Bob

To me it's not that complicated - it's like a border checkpoint. I was driving through the US earlier this month, going between Toronto and NYC. Guess what, when at the border I had to deal with an American border officer who had the right to search my stuff if he felt it necessary. The same thing is true when I returned home with the Canadian Border Services officer. I can't simply flip off the CBS officer and claim that I'm delivering humanitarian aid. Now, I'm aware of the differences between this example and what happened off the coast of Gaza. The status of the waters being international doesn't change the fact that Israel controls those waters to prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza. Israel doesn't legally own those waters, but it morally must control them to protect its citizens. If you remove the blockade, Israelis will be murdered. That isn't debatable. Israel has a moral duty to keep things out of Gaza as Gaza has shown itself to be a domain of belligerence. End of story. Those who condemn the blockade should consider if they had a hostile group/nation living alongside them, would you be concerned about letting that territory acquire chocolate and perfume? On a moral level, Israel is obliged and fulfils its role by allowing in the basics (food, clothing, medicine, etc), but cannot be expected to overburden itself by inspecting every single thing into the territory of Gaza. There's an element of hard feelings here, as well. Can you really expect Israelis to sympathize with Gazans, after thousands of rockets and hundreds of murders over several decades originating from that strip of land? What about the rhetoric coming from the bottom and the top of Gaza (Hamas leadership and ordinary folks in the streets espousing hatred of Israel and Jews)? Should Israelis ignore that? Simply imagine if a portion of Quebec exhibited but a fraction of this hostility towards Canada - would out hearts be bleeding to help out these people who we mostly view as anomic? Remember, most Israelis don't draw a sharp distinction between Hamas and Gazan resident - indeed, there is a great overlap between the two. Didn't Hamas apparently win the last election by a large margin? All I'm saying is that people should imagine that they were in a position similar to Israel, with a hostile neighbour: would you expect a blockade imposed by your government on the hostile territory to protect you? Of course you would.

Bonam - Just as a side note, it's interesting how so many Western liberals are Jewish. Evan Solomon and Avi Lewis come to mind from the Canadian perspective. Here's a video of Evan Solomon interview Hassan Moab Yussuf: With respect to Avi Lewis, for what it's worth, he's married to Naomi Klein - who we all know is very left-leaning. Just another Jew in the long list of hard leftists.

Look, you haven't even read a book about this issue and you're talking way above your head. If you really are interested in the peace process and the negotiations, successes and failures, that have been achieved between Israel and the Palestinians and Arabs with American involvement, there are many books available for you to read. You can start with Aaron David Miller's book 'The Much Too Promised Land' and Dennis Ross's 'The Missing Peace'. Both are insider accounts of the negotiations that took place. According the Miller, there have been three major successes - in 1956, 1975, and 1991. All involving the threatening/application of sanctions. Anyways, I won't elaborate further. If you're genuinely interested in learning about American influence on the Israeli-Arab conflict, its successes and failures, then those two books are a good place to start. Michael Oren's "Power, Faith, and Fantasy" is also a good book, going back much further and examining the history of the American involvement in the area, going back pre-Israel to the contemporary American-Israeli relationships. Like all things, this relationships has its strengths as well as weaknesses.

Prove that five of eight aid mission arrived in Gaza, peacefully bypassing the blockade.

Are you unable to read? I've listed just a handful of examples of Iran's "troublemaking" in the Middle East. Iran doesn't need to make a formal declaration of war against another country to be involved in criminal acts of murder. I think you need to stop posting. Stop talking, and start learning.

It's hardly that simple. You're trying to tie down the progress or halts of the peace process to Israel's settlement policies, while ignoring all other variables. It's clear you're either uninformed and/or incapable of being objective. It's clear that you know very little about this conflict, and perhaps more tragic - that you have very little desire to learn about it in an honest manner.

For those of you that don't know here, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim with an interesting life story. Born in Somalia, but raised in several other countries, she's become a prominent critic of Islam. I wouldn't say she's like Irshad Manji, who I would describe as a Muslim reformist, but more of a harsher critic of Islam. Although I think she's a bit puritanical on some issues (she seems to not-so-subtly suggest that Islam needs to be removed, or at the very least heavily modified), her insight is interesting. She's now an atheist and a critic of many forms of religious fundamentalism. She's very pro-'enlightenment', if you know what I mean. Holla at me if you're interested in listening to her audiobook - 'Infidel', which she narrates herself.

