ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND CANADA

[CHUCKMAN]

ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND CANADA

John Chuckman

Canada's Thirty-Percent Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, just made a speech at a B'nai Brith banquet. Normally, there would be nothing notable in this, but his words this time reinforced controversial statements he made while Israel savagely bombed Lebanon. He also continued driving an ugly new Republican-style wedge into Canada's national politics after calling Liberal leadership candidates "anti-Israel."

Harper said that his government supports a two-state solution in the Middle East. That is the policy of most Western governments, and there was nothing original in Harper's way of stating it. It was the kind of vague, tepid stuff we might hear from Olmert himself.

"Our government believes in a two-state solution -- in a secure democratic and prosperous Israel living beside a viable democratic and peaceful Palestinian state."

It is interesting to note the lack of symmetry in Harper's "secure democratic and prosperous Israel" versus "a viable democratic and peaceful" Palestine. I don't know why prosperity does not count for Palestinians, but as anyone who understands developmental economics knows, prosperity is key to developing modern, democratic institutions. You only get the broad middle-class which makes democracy possible out of healthy growth.

I suspect Harper was signaling, while calling for peace with two states, hardly a stirring theme for a B'nai Brith audience, that he saw no equivalency to the two sides. If not, perhaps he will explain another time what he did mean.

Harper did not define what he means by viable. Palestine, as anyone familiar with the situation knows, cannot be viable as a walled-off set of postage-stamp Bantustans, the only concept of a Palestinian state Israel has ever considered.

The key element in Harper's statement is what he means by democratic and peaceful. Those words are not so self-explanatory as they may first appear. Both these adjectives are regularly twisted in meaning, particularly by the United States.

Hamas won an honest and open election in Palestine, internationally scrutinized, but the result of that election was rejected by Harper and others, inducing chaos into Palestinian affairs, the very thing Israel's secret services likely intended when they secretly subsidized Hamas years ago to oppose Fatah. Hamas has not learned the required mantra about recognizing Israel, yet Hamas is no threat to Israel, or plainly Israel's secret services would never have assisted it in the first place.

Hamas is not well-armed, nor is it, surrounded and penetrated by Israel, in a position to become so. Israel speaks as though not recognizing Israel is an unforgivable defect, but governments often fail to recognize other governments. The United States has a long list of governments it has not recognized in the past and ones it does not recognize now. This is not always a smart thing to do, but it is not a crime, it is not even a faux pas, and it may just be a negotiating point.

Hamas has not invaded Israel, nor has it conducted a campaign of assassinating Israeli leaders - both actions Israel has repeated against Palestinians countless times. Every time some disgruntled individual in Gaza launches a home-made, ineffectual rocket, Israel assassinates members of Hamas or sends its tanks into Gaza, killing civilians. Presumably, a peaceful Palestine would be one either where there were no disgruntled people or where an efficient police-state stopped them all.

This is a preposterous expectation. It simply can never be. With all of Israel's violent occupations and reprisals, it has never been able to impose absolute peace, not even on its own territory. There have been scores of instances of renegade Israeli settlers shooting innocent Palestinians picking olives or tending sheep, and there have been mass murders of Palestinians a number of times, as at the Dome of the Rock and the Temple Mount. How much less able is any Palestinian authority to enforce absolute peace when Israel allows it pitifully limited resources and freedom of movement?

Realistically, the expectation for absolute peace should be interpreted as a deliberate barrier to a genuine peace settlement. Why would Israel use a barrier to peace when its official statements never fail to mention peace?

Because most leaders of Israel, probably all of them, have never given up the frenzied dream of achieving Greater Israel, a concept which allows for no West Bank and no Palestinians. Not every leader has spoken in public on this subject, but a number have. Other prominent figures in Israel from time to time also have spoken in favor of this destructive goal.

There seems no rational explanation, other than wide support of this goal, for Israel's persistent refusal to comply with agreements which could have produced peace, the Oslo Accords perhaps being the greatest example. Israel worked overtime to destroy the Oslo Accords, always attributing their failure in public to the very Palestinians who had worked hard to see the Accords born. More extreme Israeli politicians openly rejected the Accords from the start.

The crescendo statement in Harper's speech, his voice rising in force and his audience literally rising to its feet, was, "The state of Israel, a democratic nation, was attacked by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization -- in fact a terrorist organization listed illegal in this country," and "When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot and will never be neutral."

Harper's definition of democracy appears to be the American one: those governments are democratic who agree with American policy. We know America has overthrown many democratic governments in the postwar world, including those in Haiti, Chile, Iran, and Guatemala. Today it threatens a cleanly-elected government in Venezuela and utterly ignores a cleanly-elected government in Palestine.

America shows itself always ready to work with anti-human rights blackguards when it feels important interests are at stake, General Musharraf of Pakistan and some of the dreadful Northern Alliance warlords in Afghanistan being current examples. There were dozens more during the Cold War, including the Romanian Dracula Ceaucescu and the Shah of Iran, put into power by a coup that toppled a democratic government. The American definition of democracy is highly selective at best.

Israel has demonstrated a similar understanding of democracy from the beginning. Israel was ready to help France and Britain invade Suez in the 1950s, an action which represented a last ugly gasp of 19th century colonialism. Israel worked closely for years with apartheid South Africa, even secretly assisting it in developing and testing a nuclear weapon (weapons and facilities were removed by the United States when the ANC took power). Savak, the Shah's secret police, whose specialty was pulling out people's finger nails, was trained by American and Israeli agents.

Harper's statement of total support for Israel in Lebanon is not in keeping with traditional Canadian views and policies. Canadians want balance and fairness. Unqualified support for Israel is tantamount to giving it a free pass to repeat the many savage things it has done, things most Canadians do not support.

Israel has proven, over and over again, it needs the restraining influence of others. Criticizing Israel does not make anyone anti-Israeli. Israel, sadly, has done many shameful things that demand criticism from those who love freedom and human rights, starting with its keeping a giant open-air prison going for forty years.

Harper should know that when Israeli leaders such as Olmert or Sharon speak of two states, they do not mean the same thing that reasonable observers might expect.

