Harper blames Israeli stance for UN snub

[dre]

Then why are you doing it?

Iv done nothing of the sort in fact I didnt say a word about that. I merely poked you, so that I could watch you wretch around like a turrets syndrome sufferer screeching "NAZI! ANTI-SEMITE! HOLOCAUST DENIER! JEW HATER!!!".

Its hilarious entertainment for all!

The only statement I made on this topic is...

Its not at all helpfull for Canada to give either side a free pass. We should push both sides towards compliance in the areas where it is lacking.

Edited November 10, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Iv done nothing of the sort in fact I didnt say a word about that. I merely poked you, so that I could watch you wretch around like a turrets syndrome sufferer screeching "NAZI! ANTI-SEMITE! HOLOCAUST DENIER! JEW HATER!!!".

Its hilarious entertainment for all!

Is that what I'm doing...

What you're doing, though, is trying to rewrite history by removing those nasty figures that get in the way of making your particular brand of anti-Semitism seem politically correct.

[dre]

Is that what I'm doing...

What you're doing, though, is trying to rewrite history by removing those nasty figures that get in the way of making your particular brand of anti-Semitism seem politically correct.

Yeah... My brand of anti-semitism!

[DogOnPorch]

Yeah... My brand of anti-semitism!

Indeed. For example: The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. When I mention his role in the Holocaust your response is:

So either you do not believe that the Mufti was involved or you seek to make his role in the Holocaust as inconsequential and forgivable. Which is it?

[dre]

Indeed. For example: The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. When I mention his role in the Holocaust your response is:

So either you do not believe that the Mufti was involved or you seek to make his role in the Holocaust as inconsequential and forgivable. Which is it?

I explained that to you a half dozen times already. I never denied any of those things. I laughed at YOU, because youre pathetic and funny

Iv never denied the holocaust... not EVER. Iv never said anything in any way anti-semitic either. Ever.

The only reason you spout that kind of trash and label every single person that disagrees with you a Nazi, or an AntiSemite is because thats all that youre capable of. End of story.

[KeyStone]

Bashar Al-Assad: A Ba'athist, a rabid anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier...but sure...he's only seeking the "truth" about Kuntar's murderous actions.

It's amazing how Israeli apologists like to throw the term holocaust denier around.

He's not a holocaust denier and I challenge you to come up with some shred of evidence that he is.

But then again, intellectual dishonesty is your raison d'etre.

[DogOnPorch]

I explained that to you a half dozen times already. I never denied any of those things. I laughed at YOU, because youre pathetic and funny

Iv never denied the holocaust... not EVER. Iv never said anything in any way anti-semitic either. Ever.

The only reason you spout that kind of trash and label every single person that disagrees with you a Nazi, or an AntiSemite is because thats all that youre capable of. End of story.

So the answer is: the Mufti is inconsequential and forgivable.

[DogOnPorch]

Bashar Al-Assad was quoted saying the Holocaust was "an alleged and invented story with no basis."

[capricorn]

"In a word, Israel is the only state in the world today - and the Jews the only people in the world today - that are the object of a standing set of threats"

Those are not Harper's words, they are Irwin Cotler's. Cotler has been using that phrase at least since 2003.

http://www.jcrelations.net/en/index.php?id=2071&format=print

Following is the keynote address by the Honourable Irwin Cotler at the founding conference of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA)

---

In a word, Israel is the only state in the world today - and the Jews the only people in the world today - that are the object of a standing set of threats by governmental, religious and terrorist bodies seeking their destruction.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/21/irwin-cotler-the-global-reawakening-of-anti-sematism.aspx

Hamas was told that they should try to effect change through the political process. So, they ran, got elected and what happened?

Let me repeat from my earlier post what Hamas did after they took power.

FP: Today, I'd like to talk about the way Hamas has governed Gaza since taking it over by force in 2007. But first, please briefly review the thesis of your new book Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle For Palestine.