Obviously you don't care - you're not a stakeholder in this matter. You not caring about this issue tells the rest of us how seriously we should take your opinion. I'm Jewish, and I'm actually immigrating to Israel soon. I care. Your claim that Iran isn't a problematic country is false - Iran funds Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Taliban and other enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran's contributions have played a role in murdering Israelis living in areas near Gaza and in northern Israel near Lebanon. These contributions have also led to the murdering of Lebanese political opponents to Hezbollah, as well as bolstering Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon (a big problem for Lebanon and its democracy and freedoms). More importantly, Iran's contributions have led to the murdering of Canadian and American soldiers and other nationals operating in Iraq and Afghanistan - this you should care about. Not to mention the thousands of people murdered by Pakistani religious fundamentalist terrorism in contentious areas of Pakistan (Peshawar and Waziristan, I think). I'll add one more thing - Americans, by and large, surely have at least a moderate disdain for the Iranian government. Let's not forget Iran's restrictions on political/social freedoms. Remember the internet and cellular blockages? These are moves that are unthinkable in our liberal societies. Americans, being much more ideological than we are in Canada regarding civil liberties, no doubt find such actions abhorrent. How can Americans, the leaders in civil liberties, look kindly on a government that acts in opposition to their core values? What about the arrests of foreign journalists and allegations of espionage? Remember Canadian-Iranian Maziar Bahari? Go watch his interview with Fareed Zakaria where he talks about his experiences in Iranian jail. Another Canadian-Iranian journalist was beaten to death in a protest in Tehran in 2003. I just looked up her name - Zahra Kazemi. I am far from an expert on Iran, and these examples are just off the top of my head - I'm certain there are endless examples of Iranian intransigence towards the West. What about Ahmedinejad's hateful rhetoric against Israel and the West during his many speeches in Iran and abroad (i.e. at the UN and Columbia University)? You are either ignorant or completely ignoring these facts.

It's misleading to suggest that the USA's contribution of $3 billion per year to Israel is simply a handout without any tangible benefit. Take military R+D, for example, of course much of this R+D is shared with the USA. Let's not forget that Israel has a serious military R+D industry, and its contributions in this industry do directly benefit the USA. More broadly, as a matter of goodwill, this grant to Israel can be used as a carrot or stick, and of course will have some influence on Israel. I don't know specifics, but I imagine Israel shares intelligence with the USA regarding common threats, as well as maintenance of military infrastructure that might be used by the USA in the event of its needs. Is America getting good value for this contribution? That's not for me to say, but America's relationship with Israel, including the grants from America to Israel, is both moral/ideological and practical. That's not to say that if Obama was serious about prioritizing the Israeli-Arab conflict (and I don't think he is), he could lean more heavily on Israel to get particular concessions (as well as the PA) using the annual grants as both a carrot and stick - although he needs congressional approval to make changes to this. Anyways, it's complicated!

To naomiglover and BCMan: Both of you are parroting the false argument that is popular online that the American government, and by extension its foreign policy is "controlled" by AIPAC and other interests groups (i.e. "rich Jewish businessmen" and "Christian Zionists"). Perhaps you feel that your position is strengthened (or maybe it was even created) by the book "The Israel Lobby". More outrageously, naomiglover suggests that AIPAC can determine who does and who does not become the President of the USA! Although it's unfortunate that this silly argument pops up so often regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict and the American-Israeli relationship, I'll try to address just a few of the major problems with this argument. To suggest that the White House calls AIPAC before it makes a decision on any Israeli-Arab conflict issue before taking a position is absurd. Do you think Obama calls AIPAC for permission to take a particular position on any given issue regarding Israel/Palestine? To suggest that AIPAC calls the shots on American foreign policy is rejected by many prominent folks who are on the inside of American diplomacy and foreign policy. Aaron David Miller, Dennis Ross, and Peter Gergen are just a few of former insiders who reject this suggestion. I'll trust them when they say that no decision regarding Israeli-Arab peace, small or large, was ever made based on consultation with AIPAC or some other lobby/interest group. Considering they've all retired from public service and are now free from most (if not all) political considerations, they're trustworthy. At the very least, they're much more trustworthy that Mearsheimer, Walt, or all of their fans who perpetuate this myth of control exerted by the "Jewish lobby" over the American government. BCMan - You are wrong to suggest that most Americans "hate" AIPAC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll assume that by extension of this statement you're suggesting that the majority of Americans hate their country's support of Israel (at the government and grass-roots levels). No poll supports your position. It's been said before, but just because some random person online says something doesn't make it true. For better or for worse, poll after poll shows strong American public support for Israel in many ways. There's an element of the chicken-and-egg concept going on here that you two (and countless other anti-Israel persons) are confused about. You assert that AIPAC and other related lobby/interest groups shape American public opinion, which is perhaps somewhat true. More importantly, however, is that AIPAC exists more as a consequence of strong American support for its cause. AIPAC isn't a lobby funded by corporate profits, like industrial lobbies, but a purely grassroots lobby. You think Exxon or Wal-Mart make contributions to AIPAC? How can a grassroots lobby be prominent without grassroots support? Put simply, AIPAC is the product of American support for Israel much more than it is the generator of American support for Israel. Ironically, AIPAC wishes nothing more than to be as powerful as its opponents claim it is, and AIPAC benefits from the false perception held among many that it is all-powerful - as politicians who buy into the falsehood of AIPAC's ability to make or break political careers will feel pressured to pander to AIPAC, whether or not they or their constituents sincerely desire those positions. I could go on much more, as the endless list of false arguments and "evidence" of AIPAC's influence and power can mostly be refuted (Dershowitz, and several others, have trashed "The Israel Lobby", refuting the book and a point-by-point basis), but I've said my peace. The bottom line is that the argument about a small group of influential ideologues (i.e. the Jews, or "the Zionists" - a euphemism for Jews) seems to be an argument made by anti-Israel folks and organizations to excuse their own inadequacies in shaping American public opinion and American foreign policy. It's easier to blame someone else for your own shortcomings and the weaknesses of your own positions.