They mean a powerless, walled-in rump state in which elections must consistently support Israel's view of just about everything, a state whose access to the world is effectively controlled by Israel, and a state whose citizens have no claims whatsoever for homes, farms, and other property seized by Israel. The hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, living on property taken bit by bit since the Six Day War are there to stay. Palestinians' property rights to homes and institutions in Jerusalem, from which they are being gradually pushed, are being voided.

Israel has invaded Lebanon twice with no legitimate justification. It killed many thousands the first time and about 1,600 the last time. It flattened the beautiful city of Beirut the first time and a fair portion of the re-built city last time. It dropped thousands of cluster bombs, the most vicious weapon in the American arsenal, onto civilian areas. In effect, this action created a giant minefield, an illegal act under international treaty, with mines which explode with flesh-mangling bits of razor wire.

The Hezbollah that was Israel's excuse for invading Lebanon last time never invaded Israel. They launch their relatively ineffective Katysha rockets only when Israeli forces violate the border, which they do with some regularity in secret. Hezbollah's main function, despite all the rhetoric about terrorists, has been as a guerilla force opposed to Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Israel has long desired to expand its borders into that region, and there are statements on record to that effect, another aspect of Greater Israel. Israel occupied southern Lebanon for many years after its first invasion, and still held on to an enclave after its withdrawal.

Democratic values are not just about holding elections now and then. Otherwise, apartheid South Africa would have deserved our support. So would Northern Ireland when it repressed Catholics for decades. So, in fact, would the former American Confederacy. These states all had elections but only some people could vote, and other people were treated horribly.

Democratic values must reflect respect for human rights, which apply to all, something about which Israel has been particularly blind. There are no rights for Palestinians. Indeed, Israel has no Bill or Charter of Rights even for its own citizens because of the near impossibility of defining rights in a state characterized by so many restrictions and theocratic principles.

The relatively small number of Arabic people given Israeli citizenship, roughly 19% of the population, descended from 150,000 who remained in Israel after 1948, mainly those who were not intimidated by early Israeli terror groups like Irgun and the Stern Gang into running away or who simply could not escape. Despite subsidized immigration to Israel, accounting for the bulk of Jewish population growth, Israeli Arabs have managed roughly to keep their fraction of the population through high birth rates. They are, however, under constant pressure, often being treated as less than equal citizens. On many occasions, prominent Israelis have called for their removal.

According to a recent study of Jewish Israeli attitudes, 41 percent think Arab citizens should be encouraged by the government to leave Israel, and 40 percent want segregated public facilities for Arabs. The survey also found 68 percent of Israeli Jews would not live in an apartment building with Arabs, and 46 percent would not let Arabs visit their homes.

Harper's dichotomy between democracy and terror, the crescendo subject of his speech, is simply nonsense. It mimics Bush's garbled words about terrorists versus American freedoms or everyone's being with us or against us. Israel is not so admirable a democracy nor is Hezbollah so terrible a group as he would have us believe.

[cybercoma]

I stopped at the first sentence when the writer said, "Israel SAVAGELY bombed Lebanon."

If the rest of the commentary shows this kind of bias, it's not worth reading.

[jbg]

I also did not read the full diatribe, but a few things stand out:

Harper did not define what he means by viable. Palestine, as anyone familiar with the situation knows, cannot be viable as a walled-off set of postage-stamp Bantustans, the only concept of a Palestinian state Israel has ever considered.

So that means in your mind that Israel must be wiped out? The Arabs have already been given umpteen countries. Why can't the Arabs absorb other Arabs, the way Israel has absorbed Arab Jews brutally uprooted in 1948 after centuries of productive, loyal residence in their countries?

Hamas won an honest and open election in Palestine, internationally scrutinized, but the result of that election was rejected by Harper and others, inducing chaos into Palestinian affairs, the very thing Israel's secret services likely intended when they secretly subsidized Hamas years ago to oppose Fatah. Hamas has not learned the required mantra about recognizing Israel, yet Hamas is no threat to Israel, or plainly Israel's secret services would never have assisted it in the first place.

The "elections" were armed campaigns, with factions armed to the teeth. You must have a good sense of humor.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The problem is really quite simple. Its none of our business. Their arguements stem from a dispute some thousands of years ago. A resolution will likely take the same amount of time and can only be implemented with the consent of the parties involved.

We can't fix the problem for them and we can't fight theior battles for them. All that can be done is to offer to help heal the injured and offer sanctuary for those peaceable non-combatants that seek it.

[cybercoma]

The problem is really quite simple. Its none of our business. Their arguements stem from a dispute some thousands of years ago. A resolution will likely take the same amount of time and can only be implemented with the consent of the parties involved.

We can't fix the problem for them and we can't fight theior battles for them. All that can be done is to offer to help heal the injured and offer sanctuary for those peaceable non-combatants that seek it.

End of thread.

[Figleaf]

I stopped at the first sentence when the writer said, "Israel SAVAGELY bombed Lebanon."

Riiiiiiight. Everyone knows that Israel sweetly and delicately bombed Lebanon.

[Figleaf]

So that means in your mind that Israel must be wiped out?

Did he say anything whatsoever remotely suggesting that??? Or maybe you're so full of s*it it leaks from your ears.

The Arabs have already been given umpteen countries.

"Given"? WTF are you talking about?

Why can't the Arabs absorb other Arabs,

Irrelevant.

Why can't Israel obey international law and stop oppressing the Palestinians?

The "elections" were armed campaigns, with factions armed to the teeth. You must have a good sense of humor.

So must each of the entities who observed and approved the election process.

[B. Max]

An excellent piece of Israeli, American and now Canadian bashing. I don't know what one of his gems stands out the most. There are so many of them. So I'll go with this one. Hamas won an honest and open election in Palestine as if that is some how justification to over look the fact they are a terrorist organization responsible for sending homicide bombers into Israel to kill hundreds of people. The reason they don't recognize Israel is because they intend to see them wiped off the map. Chuckman needs to be reminded that Hitler was also elected, and his time did everything he could do to wipe the Jews out of Europe, and if he had one the war and taken over the world he would have wiped them off the planet. Israel bashing has become just a smoke screen for Jew bashing.

[Figleaf]

Israel bashing has become just a smoke screen for Jew bashing.

Lie.

[B. Max]

Israel bashing has become just a smoke screen for Jew bashing.