Schanzer: My new book documents the ongoing political and military struggle between the two largest Palestinian factions – Hamas and Fatah – dating back to 1988. Today, as a civil war rages in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel, the international community cannot even identify a legitimate Palestinian interlocutor. The book looks at how we arrived at this difficult place.

FP: Please tell our readers about the June 2007 war between Hamas and Fatah.

Schanzer: In a word, it was brutal. The battle for Gaza lasted a mere six days. Fatah’s forces, trained and armed by the United States and other western nations, failed miserably. Some left the field of battle. Others joined the Hamas fighters. Those who stood their ground were likely not prepared for their brutal enemy. According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Hamas violence was indiscriminate, demonstrating a willful disregard for the conventions of war. Hamas fighters pushed Fatah members from the roofs of tall buildings. Hamas even killed people who were already injured, or shot their enemies at point-blank range to ensure permanent disabilities. Hamas also attacked private homes and apartment buildings, hospitals, ambulances, and medical crews. All told, the June fighting claimed the lives of at least 161 Palestinians, including 7 children and 11 women. Some 700 Palestinians were wounded.

FP: What happened when the guns fell silent?

Schanzer: Hamas began to govern through a combination of violence, authoritarianism, and Islamism. Ismael Haniyeh, the ascendant ruler of Gaza, officially denied accusations that Hamas intended to establish an Islamic emirate. However, by November, the British press reported that “only believers feel safe” in Gaza and that “un-Islamic” dress sometimes resulted in beatings. According to a UN report, women “felt coerced to cover their heads not out of religious conviction but out of fear.”

The new Hamas government attacked the media and peaceful demonstrations, and engaged in the “destruction, seizure, and robbery of governmental and non-governmental institutions,” according to one human rights report.

In short, the few reluctant steps toward liberalization that the PA had taken during its 13-year rule in Gaza—small advances in press and political freedoms, for example—were wiped out in days.

That's what happened.

Did they have a voice? No, Canada and other countries refused to speak with them and cut off aid to Palestine effectively undermining their authority.

Imagine that. Undermining the authority of butchers and tyrants. To me, that sounds like the right thing to do.

True. Ignatieff likes to surf the polls, to determine which of two 'uncompromising' positions he will take while still leaving a little wiggle room to change his mind, should the polls go the other way.

You have to wonder. Who are the nitwits providing him advice.

[DogOnPorch]

My mistake: Bashar al-Assad said he didn't have...

any clue how Jews were killed or how many were killed

Khaled Meshaal said "an alleged and invented story with no basis."

[KeyStone]

Bashar Al-Assad was quoted saying the Holocaust was "an alleged and invented story with no basis."

No DOP, he did not.

Please do your research before you throw out accusations such as holocaust denier.

You were a little quick on the draw when you did your cut and paste.

What I am curious about, is what source you used when you accepted without question that he was a holocaust denier.

Their obvious bias, should provide a clue as to the accuracy of the information you're receiving.

[DogOnPorch]

No DOP, he did not.

Please do your research before you throw out accusations such as holocaust denier.

You were a little quick on the draw when you did your cut and paste.

What I am curious about, is what source you used when you accepted without question that he was a holocaust denier.

Their obvious bias, should provide a clue as to the accuracy of the information you're receiving.

Read my previous post.

[KeyStone]

Read my previous post.

Alright, fair enough.

Do you think the quote from him is enough to label him a holocaust denier?

[KeyStone]

Those are not Harper's words, they are Irwin Cotler's. Cotler has been using that phrase at least since 2003.

http://www.jcrelations.net/en/index.php?id=2071&format=print

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/21/irwin-cotler-the-global-reawakening-of-anti-sematism.aspx

Let me repeat from my earlier post what Hamas did after they took power.

That's what happened.

Imagine that. Undermining the authority of butchers and tyrants. To me, that sounds like the right thing to do.

You have to wonder. Who are the nitwits providing him advice.

Alright, it was Cotler, not Harper.

I can't stand Ignatieff and don't intend to vote Liberal until they remove him.

