Bob

In other words, you've got nothing relevant to say regarding Ali's positions on Islamic incompatibility with Western liberal values. If you want to stay on-topic, please spare us your diatribes about her association with the AEI (a good association). I find her a bit too puritanical, but a lot of what she says needs to be heard by the naive and ignorant out there.

I love it... "if" someone said it....

I've spent enough time in this political scene to know what types of people are represented on the anti-Israel side. Beyond that, I am well-aware of widespread anti-semitism among Arabs and Muslims (the Mavi Marmara and most of the entire flotilla were Turks and other Arabs and Muslims). It's not an unreasonable assumption (especially looking at the vicious attack on the IDF) that anti-semitism was a strong theme among the "activists". With respect to the "go back to Auschwitz" comment (one of many examples of anti-semitism in these events, to say nothing of the violence which was entirely anti-semitic), imagine the type of environment it must have been for the person who said it to feel comfortable saying it in front of so many others. What type of vibe is present among that convoy where a person feels comfortable saying that type of hate-speech? What type of hate-filled anti-semites are aboard where a comment like that is accepted? Why do I even need to spell this out to you? You can't say you support Israel's right to self-defense in one breath, and then condemn it for these acts in the next. Condemning Israel for entirely justifiable actions to maintain its security (in the face of threats you ignore) isn't softened when you then say "I support Israel's right to exist".

Your expectations of how Israel should defend itself are absurd. You mistakenly think that violence against Israel and Jews abroad (as well as American and other interests) is entirely rooted in legitimate territorial grievances regarding Palestinians. This is an absolute falsehood. The very people you seem to be advocating for themselves reject Israel's existence and Jewish statehood and self-determination. Do you deny this? Do you think it will take me more than thirty seconds to link you to statements (forget about violent actions and murder) made by our enemies (Hamas, the PA, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and the hundreds of other Islamic terror groups)? You think these organizations have political positions regarding '67 boundaries? You think these organizations and others like them weren't murdering Israelis and Jews abroad for decades before '67? You are completely ignorant of real threats to Israel and Jews abroad, and you engage in discussion regarding this issue with such confidence? Your idea of "defense" is most likely Israel ceding to the demands of terrorists. Even better, maybe if we all disappear the world will be a peaceful place.

How is he correct? You've both ignored examples that illustrate that anti-semitism was a theme among the passengers of this ship. Am I inappropriately describing the "go back to Auschwitz" comment as anti-semitism? Should it instead be described as a legitimate political perspective? What about the ritual prayers of "battling the Jews"? Is that not anti-semitic? How about the desire for martyrdom? That isn't anti-semitic? How ignorant and blind do you have to be to not see the relationship between anti-Israel groups and anti-semitism? Go read websites, discussion forums, YouTube comments, talk to your Muslim friends and ask them about anti-semitism they were exposed to growing up, consult analysts of terror groups and Middle Eastern cultural trends, etc, etc, etc. Like many others, you two put your head in the sand regarding anti-semitism, despite the thousands of Jews murdered in the past few decades from Islamic terrorism. The ignorance isn't shocking to me, anymore, but it is sad. Where are the "human rights" groups rallying in the streets protesting terrorism and mass murder? The silence is deafening. Instead, these "activists" who you argue are decent people with legitimate grievances are instead burning American and Israeli flags and saying that if only Israel changed its ways then all would be well in the world.

Everything Israel does, in your eyes, is a war crime. It's very existence is a crime for you. There's something very, very, very wrong with you. It's tragic that you're apparently Jewish, but I bet you don't identify yourself as Jewish. I bet when asked, you say something like "my parents are Jewish", rather than "I am Jewish". Am I right? You're probably embarrassed about your own ethnicity...

So you deny the anti-semitic element of the violence that took place aboard the Mavi Marmara? You deny that anti-semitism is a primary driving force behind the preparations for (prayers before "battling the Jews" and desires for martyrdom) the hostilities among the agitators onboard? The "go back to Auschwitz" comment (which wasn't fraudulent, contrary to apologists) isn't indicative of a particular mentality among many of the agitators? It's pathetic, but unsurprising, that apologists for terrorism and Israel's enemies would look at the IDF video (and all the other information that's come out about these events) and still claim the IDF is the aggressor. You can never bend from your propagandistic tunnel-vision, so why am I even talking to you? You're pretty much in the pocket of the enemy.