Lie.

Sure Figeaf.

[MightyAC]

I stopped at the first sentence when the writer said, "Israel SAVAGELY bombed Lebanon."

If the rest of the commentary shows this kind of bias, it's not worth reading.

I also did not read the full diatribe, but a few things stand out:

Here are two examples of a problem that hampers all intelligent discussion. So if something challenges a predetermined position it’s not worth reading? Or is it the fact that something challenged the position of a party that you hold a membership in?

In these two cases the discreditors didn't even read the whole post. I'm guessing enough was read to determine that they didn't like the direction and like good foot soldiers fought for their party. Not with any counter arguments though...just with angry little criticisms of its direction. sad

I particularly like the claim of bias…of course it is biased…everything on this board is biased. In this case the definition of bias seems to be any statement that goes against a supported position. I’m guessing that statements like the Liberals are a bunch of lying thieves or the NDP are left wing nut jobs would be considered perfectly unbiased by the authors of the quotes above.

I think Jerry was correct in saying that this is “none of our business” and that “we can't fix the problem for them and we can't fight their battles for them”. That’s why I have a hard time supporting our government’s position on this issue. Why are we unequivocally backing a side that acts more like a terrorist group than the surrounding factions that have been labeled as such?

I also love how “our” side can support the enemy one minute and attack them then next. Israel supported Hamas so they could fight Fata and destabilize Palestine. In the past the US supported Iran, Sadam in Iraq, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Maybe it’s time to challenge ridiculous Western imperialistic foreign policy. I don't think we

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Choosing sides creates allies and enemies. My personal preferance would be to take a neutral position. I believe in defending our citizens, I do not believe in acts of aggression that do not serve the purpose of defending our citizens.

[scribblet]

I stopped at the first sentence when the writer said, "Israel SAVAGELY bombed Lebanon."

If the rest of the commentary shows this kind of bias, it's not worth reading.

Me too didn't go any further.

[cybercoma]

Or is it the fact that something challenged the position of a party that you hold a membership in?

I don't hold membership to any political party.

But here I"ll humour you briefly:

Israel savagely bombed Lebanon. Makes no mention of the savagery Israel has endured

[stephen Harper] also continued driving an ugly new Republican-style wedge into Canada's national politics... compares Canadian Conservative Party and Stephen Harper to the American Republican Party

It is interesting to note the lack of symmetry in Harper's "secure democratic and prosperous Israel" versus "a viable democratic and peaceful" Palestine. The words are symmetrical: secure to peaceful and prosperous to viable.

I suspect Harper was signaling... that he saw no equivalency to the two sides. This doesn't even deserve a comment.

Harper did not define what he means by viable. So, let's twist his words to mean that he wants Palestine destroyed. *rolleyes*

The key element in Harper's statement is what he means by democratic and peaceful. Those words are not so self-explanatory as they may first appear. Both these adjectives are regularly twisted in meaning, particularly by the United States. *fumbles about grasping at straws*

Hamas won an honest and open election in PalestineAbout as honest as an election can be when each party has it's own militia, armed to the teeth.

Hamas is not well-armedCompared to national militaries, no. Enough to make vests made out of bombs to blow up children in cafes and at bus stops....yes.

Hamas has not invaded Israel, nor has it conducted a campaign of assassinating Israeli leadersHamas is not a country able to "invade" another nation. Hamas is a terrorist organization that does not choose political leadership as its target. Hamas kidnaps, rapes and murders innocent civilians. Hamas creates chaos and fear by targeting those who cannot defend themselves...of course they didn't target Israeli leaders, that's what makes them so despicable.

Every time some disgruntled individual in Gaza launches a home-made, ineffectual rocket, Israel assassinates members of Hamas or sends its tanks into Gaza, killing civilians. Presumably, a peaceful Palestine would be one either where there were no disgruntled people or where an efficient police-state stopped them all. Disgruntled individuals from Hamas or other terrorist factions. Forget that idea though. What's wrong with a state where police stop "disgruntled individuals" from launching rockets into neighbourhoods where innocent civilians live? I thought it was the job of police to protect people?

This is a preposterous expectation. It simply can never be. People simply cannot be safe? It is somehow a right for "disgruntled individuals" to launch rockets into the streets? I'd like to see any group in the United States or Canada attempt this....it would never happen, it would never be allowed. The expectation that we can live in safety exists in North America and it should in the middle east as well.

There have been scores of instances of renegade Israeli settlers shooting innocent Palestinians picking olives or tending sheep, and there have been mass murders of Palestinians a number of times, as at the Dome of the Rock and the Temple Mount. Israel tries (and has convicted) its military for human rights violations, something I don't see Hamas or other terrorist organizations doing with their militias.

Realistically, the expectation for absolute peace should be interpreted as a deliberate barrier to a genuine peace settlement.The expectation of peace is a barrier to peace. Good one.

Because most leaders of Israel, probably all of them, have never given up the frenzied dream of achieving Greater Israel, a concept which allows for no West Bank and no Palestinians. Except that Palestinians exist in their government and withdrawls from those areas have been in the works, etc...

Israel worked overtime to destroy the Oslo Accords, always attributing their failure in public to the very Palestinians who had worked hard to see the Accords born. "The Oslo agreements were to assuage these fears by establishing a Palestinian Authority that would consider organizations as Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a threat to its own existence, thus aligning Israeli interests in fighting terrorism with the interests of the Palestinian leadership."

Instead, Palestine has come to the point where it has elected those terrorist threats to its own government. But it's Israel who worked overtime to destroy the Oslo agreements....right.

The crescendo statement in Harper's speech, his voice rising in force and his audience literally rising to its feet, was, "The state of Israel, a democratic nation, was attacked by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization -- in fact a terrorist organization listed illegal in this country," and "When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot and will never be neutral."Seems pretty reasonable to me. When faced with the choice of supporting a democratic nation or supporting a terrorist organization, Canada will choose a democratic nation. Thank you Mr. Harper for not being a complete imbecile.

