Bob

Of course that's what you think. You think giving increased autonomy to a population that is committed to the destruction of Israel and has the track record to prove it is a good idea. Let's give independence to a group of people that has waged wars and campaigns of terror against us, never relented in its commitment to violent Jihad, has murdered thousands of Jews and other in Israel and around the world to "make their point". Withdrawing from Gaza and southern Lebanon also gave us peace.... no wait.... and even the "peace" we got by surrendering the Sinai (which should never have happened) is coming apart at the seams. Thankfully, most of us are too knowledgeable to buy into the lie that is "land for peace". You can throw all the condescending labels at me you wish. I expect that rhetoric from you. Of course Israel and the Jewish people don't have consensus on these issues, we're a complex and multifaceted people. We've been that since time immemorial. It's both a strength and a liability. In the Israeli context, however, more and more Israelis, particularly the younger generation, are moving to the right. They're waking up to the lies of the left and seeing through the indoctrination they're subjected to in schools trying to sell them on "land for peace". Lastly, the moral imperative here is simple - Jewish independence and self-determination. That objective and its perseverance trumps all other considerations. You will not convince me or anyone else to surrender on these basic principles in order to appease your politicized interpretation of "international law". We're not going to do anything that is contrary to our existential interests and well being, no matter how much you try to dress it up. We've got interests and needs, and they're not changing. I'd rather be an "ethnic supremacist" than pretend that the Arabs are our moral equivalents - which is your standard point of departure on this debate. What's next, Afghanistan's culture and society is the equal of Canada's? Ah, the mental gymnastics of moral relativity, all while claiming that your interpretation of "international law" is on your side!

I've never made the argument that the land belongs to us because of what's stated in the Torah. So let's nip that in the bud (pun intended). Good luck finding any of my posts that even suggest such a thing. As far as the historic proportion population of the land that was Jewish, how is that relevant? If we went by that standard, we'd never have a Jewish state because we were so fragmented for so long, as as a result of that we were persecuted, kicked out of countries, and massacred. Needless to say, we're not going to tolerate that anymore and place our trust in the good nature of the Goyim to treat us as human beings. We're taking our own destiny into our own hands. The Jewish people reunited, and that's why the population of Israel is now about 80% Jewish, hopefully we can keep increasing that proportion. 100% Jewish should be the goal. This country was established by us and for us, and will continue to be this way much to your chagrin. Nice cheapshot against the religiosity of the many Jews who came here. Not "Jewish enough" for you, bud? I guess you'd prefer Israel become a theocracy like your Muslim homeboys across the borders, where we murder rape victims and tear apart the infidels. In Israel people are free to be as religious or irreligious as they want to be. Populations change, how do you think Middle East became virtually 100% Muslim? How many societies and cultures are now extinct because of the spread of Islam (except for us, of course, we rejected both Christianity and Islam). Keep getting talking points from your imam in the mosque. Your appeals to "international law" are hollow and resonate with nobody. Of course the voice of the Jewish people, who compose a tiny fraction of a percent (two one hundredths, I think) of the global population, will be drowned out in the "international community" dominated by Muslims and other enemies of Israel. And despite all that, here we are, thriving. It's the best time in modern history to be Jewish, today. That must bother you!

I love the leftists' obsession with technicalities. As if the the right thing is contingent on a signature. Dre, in case you haven't realized it yet, most of us couldn't care less about these politicized legalities that you refer to. We care about doing what's just and what's moral. Documents at the UN are the not the authority on these issues. You think you can get us to accept national suicide because some bureaucracy says so in the name of "international law"?

