Bob

Look, it is irrelevant to me whether or not you recognize the Guardian's bias (rooted in either ignorance or prejudice) in its reporting on Israel. It's there, no ifs ands or buts. Spare me your absurd suggestion to file a complaint with some journalistic authority. The Guardian is hardly alone in this respect, as much of the international media is hostile to Israel and Jewish independence in our land. And no, criticism of the Israeli government isn't inherently anti-Israel rhetoric. I've never suggested such a thing. That being said, most criticism against Israeli governments goes hand in hand with criticism of Israeli/Jewish principles (Zionism). In other words, criticisms of Israeli governments are not necessarily criticisms on Israel's fundamentals - but in practise, they often overlap and are inextricable.

Genocide is a stupid (and offensive) term to use to describe these events. Perhaps he really intended to mention the genocidal mentality that isn't uncommon among Arabs/Muslims that live around these parts?

That's exactly what I want to know from him, as well. Acknowledging that would be a first for bloodyminded, who almost always not-so-subtly implies moral equivalence between countries like America and its people to places like Egypt and their people.

Several do. Are you suggesting that all countries all equally unprincipled?

Oh my god. You weren't joking. You were serious when you suggested that there are strong parallels between the American revolution of the 18th century and these events we're seeing now in Egypt, Libya, and other Arab/Muslim countries. Your position boils down to - since these are both examples of unrest and rejection of the status quo from the residents of the land, and since (according to you) they're both motivated by "highly-religious" persons, that the outcomes will be similar given the fact that they are both informed by common values. This has got to be one of the most monumentally stupid things anyone has ever said in this forum in a long while. Please take a moment to think about it and reflect so that I and other people don't end up wasting our time spelling out the obvious. In reply to a post from Mr.Canada where he suggested that many in Egypt favour Sharia law (isn't that common knowledge?), you asked for "proof". I thought I posted this data awhile ago, in fact I think I made a thread about it - here it is. Here are some statistics that caught my eye: This PEW Research poll may put doubt into the minds of those thinking that Egypt is on its way to a liberal, pluralistic democracy via the rioters/demonstrators.... 82% of Egyptians are in favour of stoning adulterers. 77% of Egyptians are in favour of whippings and/or cutting off the hands of criminals who commit theft/robbery. 84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for those who leave Islam.

I sure hope this is a joke, because the values that informed the American revolution many years ago are certainly quite different than the values informing street uprisings today in Cairo and other parts of the Middle East. This isn't about nuance, either, these are unbelievably huge fucking differences. I won't even waste my time elaborating, as I'll continue to assume, for your own sake, that you were making a simplistic joke for the sake of making a joke.... right?

Are you serious? Highly religious people tend to be diametrically-opposed to secular perspectives and values. How can you not understand this? Oh, I'll answer my own question - you don't know anything about highly religious people, especially not highly-religious Muslims in the Middle East. You think they're just like your buddy Abdul who you buy gas from at Petro-Canada on Sunday nights. You met one secular Muslim in Canada, and you've met 'em all, eh?

And by "backed", you mean the "corrupt governments in the West" committed the incredible crime of doing business for essentials - such as securing oil for our own countries. It's sad how it never gets old to see simplistic statements from simple persons (like you, GostHacked) taking little cheap shots at "the West" and suggesting that somehow we're all responsible for the circumstances in the Arab and Muslim countries. As if there's ever been this simple choice between freedom and tyranny, and the West chose tyranny. As if the West can just make up its mind as to what kind of governments it want to see in the Middle East and manifest its desires at the snap of its fingers. Of course, the West should stand on principle and stop buying oil from dictatorships in the Middle East/Northern Africa and starve its economy so that everyone ends up in poverty. At least then, the West could insulate itself from infantile criticisms from persons like you. Ridiculous, but not unexpected from the likes of GostHacked.

It's a very unconvincing article written by some old white man who more than likely only communicated with English-speaking Egyptians - in other words, more privileged and more educated Egyptians who are more likely to "moderate" in the common understanding of the term with respect to Muslims in the Middle East. Given the fact that these countries are almost exclusively Islamic, and that Muslims in the Middle East are unquestionably more religious than their Christian counterparts in the Western world by any barometer, how can there be any doubt that there is a strong Islamic component to these current events? In and of itself, I don't see anything particularly wrong with that - what would we expect, a Christian revolution? To delude oneself into thinking that these are "secular" uprisings, which may be true in some cases, is an exercise in ignoring reality. I'm not sure what Robert Fisk's intentions are, whose credibility seems to be derived from him having been in Cairo during the demonstrations (perhaps in his hotel room for 99.9% of his time there), but he is trying to play down something that a lot of us have legitimate concerns about - just what kind of uprisings are these? What do these groups really want? And how will it affect us? I'll pass on Fisk's suggestion that these are pro-democratic "secular" movements. Maybe they are, in some ways and/or in some places, but Fisk is certainly in no position to be examining these issues. No offense bloodyminded, but that article is completely useless.