Hostilities against Jews began long before there was ever even the concept of a "Palestinian" national identity. There was no occupation prior to 1967, yet thousands of Jews had been murdered by Arabs and Muslims prior to 1967, indeed... prior even to 1948. Let's not pretend that the conflict began in 1967, because it didn't. The political rhetoric and justification for the murder of Jews has evolved over time, however, with the justifications now being "occupation". You yourself justify these murders, as in one breath you reject a "few" Islamic terrorist groups (more like a few hundred), and in the next breath you preach their own justifications - occupation. Your own duplicity on the murder of Jews illustrated by this and many other of your statements (and non-statements) is shocking. You cry about how Palestinians have been treated for decades, what about how Jews have been treated by Arabs and Muslims for a century (and even beyond that, as second-class citizens (dhimmis) in the Ottoman Empire)? How about Jews being abused across the Arab world even more intensely after 1948 and fleeing to Israel and other parts of the world? Does that ethnic cleansing show up on your radar? Should they claim a right of return? How about Europe's Jews? Are these factors not relevant context to the story? What about the two major wars (and countless minor violent flare-ups) prior to '67? What about the rejection of the partition plan of '47 from all Arabs (before there was much of a meaning behind the "Palestinian" people)? Why is your starting point of the conflict the results of '67 and the subsequent occupation? You don't think the Jewish-Arab conflict began many decades before '67? Considering that Arab and Muslim hostility towards Jews began long before '67, it's simply a lie to suggest that hostilities towards Israel result from military occupation - they've been murdering us long before any occupation took place, and long before there was such a thing as "Palestinians". The fundamental change that needs to occur is Arab and Muslim acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state - Jewish self-determination. Better unpopular than dead. The world has NEVER, EVER looked favourably upon the Jewish people, and historic anti-semitism has now evolved to become anti-Israelism. Being criticized by countries like Russia and Poland doesn't bother me (countries with no record of human rights, let alone positive treatment of Jews). Israel gets the fundamental support it needs from truly free countries with credibility on the issue of human rights - the USA (world leader in human rights, by far), Canada, the UK, and others. Iranian, Chinese, and Libyan support isn't at the top of Israel's must-haves. And at the end of the day, self-preservation trumps popularity. We're not going to let ourselves be destroyed to appease those who hate us. I'm very willing to admit mistakes by Israel, but apologizing for self-preservation isn't something I'm about to do anytime soon.

Better unpopular than dead.

Wrong, if Quebec became a hostile belligerent to Canada - Canada would be legally and morally obligated to blockade the territory to protect Canadian security. Let's assume Newfoundland was hostile to Canada and continuously fired rockets into Canada, Canada would be legally and morally obligated to intercept all vessels attempting to arrive Newfoundland's ports through the Atlantic, so the "international waters" argument is absolute garbage. The legal concept of "international waters" doesn't trump the moral supremacy of Israeli lives and security. Are we supposed to apologize for not letting those who want to murder us rearm themselves because our ships can't stop terrorists from being resupplied in "international waters" by intercepting all incoming vessels? Your "shot in the back" comments are stupid. How else am I to interpret the proclamation of "go back to Auschwitz" from the Mavi Marmara and group prayer of "battling the Jews" that took place before the agitators attacked the IDF? Furthermore, attacking Israel's right to self-defense is synonymous with anti-semitism. If you undermine Israel's ability to defend itself, you're inviting that label upon yourself, as well.

They need to form a new political party that recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. We need to see open, vocal, widespread support of this position. Until then, you can't have meaningful peace. Lastly, to suggest that my acknowledgement of rampant anti-semitism in the Palestinian world and broader Muslim and Arab world is "lying" or "racist" ends this discussion. If you don't want to see the world the way it is, that's your problem. Those of us who know that anti-semitism is rampant among Israel's detractors (thousands of Jews murdered around the world from Islamic terrorism over past decades, as well as many more thousands of non-Jews murdered by Islamic terrorism with explicit anti-semitic motivations) don't need your acknowledgement of the truth. I don't know how many Jews have to be murdered simply for being Jews by Islamic terrorists before you acknowledge that anti-semitism is widespread among Arabs and Muslims. How many attacks must Israel defend itself from before you recognize its neighbours hostility to its very existence as a Jewish state?

