Bob

Since when did most North Americans polled believe that? Moreover, why does the body count matter? Are all deaths and killings the same to you (it's a rhetorical question, we all know you view Israeli military operations in the same light as a teenager blowing herself up in an Israeli disco and murdering tens of Israeli partiers)? As far as the media's focus on deaths in this conflict, it is absolutely untrue that more concentration is given to Israeli over Arab deaths. Absolutely untrue. Any search on any mainstream media website will reveal, if anything, many more results and articles discussing IDF operations resulting in deaths (which are more than likely entirely justified) than terrorist murders. You're just making this up as you go along, or, more frighteningly, perhaps you actually believe what you're saying. And I say this as someone who certainly consumes far more media than you do regarding this issue.

You're playing the game of semantics, and losing. Intending to do one thing doesn't mean you necessarily intend to do all associated likelihoods. If I apply for a job that you also applied for, and I secure the position, did I intentionally deny you work? By your twisted logic, yes. Your desperation at drawing false moral equivalence between the conduct of the IDF and that of the terrorists is really showing in this post.

How do you know they intended to kill everyone in the building? Remember, this is a small apartment we're talking about. The IDF and Israeli security forces do everything reasonably possible to limit civilian harm. If it was an intelligence failure that is one thing (such as thinking the families who lived in the building were out for one reason or another), but to suggest that the IDF knowingly killed everyone in the building is reaching far beyond what you know, and runs contrary to what we know about the operations and code of conduct of the IDF and Israeli intelligence.

You're attributing statements and perspectives to me I've never made. For starters, I never said there wasn't an occupation, only that Gaza isn't occupied (and it isn't). Moreover, the occupation of Judea and Samaria is very "soft", with plenty of autonomy given the the Palestinians. The issue of Arab occupation in Israel was to illustrate the politicized nature of the term "occupation" with respect to the Israel/Arab conflict. They certainly do occupy a lot of land, largely existing in the economic and social black market, and almost exclusively give their political support to anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist Arab political parties. Don't expect me to love this group of people who are largely a fifth column and hostile to fundamental Israeli/Jewish national interests. I never said "all Arabs want to kill Jews". What I do recognize, however, after the hundreds and hundreds of hours I've spent learning about Arab/Muslim perspectives of Israel, is the massive amount of hostility among them. Metaphorically speaking, the torch of anti-Semitism burns brightest among the Arabs and Muslims in today's world. Of this there can be no debate. With respect to Arab children, I didn't say they were automatically guilty. What I did say was that they are not automatically innocent as most media outlets would lead you to believe. What is never reported is how children are utilized in the terrorist infrastructure. As far as beefs with the Israeli government, I certainly have my fair share. My beefs with the Israeli government, however, certainly do not include describing it as "right-wing" or "aggressive" or "hardline". Current and previous Israeli government always operate with great hesitancy out of fear of political attacks from the USA, EU, UN, et al. With respect to "land for peace"/removal of settlements for peace, it is largely a joke. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it as long as I keep hearing this bullshit about settlements being a core issue - the Arabs and Muslims were murdering us and waging war against us many decades before the Six-Day War. Were they opposing settlements in 1967, 1954, or 1948? What about the pogroms in the Palestinian Mandate and Arab/Muslim countries decades leading up to 1948? Were they opposing the occupation then? When you can explain that to me, then I'll explain "land-for-peace" with you.

I missed the part with the children's names and ages. Anyways, the fact remains is that we're often placed in the position where it's us or them. Don't you get that? The people the IDF goes after murder Israelis and Jews around the world, and they certainly target children. We have to make that choice - either we kill these terrorists who are completely embedded within the civilian population and do our best to reduce harm to civilians, or we allow them to continue to operate with impunity and murdering us. That's what things boil down to. If I am ever in the situation where I have to choose between us and them, I will never flinch and make that decision one hundred times over. Killing terrorists like Yassin *saves lives*. Either way, the IDF monitors those is targets for assassination and does its best to find the best and safest opportunities to carry out its operations. It's a good thing a person like you isn't responsible for making these kinds of decisions.