There are so man problems with your suppositions, even from a moronic legalistic viewpoint. Just for starters, we can move to Resolution 242's call for Israel's right to - "...secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force", as well as 242's call for an end to the belligerence. The 1949 armistice lines are indefensible, so we're not going back to them. 242 is an attempt to give us secure and defensible borders. Moreover, all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel, and we cannot cut it up "like a salami" (in the words of Aaron David Miller) in order to reintroduce the ridiculous 1949 armistice lines. If you knew anything about the geography and topography of Jerusalem you'd know this, but you can go to Google Maps and see where how these lines cut Jerusalem into a narrow corridor a few kilometers long (north-south) - completely unacceptable for our capital. Did the Arabs cease their belligerence? No. Not one iota. The terrorism and the anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist incitement continues through all levels (contrary to the declaration of principles from Oslo) - from the politicians, from the schools and universities, in the newspapers, in the radio, on the TV and on their websites. What makes you think that your hollow arguments of "international law" (written by and interpreted by the anti-Israel group, especially the last part of the Geneva Conventions which was written SPECIFICALLY to undermine Israel in the aftermath of the War of Independence) will convince Israel to commit suicide and relinquish territory to our enemies who will use the land to continue their campaign of terror against us that hasn't stopped since the late nineteenth century? You think we're going to throw away our security interests because you propagandize our water needs as "plundering resources" from the "Palestinians"? Lastly, to whom does the land of Judea and Samaria belong to? Jordan relinquished its "legal" claim to the "West Bank" following the capture of the lands after the Six-Day War. Since when can land be legally transferred to a terrorist organization, then the PA run by the PFLP? Although I care nothing about legalities, even legally your argument is hollow. So in other words, Israel didn't capture these lands in defense against an enemy that had already waged two wars against it with the declared intentions of its destruction, and hadn't been terrorizing the early Yishuv for decades before 1948. If the Arabs hadn't committed to "resistance", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Of course they don't want coexistence, they say so openly and regularly murder Israelis and other infidels around the world, but this is a component about their culture that you handily wash over. You portray this picture of Israel capturing these lands as a function of some sort of territorial greed, and not as a defense response against an enemy that was and continues to be committed to its destruction, in words and an action. If the "West Bank" hadn't been used as a launching pad for war against Israel in 1948-1949, 1956, and in 1967, we wouldn't be having this conversation. No, it's all about "resources". If the Arabs were peaceful (they are not), we would have a "Palestinian" state right now with water agreements in place. Of course, it takes only one to make war and two to make peace, like any other relationship.

Why is the Israeli military control in those areas in the first place? Here's a tip - the reason the military control is there in the first place is the same reason it is still there today. Signing the GC doesn't mean Israel has to follow politicized interpretations if its implementation.

Actually, you can save your time, I'm looking through some of this book, right now. While this author lady certainly seems like no friend of the Jews, she seems more ignorantly anti-Semitic than sincerely anti-Semitic. She seems to be of a particular nationalistic strain that promotes racial separation. Particularly simplistic is the suggestion that anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany was a product of some prominent Jewish figures in the communist movement (not an entirely unfair statement, by the way, in a certain sense). There certainly seems to be some themes in the book that can be perceived as anti-Semitic, but it's not something I really feel like spending time getting into - I seriously don't care. Anyways, I really don't feel like getting into a defense about a news guy (Glenn Beck) that I don't really give a damn about one way or the other. He stakes out a pro-Israel position, and I appreciate that from him. As I said, he's not the brightest candle on the menorah (he only has a high school education, I think), so don't expect him to really understand and appreciate things in a deep or nuanced manner. Given Beck's simple nature, I don't think he "gets it".

What's your point, exactly? These are talented news folks who resonate with millions of Americans and command large following, they are highly successful. They are talented. Since you wouldn't clarify what you're talking about, it seems that "The Red Network: a "who's who" and handbook of radicalism for patriots" is the book Glenn endorsed that you're now characterizing as anti-Semitic. Have you read the book? My intuition tells me you're just parroting mediamatters.org talking points, as if an organization like that cares about anti-Semitism beyond their ability to use to smear a political opponent. It seems as if the book is open for viewing, feel free to back up your assertion with some references. Here's the book.

In other words, you can't answer a simple question that's been asked of you several times - what do you propose Canadian forces do with captured terrorists when faced with two options? On the one hand, they can transfer them to the custody of the existing infrastructure in Afghanistan, that more-than-likely doesn't comply with "international law". On the other hand, you can release the terrorists back into the field, and give them a do-over in their attempts to murder Canadian soldiers. This entire dialogue reminds me of the Saving Private Ryan Nazi that was released instead of executed because of the outcries of the weakling leftist translator, who ended up watching his fellow soldier get murdered by the very same Nazi they had released, while doing nothing to save him. Keep dodging and deflecting. We don't expect anything else from you.

You're disputing my assertion that the left is too blame for perpetuating conflict? The left handcuffs the military's ability to conduct warfare and secure victory. Whether it's zealous Jags prosecuting soldiers from slapping a captured terrorist during an interrogation, outrage of terrorists not being treated as common criminals at Gitmo and being given a silk prayer rug and a nutritionally balanced Halah diet in line with the Canada Food Guide, establishment of ridiculous RoE where you can't shoot unless fired at first or weapons are seen in the hands of the enemy, to sending in soldiers to do house-to-house searches and expose them to IEDs or other traps in order to reduce the risk of harm befalling "innocent civilians" (at the expense of the security of our soldiers), and everything else in between. Most casualties and injuries from coalition soldiers can be blamed on the left, due to how they've shaped the methods used in the prosecution of this war to comply with "international law". If it wasn't for the left, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would've been over a long time ago, without any of this "nation-building" nonsense (leftism/neo-conservatism that Bush Jr. bought into, that Obama is perpetuating). These are failed states, and particularly in the case of Afghanistan, worthless and inferior societies and cultures that are unworthy of our assistance, especially when we have unmet needs in our our countries. But of course the left thinks that with enough intervention and babysitting, we can turn these barbarian Islamist tribes into leftist cappuccino drinking bisexuals who worry about global warming. And when all is said and done, Iraq should be made to compensate America for all of its sacrifices towards its liberation. The self-described "anti-war" left is aggressively undermining the West's ability to defend itself, and leads to the perpetuation of conflict rather than its resolution.

