Bob

What naomiglover is try to say is so ridiculous as to not warrant a serious response. What's next, a President of the USA not being permitted to make national security decisions because his son or daughter is in the armed forces? As if a journalist cannot continue to do his or her job because what he or she is reporting on somehow involves a child. Should I not talk about healthcare issues because my relative was ill with cancer in a public hospital? Should I not talk about Israeli issues because I live here? Should a Muslim not talk about 9/11 because of his or her faith? Lastly, I literally laughed out loud when I read naomiglover tell us that there is a NYT policy somehow regarding this issue. Well now! If the NYT says it has a policy, then it most certainly IS NOT disputable!

Oh I know you see things how they are... but like I said, it's depressing.

Hey Bonam, I completely understand what you're saying. But that's like saying Canada should build up Ottawa because Montreal is disputed. There are local/municipal needs that need to be addressed in Jerusalem. There are many people who want to live near the Old City for a variety of reasons. So building in East Jerusalem addressed these needs, be they commercial, residential, or institutional. Especially the religious component of our society, and many religious Jewish people live in Jerusalem. They want to be near the Old City because that is where they work, learn, and practise their spiritual development. They're not going to do a three-and-a-half hour commute from Haifa in order to satisfy their needs because Muhammad bin-Abdul is upset. Jerusalem is our city, and we're not going to be bullied into strangling its needs to order to appease our enemies. With respect to far out settlements in Judea and Samaria, yes they propose a problem to a potential peace-agreement seeing a Palestinian state. Those details will be ironed out if a deal is made. Regarding whether or not a Palestinian state is ideal towards Israel's long-term security, that's questionable. We need to define what is and is not acceptable. Most certainly, there will need to be some limitations on the state which will raise the issue of "sovereignty" among the leftists. They must be disarmed, and their imports must be screened to prevent weapons coming in. The Palestinian track record with respect to violence and terrorism is despicable, and they must now pay a price for it in order to address our security concerns. Needless to say, they cannot be trusted to not arm themselves and conduct terrorism simply because their leader(s) signed a peace of paper in Washington. We're not going to allow a sovereign state to be another Iranian/Syrian proxy for terrorism from which they can murder us. At least for the long-term foreseeable future, Palestinians cannot and should not have a fully-autonomous state as we are familiar with on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Oour lives and safety are more important than some academic debate over whether or not they have full sovereignty. Know what I mean?

I'm gonna stop thinking about it - it's depressing. I may have said it earlier, so I may be repeating myself, but I don't see Arab-Muslim hostility and intransigence on the decline. It's getting worse, with terrorism growing and "Dear Leader" Obama being deferential to our enemies. I don't have a lot of optimism for any significant developments in the near-term or long-term simply considering these realities.

It drives me nuts. They still have tons of support through direct and indirect means. Whether it be Iran supplying Hezbollah or China/Russia/etc supplying some Arab-Muslim nation which then funnels it to our enemies through other channels. Jews are still being murdered around the world just because they're Jewish.

There's a big difference between the supplying of arms in some circumstances and "military support". Get back to me when America fights our wars for us. Why have you not mentioned the arms support for the Palestinians and Arab-Muslim allies? Do bullets and bombs from the former Soviet Union which have killed thousands and thousands of Jews and other Israelis not count, or something? With respect to the USA vetoing many (not all) resolutions proposed to condemn Israel - so what? Is the UN Security Council some sort of honest broker with the USA being some sort of biased-party? If you view the UN's component bodies, especially the Security Council, as some sort of honest player operating with integrity, then you've got serious problems. Spare me the insinuation that somehow the USA is the primary obstacle to the UNSC doing the "right thing" because of its relationship with Israel.

So apparently I live in a "settlement". I am currently living in a neighborhood/area called Armon Hanetziv (beautiful area, by the way) in Jerusalem. I was just spending a few moments online looking at what our enemies are describing as "settlements" and "obstacles to peace". After watching this video, it turns out I have been living in a "settlement". Does that make me a "settler"? Anyways, I'll take some photographs of these neighbourhoods just to give you folks a taste of what these places are all about. They're just neighbourhoods, with school, apartments, commercial areas, government areas, etc... all the things any normal city needs and develops over time.

For those out there who are actually interested in honesty, let's quickly analyze this map that naomiglover was kind enough to share with us. Map illustrating Palestinian "loss of land" First of all, Palestinians never controlled any of the land. There was never a Palestinian state. So the first map is very misleading. Certainly there was Palestinian ownership of some lands/properties, but it was under the administration and control of the British mandate. It's just a flat-out lie to paint in green massive parts of the Palestine Mandate as "Palestinian land". By the same token, there was no "Jewish land", either, aside from what was owned by Jewish people at this time - also under the control and administration of Britain. After the Partition Plan was implemented and rejected by the Palestinians and their Arab-Muslim allies, the War of Independence occurred. This plan would have been the beginning of the Palestinian state. Unless we define "Palestinian land" as land owned by Palestinians, then we can reconsider the maps presented. The Palestinians, however, most certainly DID NOT own all the land of Israel that is coloured in green as is indicated by the first map. That is a massive overestimation, which was more than likely done for disingenuous purposes - to advance some notion of Palestinian dispossession at the hands of Israeli developments.

