Bob

Well, the Jewish people are very multiethnic. And although uncommon, a person of any ethnicity can be a Jewish person. Why don't you just come out and say that you oppose Zionism? It seems that this is the direction you are moving towards. Why not just come out with it? Lastly, many Canadians support Israel's Jewish character and the recognize the need for a Jewish homeland. Regardless, you're trying to deflect again and run off towards another tangent. Just concede that the Palestinian people don't constitute a distinct nation separate from any of the other superficial Arab nationalism we see in the twenty-two other Arabs states. I will not pretend to be surprised that neither you or GostHacked can support the position that the "Palestinians" constitute a distinct nation entitled to national rights. Of course the entire concept of the "Palestinian people" is hollow and meaningless, a political tool manufactured to create an illusion - an illusion you've bought into yet cannot explain.

In other words, you can't explain how they're different. Don't worry, I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

Also by pretending that Hamas represents some "minority" of Palestinians. By extension, I think GostHacked was trying to imply that anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism isn't the norm among Arab sentiment.

You're deflecting. I asked you and GostHacked a straightforward question - please explain what differentiates the Palestinian people culturally lends credence to their claim of constituting a distinct nation, separate from the neighbouring Arab countries. I didn't expect you to seriously address the question, as it was relatively rhetorical. The Palestinians are Arabs, like most others, and we already have more than enough land and states for this nation (or group of nations, if you prefer). The concept of a distinct "Palestinian" nation is a political tool (and artificial construct) manufactured to create an illusion of a distinct nation being denied independence and self-determination. However the Arab states treat the "Palestinians" is irrelevant. It does not address my question - are the Palestinians a distinct nation from other Arab nations entitled to national rights? Them being a "discrete unit" certainly isn't the same thing as them constituting a distinct nation. Yes, they live under different circumstances than other Arabs, but that is a function of a conflict, and not evidence of them constituting a distinct Arab nation. You want Palestinians to have "rights" and become citizens of a UN-recognized state? Let them do that outside of our borders. Their illegitimate claims to national rights will not be realized at our expense, especially considering their history - we have thousands of reasons not to trust them with greater autonomy on our doorstep, and those thousands of reasons are spread out across Israel in our cemeteries. If you care about the "Palestinians" more than you do about attacking the Jewish state of Israel, start advancing the argument that they should move to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and other countries and join the rest of the Arabs.

Well, anti-Semitism among Arabs/Muslims transcends Hamas. Moreover, Hamas has widespread support among Arabs/Muslims worldwide. As far as their election goes, for what it's worth, their rise to power via an election in the summer of 2005 was kosher according to Jimmy Carter, who was some type of "observer". You're just making things up as you go along to defend the "Palestinians" for no other reason than to simply disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

That's just a minor detail. Besides, they don't really mean it!

The difference of course being that Nazi-esque propaganda is widespread among the Arabs. Moreover, Nazi-esque beliefs are also commonplace among them, many polls of Arab public opinion have revealed this. Go watch MEMRI or Palestine Media Watch videos on YouTube and see for yourself. Or go to Islamic/Jihadi discussion forums and use Google translate. Don't take my word for it. Or go to Jihadica.com (the premier and most respected academic site for researching Islamism and associated terrorism). What you're trying to do is draw some parallel between contemporary Germany and contemporary Arabs. No such parallel can be drawn.

There's nothing more useless than replying with a link to an irrelevant news article. If you want to explain why you buy into the narrative of a distinct nation known as the "Palestinians" separate from other Arabs, and therefore deserving of independence and self-determination through statehood, please go ahead and explain yourself. The story of some tensions between two ultra-religious communities over access to schools has nothing to do with this dialogue. You should realize that Israel doesn't make distinctions between the various Jewish groups. We don't have a Jewish state for every category of Jew within our nation. And the distinctions between various groups within the Jewish collective are much more significant than the superifical differences between Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese (for example). All Jews are welcome to live here in Israel. The Arabs, on the other hand, cling to artificial concepts of differences between them resulting in their twenty-two states. Case in point - the "Palestinians", wanting Arab state number twenty-three, at the expense of the only Jewish state. My argument is not that all Arabs are the same, rather that the Palestinians do not constitute a distinct national identity separate from other Arabs deserving of national rights. Feel free to argue otherwise.