Harper's definition of democracy appears to be the American one: those governments are democratic who agree with American policy. We know America has overthrown many democratic governments in the postwar world, including those in Haiti, Chile, Iran, and Guatemala. Today it threatens a cleanly-elected government in Venezuela and utterly ignores a cleanly-elected government in Palestine. And we're off on a tangent again. What does any of this have to do with anything Harper has been quoted as saying? Hezbollah is not a democratically elected government or a sovereign nation....they're terrorists. Same goes for Hamas.

Harper's statement of total support for Israel in Lebanon is not in keeping with traditional Canadian views and policies. Canadians want balance and fairness. Unqualified support for Israel is tantamount to giving it a free pass to repeat the many savage things it has done, things most Canadians do not support.Or, when forced with choosing between a democratic nation and a terrorist organisation, Harper has chosen the democratic nation. Not really unqualified here, actually....it only makes sense that Canada does not throw support behind terrorism.

Israel has proven, over and over again, it needs the restraining influence of others. Criticizing Israel does not make anyone anti-Israeli. Israel, sadly, has done many shameful things that demand criticism from those who love freedom and human rights, starting with its keeping a giant open-air prison going for forty years. This once again has nothing to do with what Harper was speaking on and is nothing more than the opposite side of the coin this whack job opposes. Criticizing Israel does not make anyone anti-Israel, just as supporting Israel doesn't make anyone anti-human rights.

Harper should know that when Israeli leaders such as Olmert or Sharon speak of two states, they do not mean the same thing that reasonable observers might expect.They dont' really mean it....oh, I get it. We should expect that they're lying.

They mean a powerless, walled-in rump state in which elections must consistently support Israel's view of just about everythingOr a state whose elections don't give unchecked power to terrorist organisations that are calling for the eradication of a democratic nation....that'd be a start

Israel has invaded Lebanon twice with no legitimate justification. seriously? Is this guy for real?

It dropped thousands of cluster bombs, the most vicious weapon in the American arsenal, onto civilian areas.Israel has the right to defend itself against an enemy who has declared war on her. Hezbollah was the one that was breaking all therules when it setup shop in civilian areas. Perhaps it is Hezbollah that we should be directing this anger towards, hmm?

They launch their relatively ineffective Katysha rockets only when Israeli forces violate the border, which they do with some regularity in secret.You have your home levelled by a Katysha rocket in the middle of the night and tell me how relatively ineffective they are. Israeli soldiers respond to the kidnapping of its own troops by crossing the border and somehow this legitimizes launching rockets into residential neighbourhoods? So for Hezbollah, it's ok to attack civilian populations because their rockets are "relatively ineffective," but when Israel attacks Hezbollah strongholds that have used civilian neighbourhoods as geographical hostages it's a human rights violation? I'd say the commen thread here is Hezbollah maximizing civilian casualties both offensively and defensively. Damn, am I ever disgusted with Israel right now. (more eye rolling)

Israel has long desired to expand its borders into that regionThis wouldn't be allowed by the international community. Also, if Israel so wanted they could simply level Lebanon and TAKE control of those areas and call it their own.

Democratic values are not just about holding elections now and then. Otherwise, apartheid South Africa would have deserved our support. So would Northern Ireland when it repressed Catholics for decades. So, in fact, would the former American Confederacy. These states all had elections but only some people could vote, and other people were treated horribly.And Palestine who elects terrorists organisations and Lebanon who has members of its government from terrorist organisations......blah blah blah

Democratic values must reflect respect for human rights, which apply to all, something about which Israel has been particularly blind.Except that it has tried and convicted people in its military for human rights violations. Israel also isn't the one maximizing civilian casualties by targeting civilian areas and using civilians as human shields for its military installations.

The relatively small number of Arabic people given Israeli citizenship, roughly 19% of the population, descended from 150,000 who remained in Israel after 1948, mainly those who were not intimidated by early Israeli terror groups like Irgun and the Stern Gang into running away or who simply could not escape.Intimidated into gaining citizenship in Israel. Only 1 out of every 5 people in Israel.....

Israeli Arabs have managed roughly to keep their fraction of the population through high birth rates. They are, however, under constant pressure, often being treated as less than equal citizens. On many occasions, prominent Israelis have called for their removal.We're talking almost 20% of the population here. This isn't a relatively small fraction. That's one out of every five people! A secret plot to remove 20% of the population...give me a break. That's going to be a little tough to go unnoticed.

According to a recent study of Jewish Israeli attitudes, 41 percent think Arab citizens should be encouraged by the government to leave Israel, and 40 percent want segregated public facilities for Arabs. The survey also found 68 percent of Israeli Jews would not live in an apartment building with Arabs, and 46 percent would not let Arabs visit their homes.Wouldn't have anything to do with the Arabic terrorist groups that have plagued them their entire lives would it? I don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that those terrorist groups attack innocent civilians more often than military targets. Do you think it's possible the Jewish Israelis are AFRAID?

Harper's dichotomy between democracy and terror, the crescendo subject of his speech, is simply nonsense. It mimics Bush's garbled words about terrorists versus American freedoms or everyone's being with us or against us. Israel is not so admirable a democracy nor is Hezbollah so terrible a group as he would have us believe.To suggest we should support a terrorist organisation that uses civilians as targets and shields over a democratic nation which is recognized by the UN is patently absurd. Israel and Hezbollah most certainly are NOT the same shade of grey that this writer wants us to believe.

Happy now?

[jefferiah]

Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli guards. Then they demanded the release of "politcal prisoners" (a la FLQ) who were actually imprisoned terrorists. Then they began firing Ketushah rockets at North Israel. Well, Israel has a duty to its citizens to protect them. So they fired at sites from where the rockets were being launched. Israeli fire power was greater no doubt. But if I man breaks into my house in the middle of the night and tries to attack my family with a sock stuffed with rocks, and I own a gun what do you suppose I will do. Will I stop for a moment while the man is assaulting my wife with his "rock sock" and think "Hmmm you know this really isnt a fair fight. I have this big gun here, and he is only armed with a sock. Hmmm....Rather than fire this gun to protect my wife whom is being beaten by this man. I will go into my room and get a sock from my drawer. Then I will proceed outside to find a good rock to put in my sock. And hopefully my wife is tough enough in the meantime to withstand it."

[geoffrey]

Israel bashing has become just a smoke screen for Jew bashing.

Lie.

Sure Figeaf.