I am criticizing the left for unjustifiably characterizing Israel as an overly aggressive human rights abusing rogue state that suppresses the noble and helpless Palestinians. The left is now, and has been for many decades, the champion of dishonest argumentation attacking Israel in in this conflict. Moreover, Israel is often deferential to the forces of the left, both internally and externally, when making vital decisions regarding defending ourselves from attacks, both political and terrorist. I blame the left, primarily, for the failure of Israel to make greater progress towards ensuring our security (there will never be a peaceful solution, so long as the Arabs and Muslims cling to their narrative). Israel would be a much more secure and prosperous nation if it weren't for deference to the insanity of the left, that tries to tar us with all the vicious rhetoric - Apartheid, rogue state, racist, discriminatory, colonialist, imperialist, and everything in between. If Israel stopped worrying about appeasing the rats from the left who want to see the destruction of Jewish independence and self-determination, we'd be much better off. As far as Hitchens goes, much of what he's said about Zionism is misrepresented in Wikipedia, and he's dead wrong about some of these issues, anyways. He is vehemently anti-religious, so he reflexively has a bone to pick with Israel as it defines itself as "the Jewish state". Still, he's not comparable in any way to the dishonesty that comes from Chomsky. I don't universally "agree" with Hitchens, I just think he's had some interesting things to say. I can agree with someone on one thing and disagree with them on another thing, you know? And I never "defended" anything from Beck. All I said was that he was among the group of poached talent from CNN, that went to Fox News. I still don't know what book you're talking about, and in all seriousness I really don't care.

Yes, I've seen videos of them. I wasn't being entirely serious with my post. But the launchers on the trucks in the video you posted seem to be larger than the Hamas ones I've seen, or am I just being fooled by the size of the truck?

The USA should stop deploying troops on the ground and just destroy its enemies with the technology it has. You're right about the connection between Pakistan and the Taliban and other terrorists, so why is America supporting this "ally" with billions of dollars in military aid that isn't yielding any discernible benefit? The Pakistan, as you've said, is still the backbone of the terrorists - yet it is still an "ally" of America in the "war on terrorism". Launch cruise missiles and use air strikes to obliterate Waziristan if Pakistan can't handle its own affairs, and then send Pakistan a bill and take them to "international court" for supporting terrorism and murderers for unspecified punitive damages. America and the West need to restore fear in the hearts of the enemies.

That may very well be true among some in the elites, but since neither you nor I can read their minds, I'll go by what they say, don't say, do, and don't do. I do believe there's some truth in what you're saying, and I think it's somewhat ironic as the dictators are reaping the rewards of the decades of indoctrination they've been implementing in their societies to sow hatred for the West. If they want to maintain some semblance of political credibility (which isn't entirely important considering these are all authoritarian societies), they need to hate the West no matter what. Still, I don't think it's so much an issue of support for Gaddafi rather than opposition to anything and everything West does. If they hate Gaddafi, they hate America and the West even more. At least Gaddafi sponsored murderers around the world that killed the dreaded Kaffirs, and aggressively spoke out against the West and parroted the anti-Western Islamic narrative.

What greater dilemma? Only someone with a warped moral compass would suggest that adherence to "international law" (designed exclusively to benefit our enemies who contravene every legal and moral value you take for granted in and out of the context war) is as important as protecting the safety of our soldiers in accomplishing their mission. To you, mental masturbation about "international law" is a higher moral imperative that military success and the protection of our soldiers. It is quite clear that you refuse to answer the question that was asked of you.

Wow, mentioning Estes, that's a throwback to my childhood! I use to love those rockets and the parachutes! That's an interesting video. I guess the left won't shed its worthless tears for Israeli blood being spilled until the terrorists are given those mega-launchers. Those poor Palestinians, they only have shoulder-mounted single-fire launchers at this point in time!