I remember watching a couple of lectures regarding the Iranian nuclear threat, I think one was from Aaron David Miller and the other from another Middle-East professor/expert (Dennis Ross, I think). How can we really stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, anyways? Sanctions obviously won't work, and many countries simply don't take the threat seriously as they don't feel threated (Russia and China, specifically). Israelis and their government obviously view Iran's future acquisition of a nuclear weapon as an existential threat - and likely will feel compelled to strike Iran to prevent harm befalling them. Let's not forget Iran's ENDLESS hostile rhetoric towards Israel and not-so-subtle anti-semitism. Israel legitimately feels threatened. So let's assume Israel (and/or other countries) attack Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities. Then what? Will Israel be in a position where it needs to "mow the lawn" on some sort of regular interval every time Iran gets close to acquisition of a nuclear weapon as time goes on? Is that sustainable? It saddens me to resign myself to thinking that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear device seems unavoidable. Anyways....

In case you don't know who he is, Aaron David Miller was an advisor to three administrations on the Arab-Israeli conflict, working for 25 years (three different administrations). He has quite the inside perspective on these issues as he worked closely wit the major leaders. Here he speaks broadly about these issues. He also briefly talks about the organization of which he is now president, "Seeds of Peace", which is like a summer camp for youngsters from various backgrounds to promote greater integration and bridge-building - i.e. Israeli and Palestinian teenagers coming together.

That's a little bit different, though... Nike and other apparel companies (I think the controversy you're talking about came quite a few years before WalMart became the giant we know it to be today) largely conduct their operations in other countries, within the bounds of the laws of those respective states. So our laws regarding mandatory education up to a certain age don't apply in places in Malaysia and India. Unless our free-trade agreements say otherwise, Nike and other apparel companies (and countless other manufacturing firms) can conduct their operations in other countries in compliance with the laws of those countries. More often than not, the standards (safety, wages, etc) of large multinational firms eclipse the standards of smaller, more local places of employment. I sure hope you're not trying to suggest that these large firms are doing something evil by conducting business operations in poor countries.

What in the world does the slave trade have to do with the recent oil-rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? What current business/corporate operations are going on that are in the same league as slavery? I think you're getting way off topic for reasons I can't begin to fathom... I don't see the connection between free trade and child labour. Perhaps you're suggesting that increasing demand of goods produced with child labour in countries like Canada exacerbates child labour? If that's the case, and if it's something we should avoid encouraging, then the free-trade agreements can address the issue with how they're composed - i.e. stipulations restricting the free trade of goods produced with the input child labour. What in the world is "the abortion industry"? We already do that, and of course you're right that we can analyze how effective existing laws are and how well they're enforced with respect to corporate behaviour. I probably should have asked this at the beginning of my reply, but what does this have to do with the original question (a silly question, I should add) of whether or not corporations should have their corporate status revoked from the government after particular transgressions?