That's another thing that really bothers me, the widespread use of the word "siege" when describing Gaza. My mother's family endured the Siege of St. Petersburg, and I heard the stories. The fact that the term "siege" is used to describe both the 900-day siege and contemporary Gaza is another example of the absurdities of rhetoric used in the Israel-Arab conflict. These journalists need to read a little history to see what a real siege is, and then reconsider their use of that term to describe the current situation in Gaza resulting from the limited blockade.

Haha, yes. An important cultural differentiation! And yes, I remember watching that Michael Coren clip online. That Sid Ryan sure is a dependable leftist.

Alternatively, they could make arrangements with Egypt. Of course they don't want to do this, as they want to create a political problem for Israel and manipulate the optics to portray Israel in a negative light. Delivering the "aid" through Egypt isn't as exciting, and is unlikely to yield any Jiahdist-dreams-come-true for 72 virgins.

If I'm wrong, please tell me what distinguishes the Palestinians from most other Arabs. Please provide meaningful differences that support the narrative of the "Palestinians" comprising a distinct nation entitled to independence and self-determination. Clearly you have bought into this narrative of a distinct Palestinian identity, so perhaps we can assume that you've arrived at this perspective after some learning and research? Enlighten us.

Exactly, and their ultimate goal is to reverse the results of 1948-1949. The entire construct of the Palestinian identity is so transparent and meaningless, but again, as I've already said, it's been a successful strategy. The concept of a distinct nation known as "Palestinians" is now accepted wholesale in the mainstream - among journalists, academics, politicians, and the everyman.

The difference between these two examples is, of course, the Palestinians are indistinguishable from the the neighbouring Arab Muslim-majority states. The Quebecois, on the other hand, have some substantial cultural distinctions. I cannot be clear, Palestinians are Arabs just like all the others. There is nothing significant that distinguishes them from other Arabs, aside from their experiences with Israel (i.e. some of them speak Hebrew). If one believes that legitimacy of nationalistic claims is rooted in true distinction, then the "Palestinians" have no legitimate claim to an independent state.

Sounds like the "might makes right approach". I reject Palestinian nationalistic claims outright - they are Arabs like all their neighbours. There's no need for a 23rd Arab-Islamic state. They do not compose a distinct national identity entitled to national rights. Especially not at the expense of the only Jewish state.

Obviously it was a waste of time addressing you. Perhaps someone else will appreciate the distinction between Israel as a state and Israel as a Jewish state. The truth is, I wrote that post for other interested parties, and your MO has been known to me for some time. I expected such a stupid reply from someone like yourself. Beyond "recognition", acts matter. Talk is cheap, and the never-ending and ever-evolving campaign of terror and political attacks against Israel from Palestinian factions and terrorists tells us all we need to know about how sincere the "recognition" was back in 1993. So the recognition of Israel in the Declaration of Prinicples from the rat Arafat and Rabin the leftist was worth less than the paper it was written on, especially considering that Arafat never stopped inciting for Jihad until his dying breaths. It's quite funny that you're unable to distinguish between Israel's need of recognition from the Arabs towards a Jewish Israel (we don't need it), and the need of peace for such a recognition (without recognition there can be no meaningful peace). I'll add one thing, however, the "Palestinian" national identity is a political tool, used to imply some sort of indigenous status to "Palestine". The truth is they are Arabs, indistinguishable from most of the broader Arab collective. They have the same religions (overwhelmingly Muslim, with small portions of Christians). The eat the same food. They speak the same language. The myth of a distinct "Palestinian" identity is just a political weapon to add credence to their desire for statehood. Unfortunately, this narrative has gained widespread acceptance. Our politicians, media pundits, academics, and ordinary folks regularly speak of the "Palestinians", oblivious to the fact that this identity was largely created in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. Even stranger, this narrative has become commonplace among both Jews as well the Arabs themselves to actually perpetuate the lie of a distinct Palestinian nation - separate from other Arabs. Of course they exist, I see them every day. Is their national identity meaningful? Not at all.