I'll ignore the inflammatory rhetoric "Jewish extremist settlers" comments and just address a couple of problems with your posts, although your entire post misrepresents everything in two ways: 1. Falsely/arbitrarily selecting a "starting point" for these events in order to suggest that the "Jewish extremist settlers, for lack of a better way of saying it - "started it" with their "marching into Palestinian neighbourhoods and clashing with people there", as if you're not inaccurately describing these events and omitting important details during these times, to say nothing of the greater and much more relevant historical context going back many more years, and 2. Ignoring the broader themes and older historical narrative that is in effect here, suggesting that all was well until these "Jewish extremist settlers" started all these problems with their "march" and "clashes". The historical events of years and decades past are much more important and relevant to this story, and these events were and will continue to happen even in the absence of "marches" from "extremist settlers". Here's a reality you refuse to acknowledge - they're been murdering Jews long before the now-politicized term "settler" entered your lexicon. This is part of a greater conflict that began many years before June of 1967. These murders are part of a war that began years before 1948, and a struggle for independence many many many years before that. These people were murdered for the same reasons that Jews were murdered in the 1929 Hebron pogrom. Every post you make on these issues is so entirely wrong, which wouldn't really bother me except for the fact that you claim to be Jewish (whatever that means to you). The truth is I don't expect anything from non-Jews with respect to honesty or knowledge of Israel - why should they care? If they're informed and on the right side of the issues, great. But when they're not, which is most of the time, it's as expected. When Jewish persons, however, advance the false narrative where every word out of their mouths (or in your posts, in this case) drips with dishonesty and virulent rhetoric, in order to become just another useful idiot, it is quite disgusting.

Hey there, scribblet. We already know that The Guardian considers Israel a "straightforward target". The Guardian has been, as long as I can remember, very anti-Israel. The bias is there for all the see, and the dishonesty from the Guardian with respect to its coverage of Israel is abundant. Whether it come from massaged language selected to generate certain anti-Israel/anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist emotions, dropping of relevant context in order to oversimplify and misrepresent a story an place Israel in a negative light, or using dishonest "starting points" for stories to create a false historical narrative - there are endless examples of The Guardian's bias towards the Israel/Arab conflict that can be seen in literally 100% of their articles dealing with the matter. Basically, I don't need a comment from this or that "insider" to know the truth. The anti-Israel sentiment that is prevalent at The Guardian exists whether or not people are able to, or willing to, acknowledge it.

Yes, yes.... the former head of AIPAC boasted about his imagined influence. Why is that surprising? You think people would continue to donate to AIPAC if they didn't think the organization was effective? AIPAC boasts all the time about their influence. While it's certainly true that AIPAC can put the scare into certain congressmen/women or senators who run in districts with sizable Jewish populations (or where the elections are close and the Jewish demographic can make the difference), it's a completely different story at the executive level. There are several examples of AIPAC boasts from current and former directors, and other executives. That's what AIPAC and other lobbies do - exaggerate their influence in order to fundraise. I'm quite sure Jim Baker addressed this controversy and squashed it. If you want more ammunition in your rhetoric-rolodex, go read "The Israel Lobby". I can't recall at the moment, but I know there is certainly one example they use as "proof" of AIPAC's influence, by claiming that AIPAC was able to defeat a political candidate in some district that they didn't like. The evidence of this claim? Boasts from AIPAC that they beat their opponent, without any consideration of the real reasons why the election went the way it did. Anyways, using AIPAC boasts its influence in Washington as evidence of the influence you claim it to have is.... ridiculous. You've still done nothing to address the reality that funding follows successful politicians, rather than the other way around. Does money make the politician or does the politician make the money? Don't let me stop you from continuing to parrot the myth of evil Zionist control in Washington. It's the Protocols of the Edlers of Zion, version 2011.

Exactly, that's also my understanding.

Why would we care if Egypt changed its border policies with Gaza, as long as they do their part to ensure that weapons don't get in in order to murder Jews? We could care less if Egypt gave all 1.5 million Gazans citizenship and took them in. All we care about is security.

