Bob

Is that a joke? You don't think the broader Muslim community needs to do some serious introspection and more seriously tackle the problem of indoctrination and incitement? You don't think the broader Muslim world needs to liberalize many cultural practices that we find abhorrent (endorsement of terrorism, anti-semitism, advocacy of violence and propagandization of its people, intolerance of difference, misogyny, totalitarianism and restriction of political/social/religious freedoms, etc)? How can you expect Americans (or any other free nation) to look at you favourably when you practise things that we view as contrary to our most basic values? There's a gap to be bridged, for sure, but the primary responsibility for building this bridge lies with the broader Muslim world.

It says that the killed were UN observers, is that the same thing as a Canadian soldier? More importantly, it happened in a warzone. Do I need to explain what can happen to you if you're in a war zone? The responsibility definitely does not like with Israel, but with Hezbollah and its supporters (i.e. Iran). More importantly, this is irrelevant to this thread.

Perhaps WWII could have been avoided if we simply submitted to Nazi Germany.

That's the position of a spineless individual without principles. If your ultimate moral value is "no violence", then you will succumb to any force that threatens violence. You're unwilling to stand up in the name of what's right.

I reject your supposition that the demonstrations represent a security threat to Muslim well-being, or even a perceived threat among Muslims in NYC or the broader USA. An obscure website with a short list of victims of crimes who happen to be of Middle Eastern and/or Muslim origin HARDLY qualifies as evidence of your supposition. Please try to be more serious in here. A victim of crime who is a Muslim or Middle Eastern may or may not have been targeted as a result of his/her ethnicity/religion, so you have no argument. Muslims are safer in the USA, and ESPECIALLY in NYC, than anywhere else in the world. Spare me the hysteria of "Islamophobia". I will add, that I do find the messages at the demonstration disturbing and unsettling. They need to be addressed and disputed by strong leaders who stand up against discrimination. Signs that say "Islam = Terrorism", or other prejudiced labels have no place in a free country like the USA or place like NYC. Still, I doubt Muslims in NYC feel at-risk as a result of these demonstrations.

Now you're talking about something different - policy. You seem to contradict yourself, as in one breath you state that the Jewish people's overcoming historic adversity, particularly in the Middle East, is one of truth. Of course nobody can deny Jewish success in pre-Israel Palestine and the amazing country Israel has become since 1948, with all odds stacked against it, largely resulting from the hostility of its neighbours. In your next breath, though, you seem to suggest that Israel basing a policy on its experience isn't the same as "reality". Which is it, does Israel have a legitimate perception that it faces existential threats from its enemies or not? Moreover, what else but a people's own experiences can a people plan their future through policies? What should Israelis do, formulate a policy based on the perception of history of its enemies?

Although the Christian murdering the abortion doctor motivated by his perception of his faith has a commonality with the Muslim terrorists doing jihad on 9/11, let's not pretend that there is some sort of epidemic of abortion doctors being murdered on even the tiniest fraction of the scale that wholesale murder is being done by Islamic terrorists. Also, if a church and/or community is supporting/encouraging murderers and assaulter of abortion doctors, they need to be held to account - i.e. detain the entire congregation and eliminate these criminals. The main difference between these two examples between which you're trying to construct a parallel is the volume and venom of the two factions. When Christians start yelling out Jesus' name and going on wholesale mass murder sprees and teaching hatred of others on a widespread scale, you'll have a point. Until then, let's not pretend that Christian fundamentalism holds a candle to Islamic fundamentalism. You're right, the Jews aren't to blame for those deaths. The blame lies with Palestinian terrorists and their supporters. Out of curiosity, what story are you talking about? When were Canadian soldiers EVER in Gaza, let alone being killed in an Israeli strike? That's what I'm thinking. Certainly Muslims would never be in danger in NYC, or virtually any part of the USA - let's not pretend that the USA isn't the most multicultural and tolerant country. I do worry, however, that the anti-Islamic prejudice among many of the opponents of the proposal to build this Muslim community centre is so significant as to dissuade those who want to proceed with these plans from going forward. That would be a sad event for NYC.

Are you implying that America has something to apologize for towards Muslims, or that America and its citizens need to do a mea culpa to obtain Muslim forgiveness?

Machjo - The more I read about this story, the more I realize how prominent Rauf is to this project. He is clearly the project's spokesperson. So examination of his character is legitimate towards evaluating this project.

another video of a demonstration against the proposal.

