerated, or c) just like in Israeli and Jewish societies. If anything, anti-Semitism among the Arabs/Muslim is so much worse today than it was in the days of Mufti, considering their usage of the internet and other telecommunications to spread their hatred. Anti-Semitism and incitement isn't a phenomenon or relic of the past, it's a phenomenon of TODAY and it's regularly getting worse.

"Move in and take their land", eh? I love terrorist apologists like yourself. In other words, you can't blame the Arabs for waging war after war of aggression to destroy the nascent Jewish state, and then running an endless campaign of terror and anti-Semitic propaganda concurrently with their political warfare. Let's say the Chinese "moved in to take their land", and the Arabs engaged in the same time of demonization of the Chinese as they've been doing for centuries against the Jewish people, would that make the Arabs any better of a society? So because they engage in hatred and incitement, it's understandable because in your warped view of this conflict it is a response to having "their land" taken from them? I'll never understand how apologists like who make ceaseless excuses for failed cultures and inferior societies that are predicated on hatred. You're basically conceding that you're just like them. What's next, the Nazis weren't really anti-Semitic because they would've picked on another minority had it not been the Jews? This is high-school level argumentation.

And the "both sides" argumentation continues, his desperate attempts to cast both Israel and the Arabs in the same light are never-ending. We are the moral equivalents of the Arabs, apparently. I guess it's an easier sell than portraying the Arabs as having the moral high ground!