With respect to whether or not settlement development is a serious impediment to peace, they really aren't. The Palestinians and their Arab-Muslim brethren have been murdering Jews around the world for many years before 1967. Of course some far-reaching settlements which are more far-removed from the Jewish mainland are up for negotiation towards peace, but they are not serious obstacles. Let's also remember that it's 2010, not 1967. Things have changed, and Judea and Samaria never belonged to Palestinians, anyways. You can't declare war on Israel on its day of independence, with all your political leader calling for a second Holocaust, lose the war, and then cry over sour grapes. You can't do it again in 1954, or again in 1967, or again in 1973, or again in 1982... and then keep crying that land is being "taken" from you in accordance with proposals which you have rejected and gone to war over. We build, and they murder. I hope and pray for peace, but I am not holding any illusions. Until we see a fundamental shift among the Palestinians, from the top to the bottom and back again, towards renouncing terrorism and recognition of the Jewish State of Israel, the prospects of a meaningful peace are low.

Ah naomiglover.... I remember you. Recognizing Israel's right to exist is one thing, recognizing Israel's right to exist as the Jewish homeland is something different. How can someone like yourself, who purports to be knowledgeable about this issue, not recognize this huge difference? I specifically said that no Arab or Muslim leader of importance has ever recognized Israel's purpose as the Jewish homeland - as a Jewish nation-state. My own words, for a second time, were that no prominent Arab-Muslim leader can bring his (or her) lips to even mutter "recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland".

Next time the Arab world loses 10% of its population in a war for independence, let me know. The next time American soldiers begin to die defending Israel when it is under attack, let me know. Lastly, Israel most certainly does NOT have "unconditional military and diplomatic backing" from the USA. What in the world are you talking about? There have been many, many, many serious disagreements between the two parties on all sorts of matters. You'll have a point when American soldiers start getting drafted to serve in Israel's defense. Until then, however, you're just spewing bullshit rhetoric that any honest and half-informed person knows is false. Israel has never been backed up militarily by the USA - at most, it has technology/arms deals.

It's more of an issue of proportion. "Poor people" can also be owners, but they must not live beyond their means. People of all kinds of incomes can sometimes have credit availability beyond their abilities to repay. This can (and does) lead to big problems. I think what's happened in Vancouver and many other expensive housing-markets is that housing prices have grown far beyond the average increase in incomes. In other words, the average increase in home prices was X%, and the average increase in incomes was much less than X%. Cheers.

I smell Marxism. "Ownership class"? Are you joking? Get a job, make some money, and stop crying. Anyways, raising the downpayment minimums (for CMHC-insured mortgages) reduces risk to the bank. The main reason for the crisis in the USA, if you didn't already know, was irresponsible lending. Many people were issued credit beyond their abilities to repay (this was a fault on behalf of both the lenders and borrowers). Someone's ability to save money towards a downpayment is a positive factor in assessing their creditworthiness. Without going into details, other changes were made towards the assessment of creditworthiness in Canada. These were changes made towards insulating Canada against similar practices of irresponsible lending that we saw down South. Trying to paint this as anything other than what I just described is bullshit.

I started writing a response to this.... and then I deleted it all. The stupidity and simplicity of this blog post (who is Matthew Good, by the way?) really doesn't warrant a response. Unfortunately I am one of the perhaps 25 people that read that blog post.

Example of semantics - "The threats we face today" vs. "Challenges facing us today" Example of stupidity - "Hitler... was given the most powerful country in the world to toy around with."

Dumbest statement ever. He didn't go through one one-hundredth of what my relatives have gone through. I'll never get used to hearing this kind of despicable garbage, which is almost always prefaced with, "I don't CONDONE the acts, BUT..." So pathetic.

Hey everyone, I haven't read all the posts in here, so please excuse me if I'm repeating something that's already been said. I have some concerns about the movement of the "peace process", as I feel these time periods are somewhat of a carte-blanche for Palestinian (and other Arab-Muslim) terrorists to kill Jews. It feels like open season on Israel and the Jewish people, because if Israel engages in necessary activities to combat terrorism it is criticized for not complying with the peace process. In other words, I feel that the "peace process" sometimes ties our hands with respect to us being able to protect our lives from those who never stop trying to kill us. Let's hope Netanyahu can operate as Rabin, and work towards advancing the "peace process" as if there was no terrorism and fight terrorism as if there was no peace "process". Everyone I know, including myself, want peace. How we define that peace, however, is something entirely different. I am very sceptical, however, of significant developments resulting from this new series of negotiations. Judging by the public pronouncements of the PA and its affiliates, as well as the never-ending hostility from Hamas, it's hard to be hopeful. I feel like Arab-Muslim intransigence is worse than ever. Think of it this way, it's already 2010 and no Arab-Muslim leader (especially from the PA) can even bring themselves to mumble recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland. If we can't even get that, what can we really expect from Abbas and his team?