I must be crazy to think I can dispute an op-ed from the New York Times. Let me ask you a question, you said that the USA "chose" dictatorship in Egypt. What, or who, was America's democratic option in Egypt? When did America have a clear-cut choice between freedom and liberty on the one hand for Egyptians, and oppression and dictatorship on the other? You must be hiding some secret history books that nobody else has access to!

Seriously. He needs to go read Gulag Archipelago or the Diary of Anne Frank and then cry some more about the oppressive system we all must endure under the Harper (aka Mubarak) regime in Canada.

Except he operates within the framework of a parliamentary democracy within which he has a minority and is outnumbered by leftists. Basically, he doesn't get much done as he is beholden to the system and his inability to command more support from Canadians. Seriously, what planet do you live on?

JB Globe - Allow me to ask you a simple question. Do you think the video I posted in here with the Egyptian protestors/rioters speaking with Nic Robertson is an example of anti-Semitism? Is wishing for the destruction of Israel anti-Semitic?

Gosthacked - Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be. You say that the USA should let other countries figure things out on their own. How can the USA stand idly by when these events affect the USA? The USA will be affected by the outcome of these events, so it can only be expected to operate in its interests. Obviously the needs of the USA must be balanced against other questions of justice and morality, and it's not an easy thing to do. Let me add that when I talk about American interests, I am not talking about simplistic issue, but vital issues. Regular and dependable access to affordable oil isn't small potatoes. You criticize the USA for "propping up" Mubarak. Let's assume the USA withdrew its support from Egypt, which has been averaging two billion dollars per year since 1979. Do you not realize how much this support has benefited Egyptians in certain ways? Every dollar provided to Egypt is a dollar freed from the government purse. Of course much of the aid has been in the form of military aid, and of course impoverished people can't eat bullets or live in tanks when they're hungry and homeless. Still, the money the regime saved through the aid, whether given in cash, military, or other goods and services, has benefited Egyptians. Lastly, what is the USA to do? Do you think the USA had a choice between supporting a free liberal democracy in Egypt on the one hand, and dictatorial Mubarak on the other? The country is what it is, and America must deal with it the way it is. America certainly does not have the ability to create a free and beautiful world for all. Conversely, America does not have the ability to establish dictatorships and oppressive regimes as is often alleged by the typical anti-America crowd. For the last time, America must deal with the world the way it is, and not the way you wish it was. It's called reality.

Don't even worry about it, Rue.

As far as the OP goes, the special relationship between Israel and the USA is multilayered and complex. We can analyze different components of the relationship. At the practical level, given America's inability to extricate itself from its thirst for Middle Eastern oil, America needs a dependable ally through which it can exert its influence if necessary. American leadership should always be reasonably well-prepared for the worst-case scenario, which can include a Arab-regimes coming together to shut off American access to one of its economic dependencies. Moreover, the relationship between Israel and the USA isn't entirely materialistic/pragmatic, it's cultural and therefore more durable. If it was all about dollars and cents, it'd be fragile. I don't want to get into it, now, but there's a cultural/spiritual connection between Israel and America that strengthens the bond. I'll give my take on it, later. We do have Americans on this board, though, who can perhaps elaborate on it in unique ways.

Bud, your posts are about 1% true. I really can't waste anymore time with you. I've seen and read and heard all your arguments a thousand times, by persons much, much, more intelligent and knowledgeable than you. It's really tiring to constantly correct you on historical revisionism, anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist rhetoric, or blatant lies about current events. Seriously, there's no point in anyone having a conversation with you. You're a rebel without a clue trying to fill some spiritual void in your life by taking on the anti-Zionist Arab cause online. You have no sense of identity of your own so you join in with those who you view as the underdog in order to give meaning to your life. Go buy a keffiyeh and picket outside the Israeli embassy during the next campaign in Gaza.

The West Bank is the subject of negotiations, and for all intents and purposes it's primarily Arab and under Arab control. As far as Jerusalem, Jerusalem is one city. Not more East and West. Check the calendar, it's 2010... the days of divided Jerusalem and us being cleansed from our homes in the Arab controlled areas are over. Also over are the days when Jews couldn't go to our holiest site. And those days are never coming back.

Although I hate that term, "self-hating Jew", sometimes it's valid. I'm not going to attach that label to JB Globe at this time, but I just think he's seriously mislead. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and deep inside most Egyptians is a freedom-loving American waiting to come out.... but for several reasons I'm not so sure. How about this reason? A majority of Egyptians want gender segregation at the workplace. Or maybe this reason: 82% of Egyptians support the death penalty for those Muslims who leave Islam? Perhaps JB Globe's friends were from the 18% opposed to executing apostates?

It's our land.