I just realized how ridiculous the OP is, as if Israel has any influence on what happens in Syria. And since when is a professor at a very left-wing Israeli university an "Israeli think-tank"? She's just trying to reinforce the empty rhetoric of Israel "supporting" (how does Israel do that, exactly?) its "allies" Egypt and Jordan. Perhaps big changes would be nice in Syria, considering that the Syrian government is complicit in the murder of Israelis/Jews by supporting terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

The point I was making is that the image that I have of apartment buildings, in the Canadian context, implies a structure that houses many more than just a couple of families. When you talk about Israel destroying apartment buildings in Gaza to kill a terrorist, the impression most people on a Canadian forum will have is of Israel completely destroying a structure that houses, at a minimum, hundreds of people. Define "child". After you do that, who's responsibility is it that these children were killed? If I shoot at IDF soldiers from an apartment building in which a family with young children is living, who's fault is it when the IDF strokes the apartment in self-defense? I also don't know what a "extreme Zionist" is. Don't people like you view Zionism as inherently "extreme"? I mean, it's extreme of the Jewish people to build and preserve our own homeland through which we actualize our self-determination and independence. How extreme of me. I should give and and submit myself to living under Arab/Muslim rule, then I'd be a "moderate".

I know this line of argumentation, I've seen it many times. While there are certainly many Jewish ethnic subgroups with varying degrees of genetic commonalities due to "staying together" or many years, being Jewish isn't as racial as being black. Indeed, even the term "black", on a broad level, is certainly not a cohesive racial/ethnic group. There are way too many variations. I think the concept of race/ethnicity needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and this is certainly true of the Jewish people with all of our many subgroups. Are you the same racial identity as a Yemenite Jew? What about Beta Yisrael Jews from Ethiopia? They're part of the Jewish family as well, but of a very different race/ethnicity. The glue that connects certainly isn't blood. I think Jewish identity is primarily cultural/religious and secondarily racial/ethnic. The reason we have an ethnic/racial component to our people is simply because we tended to stay together over the thousands of years we've been around, all around the world, forming various subgroups within the broader Jewish family - this obviously explains why we have many different Jewish "looks" that many of us are familiar with. Sorry for beating a beat horse. These two concepts, though, Arab and Muslim, have a lot of overlap. Very often one leads into the other and vice versa. Yes, Arab and Muslim are not interchangeable terms and do not mean the same thing, but they often go hand in hand. This is true about Judaism being cultural/religious on the one hand, while ethnic/racial on the other. Of course there are many exceptions (converts to Judaism, or children of mixed marriages, as examples), but I am speaking about common trends and not outliers. English has kept up, and Jonsa explained himself and his identity, relatively speaking, in English. He doesn't consider to be Jewish, but has a Jewish connection via his family. I think if anybody is going to define Jonsa, it will be Jonsa himself and not you or I. The first two sentences of the wikipedia article on "Jew" state: Jewishness is primarily cultural and religious. If someone converts to Judaism, is he not as Jewish as you or I by virtue of having a different bloodline? Yes, he will be somewhat different and there's no question that he will likely never COMPLETELY be the same as those of us who were born and raised Jewish. Still, Jewish identity isn't dependent on blood. The other side of that coin is a person who is born and perhaps even raised Jewish who chooses to reject Jewishness. Just because someone's last name is Finkelstein doesn't make them Jewish. I feel that labelling on racial/ethnic is dangerous, as it simply doesn't account for the massive heterogeneity of the Jewish people. We are so, so, so diverse ethnically and racially that it's silly to define us as a cohesive race/ethnicity, without taking into account the plethora of subgroups. It's also a tool used by anti-Semites to utilize "Jews" to further their propaganda. I'll use the Finkelstein example again as an illustration of that, a man who willingly allows himself to be used as a tool of anti-Semitism, as deranged as that is considering his heritage. In summary, yes there are ethnic/racial components to various subgroups within the broader the Jewish family. But how important is that in most situations of living in a free and pluralistic society? It only matters when dealing with anti-Semitism, for example someone is out to get you because you have a Jewish surname. Just because your last name is Rosenberg and you may look like Ben Stiller doesn't really mean that much if that's where your Jewishness begins and ends. On the other hand, someone who stays connected by educating himself about Jewish history and culture and religion is actually living and breathing his/her identity - that has a much more profound impact on his/her life and those around him/her than someone who is simply Jewish by virtue of a parent or grandparent (kinda like Jonsa). Jonsa, and virtually everyone else, have a right to define themselves in their own way. I take the opposite perspective from you - Judaism is much more cultural/religious than it is racial. If it's just about our racial subgroups - why care about the Jewish people or Judaism? Last note, although paradoxical in the religious sense, I recognize that a person can be atheistic and still be Jewish.