I'm rather pro-Israel most days, and I'm with Figleaf on this one.

You can be easily critical of Israel and not be anti-Jew. Israel messes up alot, even though I still insist they have the moral high ground in the Middle-East, even if only by a few metres.

[Rue]

ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND CANADA

John Chuckman

'Israel savagely bombed Lebanon."

Your use of the word "savagely" when describing the bombings in Lebanon shows that before you even started your lecture, you were manifesting anti-Israel bias.

"Harper said that his government supports a two-state solution in the Middle East. That is the policy of most Western governments, and there was nothing original in Harper's way of stating it. It was the kind of vague, tepid stuff we might hear from Olmert himself."

Well if you were being honest and historically accurate, you would know the two state solution was proposed by the United Nations, and supported not just by Israel, but the Arab League. So calling it vague and tepid is interesting and you should take that up with Norway, who worked very hard to draft this idea after many months of pain-staking work with help from Spain. This idea was also supported by the European Union, and China and Russia.

"Our government believes in a two-state solution -- in a secure democratic and prosperous Israel living beside a viable democratic and peaceful Palestinian state. It is interesting to note the lack of symmetry in Harper's "secure democratic and prosperous Israel" versus "a viable democratic and peaceful" Palestine. I don't know why prosperity does not count for Palestinians, but as anyone who understands developmental economics knows, prosperity is key to developing modern, democratic institutions. You only get the broad middle-class which makes democracy possible out of healthy growth."

Your comments make no logical or cohesive sense. There is no lack of symmetry to suggest to countries should peacefully co-exist. Your arguement, seems to convalute the concept of symmetry because in your personal opinion it appears you do not feel Palestine can be democratic and peaceful due to very hard understand references to your personal opining as to developmental economics and Palestine. I doubt you have ever studied Middle East Economics or the possibility of a common trading market between Israel, Palestine, and Jordan and I doubt you have any awareness of the fact that up until the first intifadah, Palestinians worked in Israel otherwise you would not have tried to simply dismiss Palestine as being unable

to become a viable economic entity. I suspect in your world, you see Palestine as a helpless victim that can never become a state otherwise I am not sure what you were getting at trying to sound like an economist but not referring to any economic statistics to back up what you were opining.

"I suspect Harper was signaling, while calling for peace with two states, hardly a stirring theme for a B'nai Brith audience, that he saw no equivalency to the two sides. If not, perhaps he will explain another time what he did mean. "

I would suspect, you are projecting or imposing your subjective beliefs on to what Mr. Harper said and are over-analyzing what he said. I think what he said was clear and unequivocal. He supports an Israeli and a Palestinian state. It seems you have a problem with there being two states not Mr. Haper and I would suggest your trying to suggest he was using coded words is without any basis other then your own personal bias that there can not be two states living side by side.

"Harper did not define what he means by viable."

Well the word is self-explanatory for most of us. It means a workable. If you have a problem with the word use a dictionary.

"Palestine, as anyone familiar with the situation knows, cannot be viable as a walled-off set of postage-stamp Bantustans, the only concept of a Palestinian state Israel has ever considered."

This statement now shows your bias. I have lived in Israel and travelled through-out Palestine, and worked with Palestinians. so I am probably more familiar with the situation then you, and witnessed first hand Palestinians working in Israel, but also going back to Palestine each night through walls and security fences

that existed because of terrorism. So actually for you to say Palestinians could not exist with these walls is absolute b.s. -not only did they do so, but they had no choice. Not only that, but the decision for them to stop working in Israel was made for them by Hamas. It was Hamas who threatened to kill anyone as a collaborator if they went to Israel to work. It was Hamas not Israel that blew up roads to Israel.

Now as for your comment that all Israel has ever considered is a walled off Batustan, I would call y ou out and ask what sources do you have for this comment other then your own subjective personal opinion. I would suggest to you that if you actually took the time to talk to Palestinians and Israelis in the peace network and theur supporters you would realize you are full of b.s. and that Palestinians and Israelis have tried very hard and will continue to try work hard at creating grass roots business organizations that will

bring them together on common needs such as sewage, medical care, and fresh water, despite the objections of Hamas. I would also suggest if you bothered to actually read Israel's policies, you would see

its vision of an economic association with Palestine is no different then Jordan's and it does not call for a

Bantustan. I would suggest your attempt to equate a two state solution with Bantustans in South Africa makes no sense as the economic association proposed is not remotely similiar to Bantusans that existed in South Africa.

"The key element in Harper's statement is what he means by democratic and peaceful. Those words are not so self-explanatory as they may first appear. Both these adjectives are regularly twisted in meaning, particularly by the United States."

It seems the only one twisting them is you.

"Hamas won an honest and open election in Palestine, internationally scrutinized, but the result of that election was rejected by Harper and others, inducing chaos into Palestinian affairs, the very thing Israel's secret services likely intended when they secretly subsidized Hamas years ago to oppose Fatah."

Harper has never at any time rejected the notion that Hamas was elected. Why don't you read what he actually said. What he has said is that as long as Hamas advocates a charter calling for the destruction of Israel and killing of Jews world-wide and as long as it supports terrorism, he will not support it. The fact that Harper does not support Hamas' terrorist manifesto can ot be construed to mean Harper did not acknowledge they were elected. You Sir, have deliberately tried to distort this.

"Hamas has not learned the required mantra about recognizing Israel, yet Hamas is no threat to Israel, or plainly Israel's secret services would never have assisted it in the first place. "

It is these kinds of comments that make me wonder what planet did you come from and what is it that Canada produces these arm chair experts who have never stepped forth in Palestine or Israel to make such idiotic comments. For you to say Hamas has not learned the required mantra is moronic. This is a group that advocates the murder of Jews world-wide and the destruction of the State of Israel. For you to refer to that as somehow failing to chant a mantra is absolutely idiotic. Grow up. Terrorism is not some sort of joke. When people say they are sworn to kill people world-wide this is not some sort of joke for you to make

dim-witted remarks about. You may dismiss Hamas as no threat to Israel, but then, I doubt you have ever seen people die, let alone been to Israel or Palestine to make such an idiotic and ignorant comment.