Here are some relevant videos regarding this matter: Here's Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf making a presentation regarding the proposal to build the mosque. Here's a video illustrating the demonstration against the proposal, the types of messages here are clearly prejudiced against Islam and unacceptable. Although there's no question there are problems with the way Islam is practised by many Muslims (i.e. endless acts of terrorism and terrible political perspective and cultural practices), the people at this demonstration display no nuance and clearly put all Muslims in the same bucket. When listening to the criticisms presented by some of the demonstrators, I'm left wondering if we were to follow their positions, we'd have to oppose every mosque all over the country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XAF47pA9Rg I'll update my opinion on this matter as it's changed somewhat... the question here, as I see it, is whether or not the Muslim organization(s) motivated towards building this Muslim community centre feel that this is a battle worth fighting. In my view, this organization should be allowed to build this Muslim community centre, and should be permitted to do so without such adversity. The criticisms against this proposal are largely rooted in prejudice. The Islamic organization(s) behind this proposal, though, may feel that the time simply isn't right to fight this specific battle.

You're downplaying the Rauf's role. According to the article, he's one of the founders of the "Corboda House" franchise, which is the organization funding this new mosque. Clearly he's important enough in this organization's hierarchy to speak with the media about this and other matters. Certainly Raud is not the be-all-and-end-all of this project, but it's absurd to suggest that he can be equated to an ordinary patron of a church. An observation on Rauf's comments about Islam teaching brotherhood and sisterhood with "people of the book" (i.e. Christians and Jews). There's quite a massive gap between him telling us that Islam advocates solidarity between Muslims and Christians and Jews, and what is actually understood and practised by many Muslims. It's one thing to talk about how a faith should be, it's another thing altogether to examine how its followers actually behave. The difference being how one may think the world should operate and how the world actually does operate. Still, I stand by my position that if this organization has the money and the will to build this mosque, they should go ahead and build it. To submit to anti-Muslim sentiment would be similar to an admission of collective Muslim culpability for the 9/11 attacks (which I think at most is only somewhat true) - which is unfair to non-fundamentalist Muslims.

What I'm indicating here is that Jewish life in the region, the entirety of the Middle East, is a story of overcoming adversity. Whether living as second class citizens to the Muslims of the Arab world, or facing hostility and prejudice in the pre-Israel Palestinian mandate from the Palestinian Arabs, the nearly war-per-decade pattern with hostile surrounding countries (both governments and populations) and its internal Arab population as well as the occupied Palestinians. I wasn't isolating the current Iranian threat in my likening of your question to acquiescence to intransigence, but placing this current threat into a greater context of adversity Jews have dealt with and overcome for decades (and in the greater context of other regions, for centuries). Put simply: no, Jews will not bend over to accommodate Arab AND Persian intransigence by abandoning Israel.

Alright fine, allow me to clarify.... only Israel has a legitimate existential concern resulting for Iran's nuclear ambitions, given Iran's rhetoric combines with extensive historic Arab anti-semitism and anti-Israeli acts and declarations. Certainly there are other stakeholders in this issue besides Israel, but none of the concerns of non-Israeli stakeholders amount to a fraction of the threat Israel faces. So when you say "everyone is a stakeholder in the actions of Iran", you're obfuscating the degree of threat Israel faces. Questioning the immigration of Jews to Israel in the face of threats faced by Iran illustrates a non-understanding of Jewish history in Israel and the pre-Israel Palestinian Mandate. When have the Jews NOT faced adversity in this area? Do you think the early Zionist pioneers didn't face hostility from the Arabs in the late 19th century? What about the the wars in '48, '56, 67', 73', '82, and on and on and on... These events have never stopped Israel from absorbing Jewish immigrants. Abandoning Jewish immigration to Israel is equivalent to acquiescing to Arab intransigence.

I just read that link. It's quite ironic that this Imam (who's a big part of this project) feels that the Muslim world cannot reconcile with the West on principle, until an apology is issues and an acknowledgement of relations with dictators is made. It's great that he sees no responsibility on the shoulders of the Muslim world toward making this reconciliation, rather, the Muslim world needs to attack misconceptions advanced by the media. When a guy with an opinion like that is heavily involved in this development plan, it makes me question my initial position that this mosque should be allowed to be constructed.

Where do you find these fringe groups? How does some obscure group of perhaps five people factor into this story about the degree of public opposition to the construction of this mosque in this context? How can you even compare this fringe group website to your alleged mosque destruction of Hindus? I guess now we're equating fringe desires (remember that the Temple mount was built OVER the foundation of the destroyed Jewish Temple) to acts of desecration that allegedly took place. Would you describe the Muslims of the time who built the mosques over the remains of the Jewish Temple as zealots? How about the current Muslims who reside and manage the area barring non-Muslims from entry? When the messiah comes and this handful of people that somehow can afford to pay the ten dollar annual fee to maintain a website actually begin making moves to construct the third Jewish Temple, get back to me... I can only imagine what sort of trashy websites you frequent that you come upon these ridiculous stories.