Well, I was right. I've had many of these types of conversations, and I had a strong feeling that there were specific reasons why Jonsa described himself the way he did. Remember, what he didn't say was just as important as what he did say - he didn't simply say "I'm Jewish", but rather, that he descends from Jews. This is typical of people who choose to separate themselves from Judaism. It somewhat explains Jonsa's connection to the issues surrounding Israel, however. If it weren't for his familial ties, he'd probably be as clueless about Israel and the Jewish people as you (I don't fault you for that, by the way). It's also interesting to note that his description of himself as the descendent of Jews was enough for you to describe him as Jewish. He doesn't identify himself as Jewish, but that didn't stop you from labelling him as Jewish. Perhaps you view Jewishness as primarily racial, as does Bonam (a view I largely reject with very good reason), and therefore the descendent of Jews is therefore Jewish. Notice how I wasn't so quick to acknowledge Jonsa as a Jewish person, which he isn't really. I will not define someone else for them, but rather allow them to define themselves.

I'm still surprised you think it'd a good idea to put a cap on credit card rates rather then letting the market resolve that on its own. There are many low(-ish) credit card rates available to people with good credit histories. Most importantly, responsible credit card usage shouldn't cost anyone a thing outside of emergencies - don't borrow what you can't pay off at the end of the month.

You don't understand how the system works. It's certainly not so simple as "borrowing the people's money". Anyways, banks are heavily regulated as it is. There already are strings attached - it's called competition. Credit card interest rates aren't really a problem in Canada. It seems clear to me that the kind of person that is interested in having credit card interest rates reduced is an irresponsible person who doesn't manage his or her financed properly... the kinda person that would vote for Jack Layton.

We're seeing a lot of hypocrisy these days from both Republicans and Democrats with respect to how they're positioning Obama's decision with respect to Libya and other Middle Eastern unrest. It's really painful to watch both parties do a complete 180-degree turn from years ago with respect to new vs. old rhetoric and talking points.

But see, this is ridiculous. They'll just make the money somewhere else. You can't tell a corporation they're making too much money, especially not in a competitive environment. Yes, base mortgage rates are set by the Bank of Canada, but there's still some competition at the macro level. More importantly, the premium a borrower pays is based on the risk posed to the lender. If you set a limit, you'd eliminate credit solutions for higher-risk (bad credit history) customers. It's just populist shit going after those "rich bankers and corporate executives". He's pandering to those who are resentful of success, when they should be resentful of policies such as this and ideologies such as Jack Layton's.

Anyways, you're not addressing the point. Do you seriously think this is a good idea? It's completely contrary to common sense and basic economics.

I used the term in a general sense. And it's not always via banks (i.e. credit issued from stores like Best Buy, or third parties). Look man, I worked in the financial industry for years. I used the general term because I didn't think you knew the difference.... sorry for underestimating you.

I agree 100%. We really, really, really need this to become an essential component of basic education.

It makes no sense, whatsoever. The banks would just raise rates somewhere else (bank fees, mortgages, lines of credit, loans, institutional services, etc). You can't set a limit on how much money a corporation can make in this manner. Moreover, varying rates are typically based on risk. Lower-risk clients typically get lower rates, and vice-versa. If you set a cap on credit card interest rates, credit card companies might be forced to remove credit from higher-risk customers. who won't have any credit card solutions available to them. This is seriously amateur-hour economics and quite a stupid idea. It's expected, though considering it's Jack Layton. It's populist stupidity. Come on Smallc, I thought you were smarter than this.

I agree one hundred percent. I also agree with capricorn. If you can't get the support, you can't get into the debate. On a personal level, I feel she just damages the debate. The debate is bad enough with all the leftists and the treasonous Bloc-Quebecois, we don't need another who's even more looney and useless than Jack Layton.