People have died in Israel and Palestine because of Hamas. That Sir is no joke and for you to sit in your cozy arm-chair and dismiss it as a joke is insulting to me since I Sir unlike you have had people die and blow up inches from me and know Hamas is not some sort of joke that has failed to get a mantra straight.

"Hamas is not well-armed, nor is it, surrounded and penetrated by Israel, in a position to become so."

Now for sure I know you are a bafoon talking off the top of your head. Hamas Sir is in fact well armed and as we speak is armed by China, France and Iran and if you would like information as to their weapons and inventory instead of making such statements why don't you go on the web and educate yourself as to what weapons they actually have.

"Israel speaks as though not recognizing Israel is an unforgivable defect, but governments often fail to recognize other governments. "

Talk about double-speak that you accuse Harper of! Do you realize how stupid the above sentence reads? read it? What point were you trying to make before you made such a bone-head comment. Here is what I can respond to. If you are a terrorist organization who state in your charter and in your speeches and faily on t.v. and on the radio and in your schools and in your newspapers that you are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews world-wide until this is achieved-this is not an "unforgivable defect" as you would refer to it as. Once again you dismiss terrorism and genocide like it is some kind of joke. Grow up and travel to Palestine and Israel and see what Hamas is about and who it kills and how before you make such stupid comments that show how soft and sheltered you are.

"The United States has a long list of governments it has not recognized in the past and ones it does not recognize now."

You are equating not recognizing a country with a terrorist group that in addition to not recognizing a country vows to destroy that country. If you can not see the difference, maybe its time you tried to learn how to read and write.

"This is not always a smart thing to do, but it is not a crime, it is not even a faux pas, and it may just be a negotiating point."

You really take the cake. Now you would have us believe terrorism and the calling for genocide, and the engagement in violent terror to achieve political will, is not a crime. If this does not show what a half-wit you are, I do not know what else could. How can you refer to terrorism as if it is some sort of joke and not a crime? What planet do you come from?

"Hamas has not invaded Israel, nor has it conducted a campaign of assassinating Israeli leaders - both actions Israel has repeated against Palestinians countless times."

Actually Hamas has invaded Israel time and time again and killed people with terrorist attacks. Again I am not sure what planet you come from. Hamas has also killed Israeli politicians and civilians not that you seem interested in facts.

"Every time some disgruntled individual in Gaza launches a home-made, ineffectual rocket, Israel assassinates members of Hamas or sends its tanks into Gaza, killing civilians."

I think this about sums it all up. You got it all figured out. Hamas is just some sort of mild irritant that causes no harm launching rockets that kill or sending in terrorists to blow up in cafes. The blood and guts that flew in my face from dead Palestinians and Israelis was a minor nuisance. I mean pish posh. Why would Israel feel it has an obligation to defend its citizens from bombs and rockets. Its just fun. Harmless fun.

"With all of Israel's violent occupations and reprisals, it has never been able to impose absolute peace....",

You went on with an anti-Israel diatribe to argue that Palestine could never live in peace..and your point was Israel will never allow Palestine to live in peace. Well some of us unlike yourself, who do not refer to

terrorism as a minor annoyance, believe if there was no terrorism, Palestine would find peace..that is something you can not understand because you have never lived under the threat of terrorism or seen anyone die. You are another soft, sheltered know it all pip squeak lecturing the world on Israel bad, Israel very bad because you have never been there and haven't a clue what it means to be under siege from terrorist attacks.

"Realistically, the expectation for absolute peace should be interpreted as a deliberate barrier to a genuine peace settlement. Why would Israel use a barrier to peace when its official statements never fail to mention peace?"

The above words are incoherent and do not produce a thought that can be followed.

"Because most leaders of Israel, probably all of them, have never given up the frenzied dream of achieving Greater Israel, a concept which allows for no West Bank and no Palestinians."

Well now John Chuckman is not only an expert on terorism and Israeli foreign policy, but he is a psychic able to read the minds of "most" leaders of Israel and make sweeping generalizations that they have a frenzied dream of achieving a Greater Israel.

Not that Mr. Chuckman cares, but the vast majority of Israelis have indicated in surveys, polls, and in elections they have been and are willing to support their government in withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza if they are not attacked by terrorists. In Mr. Chuckman's world of black and white and Israel bad, Palestine good, such information is ignored-I would suggest Mr. Chuckman has never spoken to an Israeli or taken one second of time to actually read what their views are otherwise he would not engage in such

stupid generalizations.

" Not every leader has spoken in public on this subject, but a number have. Other prominent figures in Israel from time to time also have spoken in favor of this destructive goal."

Of course there is no specific rfeference, suggesting Mr. Chuckman in his lectures is creating as he goes along opinining but trying to express his subjective unsubstantiated opinions as if they are fact.

"There seems no rational explanation, other than wide support of this goal, for Israel's persistent refusal to comply with agreements which could have produced peace, the Oslo Accords perhaps being the greatest example."

Someone should explain to this Mr. Chuckman that Israel did in fact support the OSlo Accords, and it was Yasir Arafat not Israel that walked out and refused to support Oslo. But hey why let reality get in the way of Mr. Chuckman's thesis.

"Israel worked overtime to destroy the Oslo Accords, always attributing their failure in public to the very Palestinians who had worked hard to see the Accords born. More extreme Israeli politicians openly rejected the Accords from the start."

This is absolute and utter b.s. It has now been documented (of course Bill Clinton is also a liar) by the news media, that Israel supported Oslo and Bill Clinton thought he had a deal, and Arafat walked away.

For Mr. Chuckman to twist this around and try revise history is past the point of absurd.

"The crescendo statement in Harper's speech, his voice rising in force and his audience literally rising to its feet, was, "The state of Israel, a democratic nation, was attacked by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization -- in fact a terrorist organization listed illegal in this country," and "When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot and will never be neutral."

Sorry Mr. Chuckman but many of us Canadians are glad to once and for all listen to a politician who will say he will not apologize for terrorism and will call it exactly what it is terrorism. You may feel you have got it all figured out that Hamas is a minor irritant you can write off with dumb-assed comments, but the vast majority of us feel Hamas is a terrorist organization that as long as it engages in terror can not be apologized for or condoned. I would also suggest Mr. Chuckman you take that soft sheltered butt of yours and move to Palestine if you think Hamas is so harmless. Live there. Live in Gaza one night.

