Bob

The legitimacy of a nation's claim to land is reduced (if not outright eliminated) when its idea of independence and self-determination is commitment to the destruction of another nation-state. Their independence and self-determination doesn't override ours, and their actualization of their intentions stops when it steps on our toes. We don't feel entirely comfortable with another enemy state on our doorstep, at the moment. If we were to completely withdraw from most of what you call the West Bank, what do you think would happen? We're not ignorant enough to think that we'll magically have peace with these people if we remove ourselves from some disputed territories. We haven't forgotten the Arab/Muslim pogroms and terrorism reaching back decades before Israel's establishment. They were hating us and killing us decades before Israel, and long before any military occupation came into being. Put simply, they can have all the self-determination and freedom they want, but when their self-determination and freedom means murdering Jews, then we've got a problem. See how that works?

Absolutely. Well put. Egypt virtually cleansed itself entirely of its Jewish population. According to Wikipedia, Egypt used to have around eighty thousand Jews in the 1920s. After Israel's establishment and the virulent growth of anti-Semitism arising from rejection of Jewish independence in Israel, Egypt removed its Jewish population. Obviously I am oversimplifying the story, but anti-Semitism was rampant - mass murders, bombings, attacks, and arrest all targeted at the Jewish community and completely unjustifiable. Basically, Egyptian anti-Semitism broke out of the kitchen table conversations and into the streets. In the 50s, Jews were forced to flee and had their property confiscated from them. Clearly JB Globe is trying to downplay this, as he doesn't want to consider the possibility that his little anecdote with nice folks in Egypt just isn't that important. Perhaps a few days with a select few people in Egypt doesn't give you much insight into the broader Egyptian psyche. I won't share my anecdotes of conversations I've had with with seniors who fled Egypt during the 50s and came to Israel. Anyways JB Globe, don't mind us shattering your illusions of Egyptian modernity and tolerance with reality. Feel free to carry on with your fantasy generalizations of Egyptian liberalism. The cynic in me feels that Scotty is completely right when he suggests that you, in a way, became the useful idiot that anti-Semites and anti-Zionists love - a Jew who will listen intently and nod understandingly while they spew their vile perspectives.

Not if their future negatively affects me and mine. I have one primary barometer for determining what I support - how will it affect the Jewish people and Israel? That question is answered first, before addressing secondary questions. If their wishes put me and mine at risk, I'll oppose their wishes.

Calling for the destruction of Israel is anti-Semitic. I'm not going to waste much time explaining that. It is our vehicle from self-determination and cultural preservation. It is our instrument of independence. Just because someone concludes their diatribe or rhetoric with, "I want to make it clear that I don't hate all Jews", doesn't change anything. Moreover, as I explained in another thread not to long ago, one can express anti-Semitic perspectives and not be aware that they're anti-Semitic. Is that really so hard to understand? You think racists and bigots normally have a self-concept of themselves as racists an bigots? It's nice that you had a good trip and pleasant experiences with Egyptians. I've also met great Egyptians in Canada. Still, I wouldn't be assume that the Egyptians I met in Canada (all well-to-do and educated, which is why they're over there and not living in Cairo) are representative of a broad segment of the Egyptian population. According to the poll I linked, Egyptians are quite puritanical with their Islamic perspectives, and have significant sympathies for anti-Semitic terrorist organizations.

What about the substantial funding provided by the USA, EU, Canada, Australia, UNRWA (and all other Palestinian-only UN sub-bodies), and Arab countries to the Palestinians? Who do you think receives more in absolute terms, or more interestingly, on a per-capita basis? And no, the IDF isn't oppressing Palestinians in Gaza, which is what it seems you're referring to. There is no Egyptian or Israeli presence in Gaza.

There is no question that someone from a free country like Canada, almost without exception, will feel much more comfortable in Israel than in virtually all of the Arab/Muslim countries. And I am not only talking about materialistic comforts (with which certain Arab/Muslim countries can put Israel to shame). It's about freedom and diversity and modernity and liberty. You feel it here, you won't feel it in the other places.

Without even addressing the absurdity of your statement, what is the relationship between Israel and the widespread support, according to the poll, among Egyptians for Islamic-inspired justice - such as stonings and cutting the hands off of thieves?

More interesting statistics from the Pew Research poll - 82% of Egyptians favour stoning those who commit adultery, 77% support cutting the hands off of those persons who commit theft/robbery, and 84% support the death penalty against those who leave Islam. Positive perspectives of these rioters/protestors don't seem to square with this information.

Nic Robertson with some of the rioters/demonstrators. Take it for what it's worth, but anti-Semitism is the theme of the day with these folks.

- mistake.