We already have many vehicles through which the public is involved in affairs of corporations. There are endless examples, but off the top off my head I can think of regulatory agencies such as the CRTC, FINTRAC, and Health Canada. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Many corporations also operate outreach programs to better coordinate their operations with the public and other stakeholders, whether it be townhall-type discussions with some communities where Walmart wants to build a new operation between some of its management and the residents of the community, to more simple things like questionnaires and polling. With respect the the main thrust of this thread, which is clearly associated with the unfolding events resulting from the BP oil rig disaster, there already many regulations in place from the government regarding these operations. I am hardly an expert on such matters, but let's not pretend that business operations are conducted without any precautions. Mistakes happen, and as time goes on there will be reviews of the efficacy of current regulations and how they're enforced. Your posts in this thread seem to suggest that there is no enforcement of the public's best interests which respect to corporate operations. If that is your suggestion, you're simply wrong.

That's not a bad way of putting it. The main message I wanted to convey is that there isn't anything wrong with acknowledging differences between us, which are often connected to our cultural/religious/ethnic backgrounds. There's nothing bad about differences. We shouldn't walk on eggshells when examining them, although of course this is easier said than done. These cultural/religious/ethnic differences are often important components of many of individuals, and it unites many members of particular groups on certain issues. Let's take a contemporary political example, I think I read that 85%+ of Americans who identify themselves as "black" voted for Barack Obama. There's an example of a political issue upon which an overwhelming majority of a particular group was united. I'm certain the motivations behind this group's widespread support for Obama is at least in part connected to a shared sense of history and common experience among black people in the USA. That's quite a difference from other groups, and there's no problem in acknowledging it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. That second sentence seem contradictory to me. It doesn't make sense to me.

Why do differences need to be resolved? Conflicts and disputes need to be resolved, but differences? What is wrong with differences between various groups of people (either cultural, religious, ethnic, etc)? Isn't the primary virtue of Canada that we are free to express our differences without fear of discrimination? Don't you see how condescending it is to describe a culture's history and collective memory as "ridiculous cultural baggage"? These experiences, for better and worse, help shape cultures into their distinct identities. I'd like to tell me if you believe that distinct identities are contributing factors towards conflict. In other words, do you hope for a future world where cultural identities are diminished or even completely erased, and that we all be united simply as humanity and not as member of subcategories? Do you hope to live in a world that is post-identity/post-nationalist?

I'm going to try to bring this conversation back to its core, as we've clearly gone off on too many tangents. Let me elaborate on my initial contention that people often have important differences between one another as a result of their distinct cultural identities. Many people don't have a strong sense of cultural identity, and I think they're often confused by this concept. To elaborate a little on my Jewish identity, I feel connected to a broader collective of people - the Jewish people. I feel that I am part of something bigger than myself, and that I've inherited a particular history and have a role to play in a particular future. I have a spiritual, emotional, and moral connection to our history, from our emancipation from Egypt to our suffering of the Holocaust. I am quite sure that my experience when visiting the Holocaust Museum in Washington or Yad Vashem in Jerusalem is different from that of non-Jews. Although not exclusive to Jews, I know that a particular focus on education was instilled in me from my parents that is connected to pressures put on previous generations of Jewish people. That's not to say that there aren't other groups and individuals who strongly emphasize higher education, but there's a distinct Jewish focus on academics that's unique. I have a unique sensitivity to anti-semitism and all other forms of unjust prejudice resulting from a personal connection to these evils. I observe, to a certain degree, a religion that is very different from other religions. This religion (as well as the collective history of the Jewish people), to a point, also contributes to my political, personal, academic, and professional values. I know that many of the things I've listed above are broad in nature, but I use broad terms specifically because there is a lot of flexibility and variation in how Judaism affects me and other Jews in all facets of our lives. I simply cannot even begin to tackle the endless nuances in a discussion forum. The bottom line is, we're not all the same. When you say you don't view us as different, but perhaps you should. We're different, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. The other bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with these differences and alongside them, are many core values that unite Jews and non-Jews in free countries.

What "Jewish zeolots" want to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount? I'm not a particularly religious Jewish person, but the I must've missed the notice in the weekly Jewish bulletin of the return of the Messiah...

Of course I feel connected to my history. You seem to be in favour of this post-identity thinking, where the utopia is a world free of differences. By extension, perhaps you view the shedding of heritage of cultural identity as a progressive move towards a world free of conflict caused by the barriers erected by cultural difference(s)?