I am sincerely unsurprised that you don't grasp the importance of this distinction. Israel's raison d'etre is to be the home of the Jewish people. That cause is, in a sense, half of this conflict. The other half is the claim of the Arabs (particularly those who refer to themselves as "Palestinians") to this land. We claim the land to belong to us, and the Arabs view is as part of their territory. Recognition of Israel as the Jewish state would be a step forward for the Arabs reconciling themselves to the permanence and purpose of Israel. Without that, they will always make claims of grievance against Israel. The recogntion would be a step towards ending their campaign of war and terror, as opposition to Jewish independence in Israel is their primary grievance. Without recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the metaphorical hatchet will never have been buried, as it were (in the minds of the Arabs). Without the Jewish component in their recognition of Israel, the recognition itself is hollow - they might as well be recognizing the 23rd Arab state (and the 56th Muslim state) of Israel. There are aggressive efforts to change the character of Israel through foreign funding of interest groups inside Israel, this is particularly true in Jerusalem where foreign interests try to buy up land for Arabs. There are also widespread political/journalistic efforts to undermine the Zionist cause, maliciously arguing that Jewish independence is either unjustifiable and/or unnecessary. Recognition of the Jewish character of Israel would be a step towards countering these efforts. After all, if Jewish independence in Israel is legitimate, what right do other groups have towards undermining us practically (through changing our demographics, abusing our legal system, and attacking us externally in forums such as the UN) and politically? Should this recognition of Israel's Jewish status be a precondition for negotiations? No, and it never has been. The truth is that who we are and what we are doesn't depend on the acceptance of our enemies. We're here despite their rejection of Jewish national rights in Jewish land. We don't need their acceptance for anything. We do need their acceptance for a genuine peace, though. At the end of the day, for any meaningful peace to arise, the Arabs must reconcile themselves with the Jewish state of Israel. There's slim to no chance of that ever occurring, as Arabs (and Muslims) overwhelmingly view Israel as being born in sin, and view this land as belonging to them (of course it does not). I don't foresee an end to this conflict outside of the long-term, if ever.

And even in your quote from the anti-Zionist historian Ilan Pappe, there is no real explanation of how such a false parallel between former Apartheid South Africa and contemporary Israel can be drawn. Even the Noam Chomsky quote afterwards boils down to - "it's comparable because I say so". For God's sake, the title of the book being marketed by that website is "Israel's War Against the Palestinians", the politicization and bias could not be more transparent. Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky clearly stopped pretending to be objective many years ago. I find this type of argumentation is so typical of the left. If someone with credentials (in this case Ilan Pappe, and to a lesser extent, Noam Chomsky) says something that agrees with your rhetoric, then you must be right. You choose to do this rather than defend your rhetoric with a detailed explanation. The truth is you don't know much about Israel, and you know even less than about former Apartheid South Africa. The one thing you do know is that it suits your narrative of Israel being racist and evil to mischaracterize it as resembling former apartheid South Africa. Unluckily for you, nobody respects you in here.

M. Dancer, the important fact is that although the PLO recognized Israel in 1988, it never recognized Israel as a Jewish state. They might as well have recognized the Islamic state of Israel. At the same time, however, I'm not so concerned with recognition from the Arabs. We are here despite their lack of recognition, and will continue to be here forever, independent in our own land. And of course you're right, despite that recognition, the Palestinian factions still regularly delegitimize and attack Israel - both violently and politically. The regular anti-Israel vitriol coming from the Arabs and Muslims hasn't stopped since the late 29th century. Indeed, it's only intensified. We don't have to go back further than a week or two (in fact rockets were shot into the Negev yesterday) to provide examples of terrorist murders. The violence has never stopped.