In Ireland, there was a terrorist group (Sinn Fein) who decided to become part of the legal process for change. They were supported in this, and no longer operate as a terrorist entity. The world could have tried to do the same with Hamas, but instead we chose to be morally righteous and 'refuse to negotiate with terrorists', even if that same support might hurt Israel in the long run. I mean, shit, we're talking about talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they weren't even elected.

The problem is that Israel no longer needs peace. The powers of the world are on their side. If the Palestinian negotiators have influence over the terrorists, than Israel refuses to bargain with terrorists. If the Palestinian negotiators are unable to control the terrorists, then Israel sees no point in talking, since they are unable to deliver what Israel demands as a requirement for negotiation.

[Battletoads]

We should have also pushed Nazi Germany towards compliance where lacking if we follow this yayo's line of thinking.

When without a real argument compare your opponents position to something involving Nazi Germany.

[KeyStone]

Yeah... My brand of anti-semitism!

Yes, your brand of anti-semitism is called New anti-semitism., also known as criticism of Israel.

That is the new load of BS the Jewish lobby groups are pushing.

Clearly, because Israel is so awesome and blameless, anyone finding fault with Israel is engaging in new anti-semitism, or so the flow of logic goes.

I'm absolutely amazed how Israel not only whitewashes the killing of children on a fairly large scale, but also villainizes anyone who finds fault with the killing of innocent children.

[dre]

So the answer is: the Mufti is inconsequential and forgivable.

Yeah DOP... Thats the answer

[DogOnPorch]

When without a real argument compare your opponents position to something involving Nazi Germany.

Except the Mufti was an actual Nazi and his gang-o-thugs still runs the show in the area.

KeyStone: Alright, fair enough.

Do you think the quote from him is enough to label him a holocaust denier?

Most certainly. He doubts both the numbers murdered and the manner in which it happened. When I hear 'Holocaust', I think around 5-6 million dead Jews (plus a million or so others)...murdered by shooting/gassing/starving/medical experiments/typhoid inducing conditions/etc. Don't you?

Yes, your brand of anti-semitism is called New anti-semitism., also known as criticism of Israel.

That is the new load of BS the Jewish lobby groups are pushing.

Clearly, because Israel is so awesome and blameless, anyone finding fault with Israel is engaging in new anti-semitism, or so the flow of logic goes.

I'm absolutely amazed how Israel not only whitewashes the killing of children on a fairly large scale, but also villainizes anyone who finds fault with the killing of innocent children.

I never mentioned Israel or if it is blameless or not. That's your job. My job is to point out the Palestinian Cause's actual Nazi roots.

Edited November 10, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Battletoads]

No, you're not the only one. Refusing to recognize clear cut right and wrong is a popular tenet of modern liberalism. Somehow, it's never a case of one side doing something truly wrong. Everyone is always equally nice and conflicts come about from people making honest mistakes and having misconceptions about each other.

However, despite being popular this view is hardly a logical one. There are bad people and there are bad governments. There are also governments that may not necessarily be "evil" but are direct rivals for our own. Sometimes one must be willing to make a strong stand of resistance.

The Arab states invaded Israel first. That is historical fact. They lost. They did it again and lost. Israel was left in the position of having occupied lands during these conflicts. Whenever they have made any effort to return them their enemies have used them as new convenient points to mount rocket launchers and spend their recreational time lobbing literally thousands of shells at random into Israel, hitting everything from the city dump to the city hospital, from schools to children at home in their bedrooms. This too is historical fact.

It's true that during Israel's retaliations there have been innocents injured and killed from time to time. That's unfortunate. It's important to note that often this body count is higher than necessary because groups like Hamas use their own as human shields. Either Israel will be deterred or blamed for killing civilians afterwards. Either way is deemed a positive by Hamas.

If you are a woman that doesn't want to walk around with a bag over her head, or a gay who would like to hold his lover's hand during a walk, would you rather do it in Israel or an Arab country? Or a woman who wants to drive a car, go to school or even treated by a doctor?

To me, trying to make some sort of moral equivalency with both sides makes no sense at all. It's not a case of trying to be liberal and fair. It's simply a cop out from making a moral judgement!