It's not really for you to decide to what degree a particular component of one's cultural identity is meaningful to others. Like I said earlier, there are many ways in which you and I are different simply because of our varying backgrounds. There's nothing wrong with these differences. That doesn't mean that we are no united in many profound ways, as well. Differences and commonalities are not either/or components of who we are. We can be very different in many ways and be very united in other ways. Are you serious? You don't think my connection to those events differentiates me from you? Do I really need to explain how the Holocaust and my family's experiences in WWII impart a a unique component of Jewish contemporary history? It's one of many events in the Jewish collective memory. I don't know what your heritage is or to what degree you are connected with it. Very broadly, heritage and one's connection with his or her heritage can be a very important part of one's personal and collective identity. Does that really need to be said? Please do not perceive what I am about to say as patronizing, but it seems to me you don't know what psychopathy is. An act (such as torture) cannot be psychopathic. An act can be performed by a psychopath, and particular patterns between acts and the motivations of those acts can paint a picture of psychopathy. Indeed, psychopaths are VERY different from the rest of us. So, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... I have a little experience with this subject, as I took some electives in psychology, but more specifically - I've read these two book by this Canadian professor from BC who apparently is the premiere worldwide authority on the subject. I think his name is Robert Hare, and he wrote two books, one called "Without Conscience" and the other one called "Snakes in Suits". I don't think it's that abstract to define common values that unite us. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to be oneself (religion or lack of religion, culture, language, political beliefs, sexual orientation, etc), and all the things that make this country great. Of course there are particular limits on these freedoms when they begin to seriously infringe on the freedoms of others, but we're mostly on the same page on these issues. I think you're right. I believe that the values I've listed above, although manifesting themselves differently in different countries, are universal. I'm not talking about genetic differences. I'm talking about cultural differences, which can often be very profound. These profound cultural differences can also be totally ok, provided that they don't run contrary to our shared cross-values that I listed above. As an example, if my culture is opposed to democracy, this cannot be reconciled with your culture. So, as a consequence, my culture must acquiesce before democracy in order to be accepted into your culture. There's no need to reject cultural identity unless it run contrary to cross-cultural values such as democracy. I'm not sure what your second statement is getting at. I don't see how our foreign policy is based on the "rejection of fundamental principles of human rights". Huh? You've lost me... since when did we support the overthrow of democracy in Haiti? What does this have to do with our original dialogue about identity and differences between cultures. Remember where this conversation started - I rejected your assertion that we are the same. We're not the same. And that's totally fine. Of course we are united on many core issues and beliefs, but we are still very different simply as a result of our cultural identities, let alone our own personal quirks (what we do for a living, our hobbies, favourite foods, etc).

Maybe. I still stand my intuition telling me that she's not a convert.

Can both differences and similarities both be profound? I can assure you that our histories are greatly different. Our differing histories affect our cultural identities. We are also both Canadians, and I'm sure we probably both share certain Canadian sensibilities, which are meaningful. I don't think the differences between myself and non-Jews are trivial, nor do I think the similarities between myself and non-Jewish Canadians are trivial. They're both profound and meaningful. Not really. I don't think I got much in common with Paul Bernardo, even though he does have two legs, two arms, and blue eyes. I did not mean to be patronizing, but here you are doing it again - confusing liberty with libertarianism. By the same logic we can equate the CPC with conservatism as an ideology. They are not synonymous. I'm certain you and I are on the same page, generally speaking, with respect to liberties 9as are most Canadians). We probably both believe that all people should be allowed to conduct themselves how they want as long as they don't infringe on basic freedoms of others. I can practise my religion, you can practise yours, and other are free to not practise if they so wish. We can vote, organize politically, own property, etc... Not all people, however, are in favour of these liberties. I understand what you're getting at, but I'm sure you'd concede that more Canadians would have opinions on these issues more closely resembling other Canadians than with the opinions on these issues held by Taliban card-carrying members. The differences between various groups around the world certainly aren't always trivial. These similarities don't apply to everyone equally. If, for example, we were to label "prejudice" and "intolerance" under your "moral weakness" category, then I'm sure we'd find many more folks from Egypt with that moral failure than in Canada. Again, we're definitely not all largely the same. This is certainly not an example of a trivial difference. This is an example of difference on a value that we cannot reconcile, however. In other words, I cannot an individual or a group of individuals who reject fundamental principles of human rights. On the other hand, there are many profound differences which enrichen our lives and do not cause strife. Religious differences, for example. Perhaps you attend some church on religious holidays? Perhaps you observe particular holidays which are meaningful for you in a spiritual way? Perhaps there are certain memorials you observe (both sad and happy) which are unique to your cultural identity? These are the healthy and strong difference I was getting at earlier. Absolutely true. I disagree. At both an individual and collective level, there are often major differences. Many are good and healthy differences, sometimes they are problematic and irreconcilable.

I think she's an Arab. She's got an Arabic name and pronounced it with a good Arabic accent.