That's because the Mujaheddin were assisted by America, Stinger missiles were the game changer. To suggest that the America of today couldn't crush Afghanistan in twenty-four hours by drawing a false parallel between the current war and the events of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is absurd. America hasn't ended this reason for one reason alone - because it doesn't have the moral fortitude to prosecute this war as it should. America doesn't have the will to win this war, it's that simple. They're too afraid to kill enough people. For God's sake, America is supplying billions of dollars a year (I think approximately three billion dollars on average since 2002) primarily in military aid to Pakistan, a country that provides the metaphoric "refueling station" for the terrorists being fought in Afghanistan. After all those billions of dollars in aid, Pakistan still claims it cannot effectively control Waziristan, which is where all the terrorists run back to regroup after murdering American and coalition forces. And when America does limited action via drone strikes, we hear the same outrage from the left - from human rights organizations to the filth in Pakistan crying about their "sovereignty" being violated, the ultimate example being the crocodile tears shed for Osama bin Laden and the UN "investigation" into the legality of the operation. Yet Pakistan is still a "strong ally" in the "war on terror". America is literally feeding its enemies, and the enemy is laughing. Leftists like you are what perpetuate these conflicts, pretending to live on some higher moral plane than the rest of us, while soldiers bleed and die because they aren't given the permission to simply win the wars they are fighting.

Unfortunately, Israel still hasn't reached its threshold of of patience. We still tolerate these ceaseless attacks, both terrorist and political, decade after decade. You also left out the many wars. Imagine being attacked time and again by neighbours that surround you, when is enough enough? Like I just said to American Woman, we even tolerate the enemy within, on whose behalf the left has the audacity to claim are the victims of discrimination in Israeli society. There is no other country on earth that deals with such an absurd situation.

Not only that, but Israel is viciously criticized for fighting with kids' gloves. If Israel had the courage to finally crush our enemies and end this conflict, we would have done so many times over. But we don't, and you want to know why? Leftism. Bleeding heartism. Self hatred and self doubt. Acceptance of the narrative of the enemy. All of those things tie our hands and prevent us from ending this conflict. It's as if the self-righteousness of the suicidal left is something we should defer to. Unfortunately, Israel has been compromising for decades, always as the expense of Israeli blood, and always with nothing positive to show for it. Lastly, you speak about the threats outside of Israel, but the most dangerous threat is that which lived within - the Arabs who compose about 20% of our citizenry. It is is the enemy within, the fifth column (who have their fair share of blood on their hands). Imagine America with a 20% Arab population (overwhelmingly Muslim) that rejected the principles upon which you were founded and perceived the land as belonging to them. That's what Israel's been dealing with since day one. It's an incomprehensible situation.

What in the world are you talking about? The Arab League is still very much Libya's ally. They're condemning bombing campaigns by NATO while simultaneously opposing "boots on the ground". They're skirting the fence and stalling in order to play to the Arab street, which views all Muslim blood as sacred, unless spilled by other Muslims. And while all this is going on, have the Arabs lifted as much as a finger to help Libya in one way or another? No, they're content to sit idly by and launch criticisms from their conferences while doing nothing - and the West pulls all the weight. The hypocrisy of the Arabs is sickening.

The irony, of course, is that ethnic cleansing is exactly what the Arabs and Muslims want. They've been quite successful in eliminating most minority cultures from the territories in which they are majorities. Israel is the ultimate expression of rejection of ethnic cleansing in a tough neighbourhood. Zionism is anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism to its core.

Ya, "civilized nations" like the USA that are at war with failed states like Afghanistan for a decade. The only reason we don't win these wars decisively is because of how "civilized" we are. We're so "civilized" that the Taliban and their vermin affiliates are able to maintain their abilities to wage violence against the American war machine for a decade. It's sad to see America prosecute its wars with its hands tied behind its back - barely ever using its massive power, sending in soldiers to do hand-to-hand combat, doing house-to-house searches, and operating with absurd RoE. The enemy is laughing. I mean for God's sake, even Gitmo was a "controversy". You know, when I have these types of discussions I get the impression that the West has simple lost its will to live. Self-destructive liberalism has permeated every aspect of our lives, including the military, where soldiers are dishonourably discharged and jailed for punching a terrorist or slapping a Jihadi during an interrogation. We're our own worst enemy. The entire concept of "rules of war" is so self-contradictory in most ways, anyways. Especially considering the nature of our contemporary enemies.

Answer fellowtraveller's question - it was quite straightforward. The situation is simple, Canadian soldiers apprehended terrorists on the battlefield, and had nowhere to transfer that would be in complete compliance with "international law". So what would you have them do? Release them into the field only to come back to have another opportunity to murder Canadian soldiers? You're blatantly ignoring the dilemma, as if fellowtraveller's question (and point) are not the crux of this story.