Unfortunately Israel has crossed the line far too many times for their pros to outshine their cons.

[M.Dancer]

Unfortunately Israel has crossed the line far too many times for their pros to outshine their cons.

That's a semi interesting statement. Are you saying then, had they only crossed the line a few times less, it would be okay? What is the cut off point? Cross the line twice, okay, cross the line 25 times, still okay...cross the line 26 times and that's too much.

Here's the thing. Any nation will willingly cross the imaginary line each and every time they feel they need to in order to protect and safegaurd the lives of their citizens. After all, the line is only a construct, the lives of citizens, and the lives of the enemies you are trying to kill, are real.

[Moonlight Graham]

Harper has taken a principled stand and he is willing to take the hits for it.

This is what i thought at first too, but after some thought I'm really a bit skeptical. Politicians, especially those on our Hill, don't often take tough/controversial "principled" stands on issues unless it is somehow to their political gain to do so.

I'm honestly torn. And when it comes to politics, when in doubt, err on the side of politicians being lying power-hungry sacks of crap.

[Wild Bill]

The conflict doesnt fit your simple back and white perspective.

Both sides in the dispute have commited serious transgressions against each other, and both have thumbed their noses at the law.

Its not at all helpfull for Canada to give either side a free pass. We should push both sides towards compliance in the areas where it is lacking.

Show me where Israel has launched a full scale invasion of its neighbours'lands.

Show me where Israel has deliberately targeted civilians. As I said, sometimes there's collateral damage. That is NOT the same as deliberately targeting innocents!

Show me an example of an Israeli suicide bomber.

Show me an video clip of Israelis beheading a Palestinian prisoner with a knife!

If you believe that the two cultures are morally equivalent then I'm afraid you and I have no common ground on this issue. Targeting innocents to me is the mark of animals, not human beings.

[Argus]

Arguably, one can say that the state of Israel is under threat, but to suggest that Jews worldwide are the only people under threat is absurd? Roma are constantly under threat around the world, as are homosexuals.

This is bullshit, of course. It is the kind of excuse making nonsense liberals write in discomfort at their own illogical and immoral positions.

The Roma are under threat? Gays are under threat? How many armed organizations around the world have pledged the death of Roma or Gays in the last few years? How many murderous terrorist attacks have been carried out against Roma and Gays? How many world religious leaders have vowed to destroy the Roma or homosexuals? How many nations are trying to acquire nuclear weapons to use against the Roma?

In point of fact, the only places where gays are under threat from anything other than drunken rednecks - is in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia alone executed 18 people for homosexuality last year. Yet where are the legions of liberals ranting against the Saudis? Where are all the indignant postings from you oh-so-concerned human rights campaigners about Saudi Arabia's treatment of women, or for that matter, Iran's?

[Argus]

Who would launch another holocaust? No one has suggested that.

"Kill the Jews wherever you find them--this pleases God, history, and religion." Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WW2, described as a hero of the Arab people by Yasser Arafat

"If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah

Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran, has threatened Israel with nuclear destruction, boasting that an attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small "sacrifice" from among the billion Muslims in the world.

It's worth noting he lost the 2005 election to Ahmadinejad - and was considered the MODERATE in that election.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Harper is standing up against anti-semitism, and that's fine.

The problem is that he is also standing up against what he calls 'new anti-semitism' which basically means criticism of Israel.

One wonders what motivates so many critical voices of Israel around the world given the undeniable fact that many, many, many other governments make worse, more consistent violations of human rights and yet escape their notice entirely.

Israel is one small nation beset by war. Bad things happen in war. What excuses the horrific human rights abuses in North Korea or Saudi Arabia - which you probably have never even given a thought to? What excuses the brutality, murder and slave labour camps in China, which supplies you with half the stuff in your house? And which you never pay any attention to? Why are there dozens and dozens of UN resolutions against Israel every year but none against Russia for what it's done in Chechnya?

Maybe it's simply because Israel is full of Jews.