This is beyond stupid... as I've already said, if you and I record the same thing, what sort of discrepancy are you expecting to see between our two recording? Much of the context of the Mavi Marmara hostilities is plain to see on the IDF footage. Do you think that the footage claimed to have been seized by the IDF which was shot by the violent extremists on the Mavi Marmara will show IDF soldiers boarding the vessel and NOT being viciously attacked (their safety and lives clearly at risk - two were even shot, several other stabbed)? There is no debate that the soldiers did what they were supposed to do and were met with much more vicious resistance than they expected - their safety and lives were at risk, and they did what they had to do. To even question this, to me, is beyond sick. Basically, you want these nineteen-year-old soldiers to die before they can defend themselves. The IDF videos shows us what types of people clashed with the IDF on the Mavi Marmara, and these people can certainly not be described as "peace activists". I think there was one Holocaust survivor. There are plenty of moronic and hate-filled MPs, out there. As astonishing as it might be to you, most anti-Israel "activists" are hate-filled anti-semites. I know these people, I've spend more time interacting with them and studying them than I care to admit. The Mavi Marmara didn't comply with IDF instructions to turn the ship towards Ashdod. If you don't comply, you're being openly hostile in a hostile theatre - do you not realize that Israel and Gaza are in the midst of hostilities with a very fragile cease-fire? Being shot in the back, if true, means nothing. If a person is violently attacking your team, and you're behind him, you may shoot him the back. Spare me your amateur-hour forensic analysis. Please also spare me your suggestion that the IDF doesn't conduct itself in a very moral manner. Your sarcastic "Ghandi" comment is insulting. Let's not compare the discipline and code of conduct followed by the IDF with the amorality of the Mavi Marmara agitators. To suggest that these are two "equal sides" is preposterous. As expected, some from the ship are lying about the events as they unfolded. Others, though, confirm the IDF account of what happened - for example rejecting the lies that the IDF was firing live ammunition from the helicopters prior to boarding the vessel. I haven't seen the reports indicating the the Israeli government suggested they were all Al-Qaeda, let alone the subsequent retraction. I've followed this story carefully, though, and it's clear that this entire incident was planned out - violent struggle, throwing weapons overboard, group prayers before "battling the Jews", and desires for martyrdom. They got what they wanted, and they duped a bunch of morons into buying their propaganda bullshit. Pretending that the violent folks aboard the Mavi Marmara who viciously attacked the young IDF soldiers aren't anti-semitic doesn't make it so. Spare me your feigned outrage, I know what anti-semitism is. It's not even that subtle - for example, look to the "go back to Auschwitz" comment from the Mavi Marmara in response to Israeli navy instructions to the ship to turn to Ashdod.

Who has succumbed to that position aside from Arab and Muslim opposition to Israel and Jewish self-determination?

It is happening, the UN is conducting its own inquiry into the incident, just another example of the absurdity of the UN. It took two months for the UN to respond to this act of war from NK. Look at how quickly the UN moved to investigate the deaths of nine "activists" (agitators) as they attempted to break Israel's blockade of Gaza - illegally. Double standard much? How about the hundreds of people murdered my terrorism per month in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan? Any inquiries there? Not really. The USA gave credit to Israel to conducting its own internal investigation (which includes two foreigners), but has not made any move to reject a UN inquiry into the incident. It's ridiculous - a convoy of openly anti-Israel "activists" (go to the Free Gaza movement's website and see for yourself how objective this organization is) try to run through the Israeli blockade in order to cause a political scene - knowing full well that most of the world is anti-Israel and attempting to exploit the expected media fallout. They wanted violence and they got it. If a group of agitators did that to Canadian border police they would've all been shot. The IDF videos show any honest observer how peaceful the folks on the Mavi Marmara are. The hatred one must have in one's heart in order to vicious attack the soldiers in such a manner is just another example of anti-semitism among Israel's enemies. These people aren't "peace activists", they are anti-Israel and anti-semitic "activists", and this is a prompting for international outcry?