I agree completely with Keepitsimple. I remember this artificial controversy quite well, I even watched that Ujjal Dosanjh virtually accuse the Canadian government of being complicit in war crimes, and Richard Colvin's far-reaching allegations after having a conversation with one or two former detainees (who may or may not have been captured by Canadian forces, and who may or may not even have been a detainee in the first place!). All it took was ONE accusation from an unknown "diplomat" to ramp up the anti-Conservative machine (which included everyone, the Liberal Party, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois) and cause such a ridiculous scandal that still hasn't ended. Let's get to the point - what would you have Canada do with terrorists it captures? In order to comply with "international law", would you have Canada build prisoners and detention centres? Train local Afghanis who are overwhelmingly illiterate and backwards, to operate these prisons in accordance with "international law"? Conduct inspections on a regular basis so that Colvin and Dosanjh are pleased that the terrorist rats get three nutritionally-balanced Halal meals a day, a hygienic prayer mat and a Koran in their preferred language? You don't release terrorists back into the field to give them another chance to murder Canadian soldiers just because there's no Canadian-style detention-centre or prison within which to house them. But that seems to be what you would have the Canadian forces do. After all, they're "bound by Canadian law", right? When those released terrorists come back for rounds two, three, and four, and murder Canadian soldiers, at least we can take pride in the Canadian soldiers having had been in compliance with "the law". Put yourself in the shoes of a soldier for just a moment, and imagine that you're captured some terrorists on the battlefield that just killed some of your fellow soldiers, are you supposed to release them to rejoin the fight, as long as they pinky-swear not to fight anymore simply because there's no Canadian-style prison/detention centre to which they can be transferred? How is it that someone like yourself is ignoring this problem? I expect this sort of idiocy from Ujjal Dosanjh or Gilles Duceppe, who use "human rights" as a political sledgehammer to attack the Harper government... Personally, I think the entire concept of taking prisoners is ridiculous in the first place. If they're hostile and a part of the infrastructure to kill Canadian soldiers, kill them. We need a take-no-prisoners policy. Kill them all, win the war, and get out.

I find WIP's post unworthy of response. To characterize the hostilities at the Golan as "Israeli troops shooting down unarmed demonstrators in the Golan", and then to directly draw moral equivalence between us and the Arabs tell us everything we need to know about him. Nevermind the fact that this is a border with a country that we are still officially at war with, and a country that regularly supplies arms and other support to terrorists that murder us, nevermind the fact that this angry mob was throwing stones at our soldiers, nevermind the fact that they were cutting through the fence, nevermind the fact that they were being paid by Bashar al-Assad to do so (with bonuses going to Shahids who would be injured or killed), nevermind that they were repeatedly warned by the IDF to stop their advancing into our territory, nevermind the fact that they were crossing into our land illegally, and nevermind that the IDF shot were instructed not to shoot to kill (unfortunately) - but to shoot at their limbs. No, forget all those facts and simply characterize this angry mob as "unarmed protesters" brutally suppressed by a cruel and malicious IDF whose conduct is indistinguishable from the terrorists. Yes, the IDF is the moral equivalent of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and all the other terrorist vermin out there. And beyond that, Israeli society is the moral equivalent of the Arabs/Muslims. Nothing superior about us, whatsoever. Forget about our democratic values and institutions, freedom of speech/association/religion, pluralism, open media, transparent government, independent judiciary, educational achievements, and legal/cultural protections for individuals from discrimination on protected grounds. Yeah, we're just like the Arabs who cut the heads off of foreign workers and upload them to Jihadi websites and cheer in the streets of Jerusalem while eating baklawa in jubilation over seeing thousands of people murdered on 9/11. Back to the subject, I actually laughed when I read the news about the Syrian deaths in the Golan, I found it hilarious that these Arabs have such low regard for their lives that they're willing to willingly sacrifice themselves in order to obtain a thousand dollars for their families and have an alley named after them in Ramallah. They literally walked across Syrian landmines!!!

I reject what seems to be your characterization of the West as "just as bad, if not worse" than everyone else. Even when coming from the left, as you do, my argument still holds water. The only way the UN interferes with our interests is its undeserved reputation in the minds of the ignorant (again, this includes many folks in the media and in politics). Many folks in the West still reflexively trust the UN and hold it in relative esteem. This needs to end. Once the mainstream view of the UN becomes one of contempt and revulsion, and not one of respect and deference, real progress will move towards its dismantling. I hope to see that in the future.