"Harper's definition of democracy appears to be the American one: those governments are democratic who agree with American policy."

Well golly gee Mr. Chuckman probably it seems that way to you because you probably haven't bothered to take the time to actually read Mr. Harper's foreign policy statement which in fact is quite different then

the U.S. foreign policy stance in the Middle East. But again, why let facts get in the way, right Mr. Chuckman?

"We know America has overthrown many democratic governments in the postwar world, including those in Haiti, Chile, Iran, and Guatemala. Today it threatens a cleanly-elected government in Venezuela and utterly ignores a cleanly-elected government in Palestine."

O.k. here we go. U.S. bad. Palestine good. Hamas good. U.S. bad. I love your sophisticated analysis of U.S. foreign policy. And hey while we are at it, never mind any other regime including Palestine or Syria or Iran that has supported a questionable regime because after all in Mr. Chuckman's world there are bad guys and good guys.

"America shows itself always ready to work with anti-human rights blackguards when it feels important interests are at stake."

Well sure. So does Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Libya, China, France, Russia, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, so what is your point? Oh I forgot. U.S. bad. U.S. very bad.

"Israel has demonstrated a similar understanding of democracy from the beginning. Israel was ready to help France and Britain invade Suez in the 1950s, an action which represented a last ugly gasp of 19th century colonialism. Israel worked closely for years with apartheid South Africa, even secretly assisting it in developing and testing a nuclear weapon (weapons and facilities were removed by the United States when the ANC took power). Savak, the Shah's secret police, whose specialty was pulling out people's finger nails, was trained by American and Israeli agents."

Love your selective history. Israel bad. U.S. bad. No mention though of France, Britain, China, Russia, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and every other nation in the world. It is only Israel and the U.S. that are bad. Again Mr. Chuckman has it all figured out.

"Harper's statement of total support for Israel in Lebanon is not in keeping with traditional Canadian views and policies. "

Again if Mr. Chuckman listened to what Mr. Haper actually stated, he would have heard that Mr. Harper condemned Hezbollah as a terrorist group and said Israel had the right to defend itself but this is the same Mr. Harper who made sure 50,000 Lebanese could return to Canada and who said time and time again it was unfortunate Lebanese civilians had to die being placed in harm's way by Hezbollah. But of course Mr. Chuckman has been selective as he has in making a preposterous arguement that only Israel and the U.S. have questionable alliances. Also Mr. Chuckman's reference that support of Israel is not in keeping with traditional Canadian views is a new one. I guess in Mr. Chuckman's world, it is traditional Canadian policy not to suppport Israel. Geez. Thanks. I was confused for a second.

"Canadians want balance and fairness. Unqualified support for Israel is tantamount to giving it a free pass to repeat the many savage things it has done, things most Canadians do not support.":

You take the cake. You talk about balance and fairness but make no effort in what you write to do anything but trot at a one sided opinion and incorrect facts.

"Israel has proven, over and over again, it needs the restraining influence of others."

I am not sure about Israel but I would suggest your comments above have proven over and over again you need the restraining influence of others as well.

" Criticizing Israel does not make anyone anti-Israeli."

Yah. I understand. You are pro-Israel. Again thanks for that clarification.

"Israel, sadly, has done many shameful things that demand criticism from those who love freedom and human rights, starting with its keeping a giant open-air prison going for forty years. "

Dare we ask where this open air prison is? Dare we ask, is Mr.Chuckman is aware that there are open-air prisons in Palestine, run by Hamas and in Lebanon run by Hezbollah and in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., or is in his world, is it only Israel that has prisons?

"Harper should know that when Israeli leaders such as Olmert or Sharon speak of two states, they do not mean the same thing that reasonable observers might expect. "

Thanks again Mr. Chuckman for clarifying for the world that Mr. Sharon and Mr. Olmert are in fact liars and sinister ones at that trying to fool the world. Here is a hint Mr. Chuckman. Mr. Sharon for one, doesn't speak anymore. He is in a coma.

"They mean a powerless, walled-in rump state in which elections must consistently support Israel's view of just about everything, a state whose access to the world is effectively controlled by Israel, and a state whose citizens have no claims whatsoever for homes, farms, and other property seized by Israel."

Again this reflects your personal subjective opinions which you are trying to pass off as Israeli foreign policy. I challenge you to produce one Israeli document from its government that comes even close to

backing up what you are trying to pass off as fact.

"The hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, living on property taken bit by bit since the Six Day War are there to stay."

Well Mr. Chuckman if nothing else can you count? Can you at least go on the inter-net and find out how many Jewish settlers are in fact in the West Bank.

" Palestinians' property rights to homes and institutions in Jerusalem, from which they are being gradually pushed, are being voided."

Again this is absolute nonsense you are making up. Prove it. Show us documentation of these alleged homes and institutions in Jerusalem being voided. I am calling you out Sir, and saying you are not just spewing off, but you are making statements that you are making up as you go along and are fabricated.

"Israel has invaded Lebanon twice with no legitimate justification."

Again for you to make such a statement simply rehashes your original opinion that terrorist attacks on Israel are a minor annoyance and Israel has no right to defend itself against terrorists. This of course merely shows that you are anti-Israeli. Most neutral people would concede that Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorists and that if Hezbollah places civilians in harms way as it attacks Israel, Hezbollah is morally culpable for the consequences but that it is completely and absolutely a tregdy that Lebanese civilians have to die.

"It killed many thousands the first time and about 1,600 the last time. It flattened the beautiful city of Beirut the first time and a fair portion of the re-built city last time."

Again in you world of fiction Mr. Chuckman facts are not material. It is a fact that most of Beirut was destroyed by civil war between Lebanese factions, and NOT Israel.

"It dropped thousands of cluster bombs, the most vicious weapon in the American arsenal, onto civilian areas."

Actually Israel dropped cluster bombs on Hezbollah sites that were placed within civilian areas. Hezbollah deliberately placed itself in civilian sites so that when Israel struck back, civilians would be killed and Hezbollah could then play this to the media.