It's important to read what Jonsa writes, as well as what he doesn't write. I think it's quite clear that he does not identify himself as a Jewish person. He's the "son of Jews", but not Jewish himself. Unless it was just a strange way of him identifying himself, I think much was revealed about him through his post to which you responded. I've met a lot of people like that, who either actively reject Judaism by clearly defining that their Judaism ends with their heritage, or are hesitant for one reason of another to acknowledge their Judaism by carefully grading it with a preface like, "I'm the son of Jews". And where did I call Jonsa anti-Semitic? So here's a question for you, Jonsa, are you Jewish?

I think the image most people have of apartment buildings are structures that house more than fifteen people, and would kill more than fifteen is destroyed in the cold-blood of the IDF.

That's not what I said and certainly not what I meant. There are two points people need to understand, that being below the age of majority certainly does no imply innocence in the context of terrorism in Gaza (I think 50% of Gaza's population is under the age of 18). Moreover, close proximity to terrorism/terrorists (living among them) doesn't imply innocence. I have a much different reaction to the deaths of seventeen-year-olds in Gaza in IDF military operations than I do the deaths of seventeen-year-olds in car accidents in Manitoba. Lastly, children are regularly utilized in the infrastructure of terror. It's horrifying and sick, but it's reality. Even young children are used to shuttle weapons and report on IDF locations (as examples), putting IDF soldiers in a situation more difficult than you can fathom. That's what I was getting at. This is the type of sick social phenomenon we deal with, and the reality that CNN won't tell you on the six o'clock news.

Your original implication was that Israel destroyed apartment buildings in order kill one person. Killing fifteen people alongside a high-profile terrorist? It's a decision I would make, if I was in charge. I also would not presume the innocence of people near him at any time. I am aware of both of those incidents. Do you seriously think there are important things regarding this conflict that I can learn from you?

The 1929 massacre in Hebron was related to access to the Western Wall? What in the world are you talking about? It was anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism all wrapped into a pogrom. It had nothing to do with the Western Wall.As far as access to holy sites goes, only under Israeli control have all religions had full access. The only restrictions that currently exist come from the Muslims, where they are delegated some administrative authority. There is absolutely no question that with respect to religious tolerance, the Jewish people have been a light where the Muslims have been darkness. Anyways, the motivation behind terrorism is and has always been the same - rejection if Jewish independence in Israel. This will never change. As far as your reference to American ghettos, there is no comparable situation anywhere in America. There are no areas in America where full teams of riot police are required to do any form of police action. There are no areas in America with widespread illegal and undeclared constructions where property taxes aren't collected. I could go on, but it's too ridiculous to continue...

One more thing I didn't mention to Jonsa, with respect to his comment about Israel receiving the patronage of the USA completely ignores America's patronage of the Palestinians, as well as their Arab/Muslim allies. Beyond that, they have historically received significant aid from the former Soviet Union as currently from Russia, Iran, Syria, and other such states. Contemporarily, the Palestinians receive massive funding from the EU and Arab states (directly and also indirectly through organizations like the UN and its subsidiaries). I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but perhaps Jonsa would like to learn a thing or two. Let's not forget that the Palestinians have been the largest per-capita recipients of foreign aid in the world, and have been for many years. Moreover, they don't deserve it. Many other countries actually have real problems not caused exclusively by their own faults, and have much more legitimate needs for the money. Moreover, many other countries deserve more trust with such funds.

With respect to the status of Gaza, re: occupied vs. sovereign, I've already explained that it is much more sovereign than it is occupied. Your pathetic attempt to wash that away with some sarcastic comment about some imagined "international law department" at the UN doesn't change anything. "International Law", especially with respect to Israel, is 100% politicized. Considering that Gaza and the West Bank are quite different animals, how can they both be "occupied"? At the very least, you must concede that there is a lot of wiggle room with respect to the definition of "occupied", considering how this label is applied to such different scenarios. Again, in any honest analysis, Gaza isn't occupied. A few components of occupation does not make a full-occupation. And at the end of the day, the security measures on Gaza are entirely necessarily and wholly justifiable. If anything, they are not nearly strict enough considering that the terrorism from Gaza hasn't ceased.