I never made that generalization, but the actions of Arabs towards Jews since the late nineteenth century (as well as persecution of Jews in the Ottoman empire prior to this time) speaks for itself. Jews have been targets for Islamic terrorism for many decades, now - the widespread hatred of Jews among Arabs and Muslims worldwide is no secret.

Their crime is rejecting Israel and Jewish self-determination.

Clearly you're very ignorant about the pervasiveness of anti-semitism among Palestinians, and among the broader Arab and Muslim populations. Pretending it isn't there won't make it go away, however.

According to a video I just watched which Caroline Glick, Palestinians receive more aid than any other group in the world on a per capita basis. Is that an important fact in your warped perspective that foreign aid favours Israel? Did you ever consider the massive costs (material as well as social) Israel bears as a result of its hostile neighbours? What about the massive humanitarian work Israel has done for diaspora Jews (Israel has more immigrants as a portion of its population than any other country)? What about the massive destruction wrought on worldwide Jewry from the Holocaust, wiping out half of us and destroying/confiscating our assets and property? There's a lot of context you're avoiding here. With respect to keeping the discussion contemporary, we need to examine relevant aspects of history where appropriate, even if we do need to go ALL THE WAY back to the days of the Soviet Union sponsoring Israel's enemies. I reject this argument. Certainly America has been opposed to settlement construction for decades to varying degrees, and didn't want the perception to be that its grants to Israel were subsidizing Israeli expansionism. Let's not pretend, however, that settlement development is primary driver of this conflict. Arab hostility (i.e. murdering Jews) towards Jews has been going on long before 1967, indeed, long before 1948. Your statement above seems to suggest that Israeli expansion is a root cause of hostilities between Arabs and Israel. We know that that's simply not true. The primary driver of the conflict is Arab rejection of a Jewish presence and a Jewish state. Abu Mazen, an apparent "moderate", cannot bring himself to identify Israel as a Jewish state. When Israel's Jewish character is a fundamental component of its social fabric (not up for debate), and this reality isn't even acknowledged by an apparent "moderate" Arab leader, how is Israel to feel about its prospects for reconciliation with its enemies? Do we even need to go into Hamas' statements and actions? Lastly, it's a falsehood to suggest that Israel has had deliberate plans to expand itself in order to sabotage the peace process. Israeli expansionism has gone on for decades through many different administrations. According to what I've read from Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim, Jewish settlement in the West Bank and other territories seized after the Six-Day War began taking place within weeks of the cease of hostilities, if not days. If you read the memoirs of people like Golda Meir or Moshe Dayan (and countless other high-level officials involved in the settlement enterprise), it's never been a cohesive plan. It is largely ideological/political/religious, sometimes based on legitimate security issues, and sometimes based on necessary expansion to accommodate population growth (I'm sure there are other reasons). It's been a very impromptu process.

Are you joking me? You're comparing the Georgia-Russian war of 2008 to the events of the "Freedom Flotilla"? Since when was Israel above international scrutiny? The UN and international community condemns Israel more than any other nation, when there are endless examples of real problems occurring around the world that get virtually no attention, whatsoever. Do a search on the UN website and you'll find a volume of research on Gaza and the West Bank that eclipses other, more significant problems around the world - how about dictatorships in the Middle East denying basic social, political, religious, and economic freedoms? What about North Korea's oppression of its people and belligerence towards South Korea and other neighbours? I could list about twenty other examples of serious problems around the world that, when compared to the international focus on the Palestinians, are virtually invisible. Recently, when North Korea sunk a South Korean warship (hardly the first act of war perpetrated by NK), where was the international inquiry, when approximately 50 SK servicepersons were killed? You don't see major hypocrisy from the "international community" (Russia and China, as examples) when they condemn Israel for the recent events off the cost of Gaza, but sit on the fence with respect to NK and Iran (they need more information to take a position, apparently), not to mention their own internal problems of corruption and oppression? And the USA is hardly some sort of ally that "covers up" for Israel "no matter what". Where is the USA's support for Israel on this non-controversial issue of the "Freedom Flotilla"? It shouldn't be difficult for Obama to stand up for Israel's more than justified response to the deliberate provocation of the "Freedom Flotilla". Yet he remains silent and sits on the fence. How about Obama's statement that Israel's development of East Jerusalem is unacceptable, when he must know this is an issue most Israeli governments will not budge on (although Barak offered East Jerusalem to Arafat)? Is that your idea of full American support? lastly, the USA vetoing anti-Israel and anti-semitic proposals within the Security Council hardly constitutes "covering up". To even suggest that Israel is beyond scrutiny when it is scrutinized unfairly and held to ridiculous standards (by the media and politicians around the world) is a preposterous suggestion.