Are you unable to distinguish between Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and your more vague statement of "the actions of Iran"? Do I really need to spell it out for you that Canada is hardly facing the same threat as Israel with respect to Iran? Does such an obvious point really need to be made? Are you actually implying that everyone has as much on the line with respect to Iran's future nuclear weaponization as Israel? How can someone who's intelligent enough to turn on a computer and log into a website say something so stupid? I am moving to Israel for many reasons, many of which you probably wouldn't understand. Just because Israel faces many threats doesn't mean that the Jewish people should give up. Your implication that Israel's existential concerns about its security are merely rhetoric used to justify its actions and aren't based on decades of terrorism, murder, and war illustrates how out of touch you are with reality. Perhaps you're ignorant of what Jews have dealt with in this land for the past century. I don't blame you, though, since it's unlikely that you care enough about this conflict (you're not a stakeholder) to do the required research to understand it. Contemporary history, to say nothing of older history of persecution of Jews around the world, if filled with endless anti-semitic declarations from all manner of involved parties, from grassroots anti-semitic demonstrations around the Arab/Muslim world for decades (and about a century in Israel and pre-Israel Palestine), to government officials and political VIPs. Why not make the next logical extension of your position... if Israel is such a dangerous place for Jews, why doesn't Israel implement a policy of emigration to evacuate the land and relinquish it to the Arabs? Posts like yours depress me - I begin to lose faith in the judgment of the average person.

Perhaps... let's see a reputable news agency report these incidents. Even if I accept the information in this link as truthful, it's quite a different story to transport a handful of activists to Gaza (which is still a risky proposition with respect to Israeli security) than one or more large ships carrying goods. This is important context absent from your original claim of five "aid shipments" from nine bypassing or breaking the Israeli blockade. Delivering activists is much different than delivering aid. Predictably, your original claim has evolved with every post you make in response to challenges for proof.

Perhaps you already know this, but Wikipedia information regarding controversial matters is to be heavily scrutinized. In all seriousness, Wikipedia is largely written by the some of types of people that we see frequenting these forums - zealous ideologues with too much time on their hands and not enough expertise. Allow me to be specific - the Wikipedia citation for proof that five out of the previous ten attempts of this "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" to break the Israeli blockade have been allowed to reach Israel is this article. The only statement in this article, of authenticity I doubt, is this sentence: "Normally, members of the international group aboard the flotillas are detained and deported. In the early days, before the Israeli invasion of Gaza in 2009, they were allowed to land. " An obscure newspaper without much of a presence in Israel or the Palestinian territories making a vague statement like this is hardly substantial proof of dre's earlier claim. Certainly you'd agree. I highly doubt that Israel has ever permitted any convoys to reach Gaza uninspected since Hamas' rise to power.

I'd like to see some proof of that. If it's true, then it doesn't bode well for the "activists" of this most recent flotilla, at least those aboard the Mavi Marmara.

It's very true - we here in Canada are benefactors of billions of dollars of American expenditures in military defense. Obviously I'm oversimplifying here, as America benefits from this relationship as well. One benefit that comes to mind is that I imagine there is a great deal of military/defense coordination between our two countries. Is America getting a big bang for its buck with respect to its defense spending that Canada benefits from? I don't know, but as with Israel, it isn't entirely a one-way relationship. Certainly there are many benefits shared by our two countries resulting from our relationship.

Activists arriving in Gaza isn't the same thing as saying that flotillas carrying aid have arrived in Gaza. There's a difference between activists arriving on some small seacraft at night evading the Israeli navy and a convoy of goods and people. I'd like to see secondary confirmation of this claim, also. Preferably from an Israeli or Arab news source. I find it unlikely that a small group of activists could evade the blockade, although anything is possible. Your provided quote is nowhere to be found in the article you've linked. You've yet to prove that Israel has knowingly allowed five ships carrying goods to Gaza without standard inspection. The fact is, there's no way Israel would allow such a thing during its blockade. I'm not sure how anyone could even suggest that Israel has ever knowingly given a green light to boats coming to Gaza without standard inspection since the implementation of the blockade.

Prove that five of eight aid mission arrived in Gaza, peacefully bypassing the blockade. You know what, don't even waste your time. I don't have any interest in reading your posts or replying to you.

It's already happened. Israel has loosened the blockade's restrictions and is in negotiations with Turkey over possible EU/Turkish oversight of border crossings between Israel/Gaza to facilitate the transfer of goods. Israel can be persuaded to do things differently through various means. Obviously the political process and negotiations are complicated, a complexity you don't seem to want to understand. Perhaps you're incapable of understanding? Politics isn't for everyone... It's clear to me that you're not here to have a serious discussion, and also clear that you have little to contribute to this forum - obviously you don't know anything about these issues. I won't waste anymore of your time or my own.

So you don't have any proof....