Evidence in "Freakonomics" discredits your assertion that politicians only win because of money. It's a question of chicken and the egg - what comes first, the electable politician or the money? Does money buy the election or does the strong politician secure the money? The truth is that strong politicians get the money they need to win. Consider this, if I gave you twice as much money as the last victor of your riding, could you win your riding in the next federal election? We all know the answer is hell no. Basically, your assertion that money is the be-all and end-all of electability is simply not true. There is no question that money is important, but it's a component in the more complex tapestry of reality that you're out of touch with. Obama is a strong example of grassroots campaigning which brought in record numbers of campaign donations - did the money make the man or the man make the money? The simplistic claims that lobby groups control the government also isn't true. It is certainly not true with respect to foreign policy, which is what we tend to talk about in this forum. Don't think Obama picks up the phone and calls his AIPAC masters before making his decisions with respect to how to proceed on the Israel-Arab conflict. That's the picture you and others like you try to paint of the executive in your infantile efforts to denigrate Israel and her supporters. Since American leadership doesn't share your anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist views, which in your heart-of-hearts should be obvious to everyone, the only explanation is that the powers that be are controlled by shady evil Zionists behind he scenes. This is only way you can rationalize how your hero Obama doesn't act on what he must know to be true. After all, if the truth is so obvious to you, it must be more than obvious to your homeboy Obama.

Anyways, we're getting way too off-topic as a result of obstinate posters who simply want to argue, despite their untenable positions. Here are the silly arguments we've encountered so far: 1. A claim that Paul Bernardo isn't a psychopath despite the fact that he is. 2. A suggestion that psychopaths can be reformed because the law hopes for the possibility of rehabilitation, despite the fact that psychopaths cannot be repaired. 3. A related absurd suggestion that psychopathy can be treated because of its largely biological origins as a condition, despite the fact that psychopathy cannot be treated successfully. 4. The most absurd suggestion of all, that monsters like Paul Bernardo should be given an opportunity to apply for parole, despite elementary concepts of basic justice and morality.

Thank you for making a stupid assumption about a book you haven't read. Moreover, the book becomes much richer when read together with "Without Conscience". "Snakes in Suits" is a non-fiction book which uses an intermittent storyline to illustrate its points. It's quite rich for someone like yourself to attempt to discredit an educational non-fiction that you haven't read, written by the world's foremost authority on psychopathy, simply because you want to disagree with me. That's not what I said. Either way, it's irrelevant, because psychopathy isn't a condition that alleviates guilt according to the law.

This poll gives us some insight into the motivations of the Egyptian rioters/demonstrators in the sense that Egyptians were asked certain questions about political leanings. Some potentially disturbing numbers, although unsurprising: 50% of Egyptians have a favourable view of Hamas, which as we all know is a very religious, anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, Islamic terrorist group. 30% of Egyptians have a favourable view of Hezbollah, which is also a very religious, anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, Islamic terrorist group. Of course the converse is that 66% of Egyptians have a negative view of Hezbollah. 95% of Egyptians that think Islam plays a large role in their politics think this is a good thing. While 80% of Egyptians who think Islam plays a small role in their politics think this is a bad thing. Of course there are various ways to interpret these results, which I don't feel the need to go into. Still, if we honestly examine the world the way it is, we can glean some useful information from this poll. I think this poll paints a slightly different picture than the simplistic assumption that the rioters/demonstrators are primarily motivated by secular liberal democratic values.

Aside from the typical red-herring/rhetoric of South Africa that is so typical from you, I'll reiterate something from my previous post to GostHacked. The 1949 armistice lines (referred to by some as the "1967 borders") are long gone. Everyone knows we will not see them again. Yes, if you value UN resolution 242 you can use these armistice lines as some sort of frame of reference or baseline for negotiations (whatever that means). The reality is that these are borders Israel cannot and will not accept, nevermind the fact that they never were borders in the first place. The 1949 armistice lines were just that, armistice lines - NOT borders. Even if you want to ignore the legalities defining the differences between armistice line and borders, and write off this entire issue as semantics, there is no ignoring practical impossibilities preventing the surrender of our lands to our enemies in the name of "peace". I'll expand on these impossibilities later, and I've already done it several times in this thread over the past little while. Moreover, the Arabs have forfeited their rights to much of those lands because they used them as a front against Israel in three wars. We're not going to relinquish territory, forcefully remove two hundred and fifty thousands Jews, surrender billions of dollars of property, and surrender economically, socially, and militarily essential to those who actively try to destroy us because people like you tell us the land doesn't belong to us. There's no crying over spilled milk. When the land was in their hands for twenty years they used it launch attacks against us, and not towards building their independence. They've lost all trust to have sensitive lands (primarily the "settlements" near and around Jerusalem), and we're not about to accept a security guarantee that isn't worth the paper it's written on written by UN pencil-pushers. Put simply, if you use land as a base of operations from which to carry our murders and terrorism against us, we're going to take that land away from you because your control of it presents a clear and present danger to us. Sensitive security areas near our main population centres (primarily Jerusalem) simply will not be relinquished to the Arabs - at least not with legitimate security arrangements to protect us.