There's a difference between "supporting Israel" in the a broad sense and supporting every single policy from every single administration. The history of American-Israeli relations is long and complex. There have been worse relations in the part between the American President and the Israeli PM, (Bush Sr. and Shamir, Nixon and Meir, as examples). This is to mention nothing of the relationships between other relevant executives such a the American SoS and Israeli FMs. I've said it before, there's a lot of great memoirs out there from involved parties, and they document this complex relationship. Yes, the USA has contributed billions of dollars to Israel over the decades, but that doesn't nearly scratch the surface of American-Israeli relations throughout history. It's simply untrue to suggest that the USA has given Israel "blanket support". It also ignores the broader context of billions of dollars in foreign aid to the Arabs (from countries including the USA). The intent that people have when bringing up the Israeli-American relationship is to portray this conflict as unfair, with the USA only advocating for Israel - which simply isn't true and ignores a lot of relevant diplomatic context.

That's my view, exactly. For the most part, Jewishness and Israel as a Jewish state are inseparable.

By the same logic, attacking the Nazis would only make them angrier. Avoiding violence at all costs isn't a defensible moral principle, in fact - it's the position of one with no principles at all.

When did you point that out? Gazans aren't starving. Did you just write some report for school regarding the Goldstone report, is that why you cling to it so tightly (the only thing you've ever spent time researching, apparently)? It's news to me that the thousand casualties were civilians - how many terrorists were killed? Keep on worshipping at the altar of international law, as you perceive it. Wrap yourself up in terms like "human rights" and "justice" to make yourself feel better.

What does the Goldstone report have to do with Israel's blockade, let alone this discussion? Virtually nothing. Please stay on topic: you brought up this ICRC position, let's stay on this subject for a least a moment. Let's examine this statement: Israel's right to deal with its legitimate security concerns must be balanced against the Palestinians' right to live normal, dignified lives. Do you really consider this statement to balance the rest of the ICRC position? Where is the acknowledgement of Israeli casualties that have occurred as a result of rockets from Gaza? What about the obstruction of ordinary life and fear that results from thousands of attacks and constant running to bomb shelters? Since when is the well-being of Gazans a priority on Israel's agenda trumping the well-being of its own citizens? Put succinctly, the ICRC cannot deride the entire blockade (which undoubtedly is saving Israeli lives and is morally and legally justified as a means to protect Israel from hostilities), and then in a single sentence make an "acknowledgement" of Israeli security needs. It's completely oxymoronic, as the vast majority of the report wails on about hardship in Gaza, what about the hardship in Israel resulting from the rocket attacks? In your warped world, naomiglover, does such a report constitute a balanced approach, with no mention of Israeli security needs and concerns, no mention of Israeli hardship, but a token statement regarding these matters and a reference to Gilad Shalit. It's reflects poorly on the ICRC and its ability to examine this situation objectively. The statement might as well read, "Israeli lives must be balanced against the needs of Gazans for chocolate and jam". Israel does not need to apologize for prioritizing the safety of its citizens over the economic toll imposed by Gaza resulting from the blockade (which Hamas would've done, anyway, with respect to Israeli-Gazan commerce). So before you go rant on and on about this organization or that, let's at least deal with one issue at a time. I think perhaps it is you with the need for help with your attention span.