Aside from me not knowing what GostHacked was referring to regarding this "disagreement between the Jews", I didn't want to be the one to point out this ridiculous and seemingly prejudiced statement of his. I knew someone would point it out, eventually. I guess he thinks we all take marching orders from Central Zionist Command (CZC).

Plenty of high-profile artists come to Israel. I think Bon Jovi is coming to Israel this year, also. And yes, the attempt to create a parallel between Israel and former Apartheid in South Africa seems to be bud's new rhetorical weapon of choice. No need to take it too seriously. Despite the incoming catastrophe that bud is warning us of, Israel is doing quite well according to most barometers, despite some of Israel's ridiculous domestic policies (mostly unrelated to the Arabs).

It's not pure speculation, we can examine all humanitarian catastrophes over the past near-century, and the best work has always been accomplished outside of the auspices of the UN and its subsidiaries. We can compare historical examples of how catastrophes were addressed by states and non-UN organizations, to the response from the UN. There is no need for a "world forum". This is your fatal assumption to justify the existence of an irrelevant and harmful institution. I've already explained that states can and do communicate with one another outside of the auspices of the UN, and that such communications can and are "conducive to public discussion" - they can be made public, and generally are in transparent societies. You also seem to think that all conduct in the UN is somehow open to the public. And if you do think that, you're wrong again. Your argument that the UN is justified on these grounds simply doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny. My comment about the "balance of power" was with respect to the UNGA. I stated that specifically. It is becoming clearer that having a conversation with you is a waste of time. Lastly, I never acknowledged that the UN has led to the betterment of the circumstances of "many poor people". That was YOUR false assertion, not mine. I specifically stated otherwise. Don't feel alone, though, it is a typical ignorant assumption of people from your ideological persuasion that the UN improves the lives of the poor, when indeed the opposite is true - that the UN and its aid programs perpetuate poverty and crises. Without having one fact to fall back on, you just assume the the UN is crucial in alleviating the hardships of poverty around the world. After all, if the UN doesn't do that, then what does it do besides being a "world forum"? Keep pretending to be familiar with the UN, its structure, and its operations. You might fool someone.

If this happens again, I hope Israel actually responds forcefully this time. The fact that the IDF rappelled soldiers, one by one, with paintball guns, onto a deck filled with bloodthirsty anti-Semites Shahid-wannabes, demonstrated once again how Israel plays politics with her soldiers. Only after the soldiers' safety was threatened, they had to radio back to command to request permission to use live-fire from their sidearms. It was unbelievable. Just another example of Israel conducting its policies with as much of a concern for optics in the media as for the safety of her soldiers. If Israel really valued the lives of her soldiers as highly as she should, they would never have boarded the ship until all the Jihadis were laying on their stomachs on the deck with their hands behind their backs. And if they don't comply, make them comply. I am not optimistic, however, of Israel using the necessary force to protect herself and her soldiers. I foresee more facades where soldiers are sacrificed on the altar of politics in order to hold up a dead Jew as proof that we are threatened. There is no question, in my mind, that the IDF concerns itself with how the events with be portrayed by our enemies as much as it does with conducting its operations in the most safe and secure manner. And what happens when you try to reconcile the irreconcilable? Soldiers are hurt or killed.

I understood that and I agree 100%. We don't need a mega-bureaucracy in order to establish such things.

Our adherence to such principles exists despite being signatories to those conventions. In other words, Canada's morality and conduct in war isn't dependent on being a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Our morality and conduct is a product of who were are. I made that clear in my post. You're mischaracterizing my position. We represent morality, anyways. Generally speaking, what's good for us is what's good for morality.