Why do I need to defend myself against comments I never made? I never advocated for "kicking out the rest of the Palestinians". As far as settlements go, it depends on which settlements and areas you're talking about. Does "building more settlements" include existing settlements that need to grow? You need to be specific, because many settlements will never cease being a part of Israel. Also, many settlements and areas are essential to Israel, particularly to Jerusalem. Jerusalem, for the most part, has been growing organically since its reunification after 1967. Israel has not, and will not, restrict its natural needs to armistice lines of 1949 that are unworkable. If you knew what the land looked like and were familiar with the lines, perhaps you'd understand this. The reality is that the "1967 borders" (and I'm speaking only with respect to how they affect Jerusalem) are no longer relevant, were and always will remain indefensible, and are unworkable in every other municipal and national need you can imagine. You can parrot the "settlement" talk all you want, but you don't understand the layout of this land or the 1949 armistice and why they're unacceptable, irrelevant, and never to be seen again.

They can have all the liberation and self-determination they want, but not at our expense and not on top of our country. Unfortunately, Palestinian self-determination seems to be inextricable from anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

What racist policies? Please elaborate. That movie, while interesting, is certainly not as broad in scope as you're suggesting. It is simply a collection of selected footage of Arabs at checkpoints in Israel and the Yehudah and Shomron areas. It is s component of the relationship between non-Israeli Palestinians and Israel, as it gives some insight into how checkpoints operate. Saying the movie is about the "dysfunctional relationship between Israel and the Palestinians" is like saying an X-Ray technologist is a doctor. You're reaching way too far in how much you think that movie touches on.

It's not just the endless conversations. It's the books, the newspapers, the TV shows, the academic articles, the movies, the radio shows, the political cartoons, the university lectures, the statements from our politicians... It's called life experience. Moreover, the poll you link doesn't contradict positions I've held regarding anti-American sentiment that isn't uncommon among Canadians.

It's as if dre think that somehow this poll will make me reconsider the thousands of hours of experience I've had that have shaped my understanding of Canadian political culture. What does he think, that I've read the same author in the same newspaper my whole life, and only spoken to my father about politics? Too funny. Even funnier is that the poll reaffirms, in several ways, what many of us have known to be true for many years.

The worst anti-American sentiments comes from Quebec, partly because they are the most ignorant about American politics (lack of interest and/or language barrier and/or prejudice towards English). I actually should give dre some credit, because some of the questions in the poll are interesting. Although the answers, almost always, are unsurprising. Consider this - 37% of Canadians consider America to be the greatest threat to world security. How about these ones - 48% of Canadians don't think that others countries should aspire to the economic opportunities America affords its population, and 59% of Canadians don't think other countries should aspire to American standards of freedom of expression? It's pathetic... but unsurprising.

The poll actually confirms some of my intuition. A large number of Canadians actually say, "America scares me" (35%) and “America now feels it is the only superpower in the world and they can do what they like” (64%). 32% of Canadians disagree with the statement that "America is a force for good in the world". Anyways, who really gives a damn about this poll, anyways? I've given it more time than it deserves. The poll just reinforces what a lot of us already know - that a significant portion of Canadians have ignorant misconceptions about and animosity towards America.

You think a poll will make me rethink the experiences I've have on the matter throughout my whole life in Canada? I'm a political person, I have been having these sorts of conversations my whole life. I've consumed so much media (newspapers, "academic" articles, lectures, television, etc) over the course of my life, that I'm almost embarrassed to admit it. A poll you post in here doesn't override what I've learned, which is that anti-American sentiment is very common in Canada at all levels. I didn't say Canada is like Europe with respect to its anti-American sentiment, but I've had plenty of experiences where I saw the same type of simplistic and stupid rhetoric coming from Canadian sources. What I was getting at is that there are commonalities. It's hilarious how you think you can link us to a poll and claim, "Haha! I win!". Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

I agree, this board would benefit greatly from a broader slice of people out there - assuming they're intelligent enough.

What I meant was, we should see what proportion of Egypt's GDP is composed of American foreign aid. Specifically, we need to average that out over some time frame, let's take 1979 (the year Sadat and Begin signed the peace deal) as the starting point. I'd do the math, it's easy, but I just don't feel like it, right now. Although unrelated to this thread, it'd be interesting (and MUCH more difficult) to see what proportion of the Palestinian economy is composed of foreign aid, and how that proportion has changed over time. I think as of now, fifty cents out of every dollar in the Palestinian economy is coming from foreign aid. And this is after DECADES of receiving many billions of dollars from many places... but that's a subject for another thread...