Hi everyone, since "settlements" are such a contentious issue regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, I thought I'd give you some insight into what these settlements actually are. I've been living in Jerusalem for about two months, now, and I've learned that there is a "housing crisis" here with respect to costs of ownership and average incomes/salaries. Don't forget that the standard of living in Israel is quite a bit lower than in Canada. Specifically, for the same level of education and expertise, one will typically earn a lower salary in Israel and NOT enjoy a proportional decrease in the cost of living. In other words, assume you would earn 25% less in Israel doing the same job you're doing now with the same qualifications, your cost of living would perhaps be 10% lower - meaning you will sacrifice some material comforts. Although I don't have time now, I'll come back soon with some information that I can find which will help us all appreciate the need for appropriate construction in Jerusalem to accommodate natural growth. As the population and economy grows, as will construction (new apartments, buildings for business/industry, school, government offices, and all other things you can think of) of appropriate buildings. Unfortunately, given the politicization of this issue, many people (including the Obama administration) seem to think it is fair to ask Israel to put its needs on hold for year-after-year while the "peace process" proceeds. Without going into too much detail now, if you didn't already now (I surely didn't know until I arrived here), there is a short supply of housing and business real estate in this city, and in order to bring costs down for housing and business to be more accessible to more people, the supply needs to be increase. Furthermore, many people are religious Jews, and many religious Jewish people want to work closer to the old city to be in easier contact with the old city, as many of them have involvement there (work, religious associations, schools, etc). I'll take some pictures of "settlements" in the near future and share them with you soon. Personally, I say "build baby, build!".

If you're so inclined, there are other videos on UN Watch's YouTube channel where victims of terrorism from Hamas in the hostilities lead up to Cast Lead directly challenge Goldstone for omitting their stories and suffering. He gives them a non-answer. Here's an example:

Most importantly, we know that you cannot conduct an investigation when the evidence is all circumstantial. There's an example in the Goldstone report of the IDF attack a flour factory and then claiming that this is a war crime because a flour factory isn't a legitimate military target. Anyone who's followed this conflict over many years knows that Hamas and other terrorists exclusively operate from civilian structures. Their terrorist infrastructure is entirely mobile. They do not identify themselves with uniforms, nor do they identify their vehicles of infrastructure with markings. So when Goldstone and his team (who already had concluded that Israel was the offending party guilty of war crimes) arrive in Gaza months after Cast Lead to investigate, it is obvious that Hamas and its affiliates already "cleaned house". None of Goldstone's credentials really matter in light of this flawed "investigation". He can say he's a Zionist all he wants, it doesn't add any credibility to the report.

I agree 100%! This is different, though. UN Watch's videos are all videos from within the UNHRC meetings. It's informative to see video of what kind of things are happening over in the kangaroo court we know as the UNHRC. You'll rarely, if ever, see me use random YouTube videos or links to Wikipedia pages edited by unemployed leftist morons. Remember, the YouTube channel I'm linking to almost exclusively displays UNHRC talks, it's not some random collage of out-of-context video snippets.

You'd probably find the videos pretty revealing, as much of the hypocrisy of the UN is put on display in these videos. With respect to the phrase "speaking truth to power", I simply lifted it from a link where I found this channel. I just spend about thirty minutes watching various videos, it's quite revealing.

I stand corrected with respect to the propaganda campaign against Gypsies. I should've been more clear, though, formal legislation passed by the Nazis specifically targeted Jews (imposing obstacles on business, free association, university admission, enrolment in certain professions, etc). With respect to the triangles you are referring to, I stand corrected. I didn't know that prisoners were delineated in such ways within specific concentration camps. I'll clarify, Jews were the only group to have identification markings (in the form of the yellow Jude star) them as individuals as well as their places of association (businesses, schools, etc) in public, outside of the concentration camps. Still, your comparisons are ridiculous. To gloss over the unique targeting of Jews in the Holocaust illustrates supreme ignorance of the events.

The guy who seems to be the voice of UN Watch is Canadian, too. What a fantastic Canadian. He's obviously Jewish, too.

Check out this channel, it's fantastic. This group wrecks the UN's hypocrisy, specifically the UNHRC. Here's one of many videos, Richard Kemp briefly explains the IDF's moral conduct during Cast Lead (contrary to the Goldstone report's allegations):