It is also interesting to note in Mr. Chuckman's selective world, there is no reference to the fact that Hezbollah used cluster bombs on Israel which they did. For that matter Syria, Iraq, and Egypt have used cluster bombs but of course in Mr. Chuckman's world only Israel and the U.S. are evil.

" In effect, this action created a giant minefield, an illegal act under international treaty, with mines which explode with flesh-mangling bits of razor wire."

Well I am glad the sensitive Mr. Chuckman produces visions of flesh mangling bits of razor wire but somehow makes no reference of any mangled flesh of Israelis.

"The Hezbollah that was Israel's excuse for invading Lebanon last time never invaded Israel."

Well again Mr. Chuckman shows he has no idea what he is talking about. Hezbollah did in fact invade Israel and capture to Israeli soldiers. But again why would Mr. Chuckman at this point care to mention the facts.

"They launch their relatively ineffective Katysha rockets only when Israeli forces violate the border,".

This is absolute nonsense. Rockets were being fired, prior to Hezbollah invading Israel two capture two Israeli soldiers.

"Hezbollah's main function, despite all the rhetoric about terrorists, has been as a guerilla force opposed to Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon."

Well then someone should tell Mr. Chuckman Israel was not in Lebanon when Hezbollah chose to cross the Israeli border to kidnap two Israel soldiers. Again why let facts get in the way.

As well what Mr. Chuckman is completely oblivious to is why Hezbolah kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers in the first place. They kidnapped the soldiers to use them as leverage to release Samir Kuntar.

I doubt Mr. Chuckman has a clue who Mr. KUntar as. As I explained before to another anti-Israel lecturer, Mr. Kuntar came across the border with a group of terrorists and kidnapped a young man and his boy. The man hid his wife and daughter in a loft and had to chose to let his sone die over his wife and daughter.

The man and boy were taken to a beach raped, mutilated and tortured before being defacated on and left on the beach. The mother of the dead boy had to place her hand over the mouth of her daughter to prevent her from crying and being found by Mr. Kuntar. The girl suffocated to death as a result. Mr. Kuntar was captured and Hezbollah refers to Mr. Kuntar as a hero who needs to be released.

But hey Mr. Chuckman why let the true story get in the way of your lecture.

"Israel has long desired to expand its borders into that region, and there are statements on record to that effect, another aspect of Greater Israel."

I again challenge Mr. Chuckman to produce these statements. He is again making up stories and trying to pass them off as facts. Israel has never stated it wants Lebanon. Israel has had a dispute over a small area of farmland that is not abandoned that was used to launch terrorist attacks which is also disputed between Syria and Lebanon.

"Israel occupied southern Lebanon for many years after its first invasion, and still held on to an enclave after its withdrawal. "

Israel was forced to place the South Lebanese Army in the South of Lebanon as a buffer to prevent terrorist attacks. Hezbollah claimed it was only trying to free Lebanon of Israeli soldiers. When the Israeli soldiers left, Hezbollah then stated it wasn't just fighting to liberate Lebanon, it was in fact pursing its charter which is the destruction of the state of Israel and the murder of Jews world wide until this is achieved. So Mr. Chuckman may wish to gloss over this but the reason Israel went in Lebanon was to prevent attacks against it from a terrorist group whose charter calls for its extermination and not just the liberation of Lebanon of Israeli soldiers.

More to the point the United Nations past a resolution calling on all armed militias in Lebanon including Hezbollah to disarm and sent in UNIFIL an alleged neutral peace-keeping force to secure the disarmament.

UNIFIL ignored its mandate, and to this day Hezbollah remains armed dedicated to the destruction of Israel and now this absolute b.s. that it is only dedicated to freeing Lebanon of Israel's army has been exposed

for the lie it always is. But in Mr. Chuckman's world, hezbollah like hamas, are harmless boy-scouts and a minor irritant.

"Democratic values are not just about holding elections now and then."

I am not sure what prompted Mr. Chuckman to launch into this portion of his lecture but he seems to have forgotten or glossed over the fact that with the exception of Israel no state in the Middle East holds elections now and then as we would call them.

" Indeed, Israel has no Bill or Charter of Rights even for its own citizens because of the near impossibility of defining rights in a state characterized by so many restrictions and theocratic principles.

This is absolute and utter b.s. In fact Israel guarantees in its constitution the right for every Jewish, Arab and Christian Israeli the right to vote, own land, go to school, and receive medical care. Mr. Chuckman is so off base I am not sure why I even bother to respond.

"The relatively small number of Arabic people given Israeli citizenship, roughly 19% of the population, descended from 150,000 who remained in Israel after 1948, mainly those who were not intimidated by early Israeli terror groups like Irgun and the Stern Gang into running away or who simply could not escape. "

Someone should try explain to Mr. Chuckman that over 300,000 Arabs, or the vast majority of Arabs. left Israel in 1947 without ever seeing or talking to a Jew and in fact the Irgun and Stern Gang caused more problems for the British then the Arabs in Israel.

"Israeli Arabs have managed roughly to keep their fraction of the population through high birth rates."

Again Mr. Chuckman spews nonsense trying to sound like an authority on Israel. Think about it. If as he says Israeli Arab birth rates have been high, and they have, their fraction of te population has not remained the same it has grown. And so for people like Mr. Chuckman who try describe Israel as an evil horrid place, they seem to conveniently forget Israeli Arabs have thrived, and continue to grow and will in fact be the majority in Israel in the next 30 years and then Mr. Chuckman will not have to draft any more idiot pseuto-lectures.

"They are, however, under constant pressure, often being treated as less than equal citizens. On many occasions, prominent Israelis have called for their removal. "

I would again love to see Mr.l Chuckman explain how he knows this, and what constant pressure he is talking about, etc. This is now just pure b.s. being postulated as fact.

"According to a recent study of Jewish Israeli attitudes, 41 percent think Arab citizens should be encouraged by the government to leave Israel, and 40 percent want segregated public facilities for Arabs. The survey also found 68 percent of Israeli Jews would not live in an apartment building with Arabs, and 46 percent would not let Arabs visit their homes."

I love it. Can someone ask Mr. Chuckman to produce this recent study. I would suggest it does not exist and never existed and Mr.Chuckman once again invented something and is being absolutely dishonest.

"Harper's dichotomy between democracy and terror, the crescendo subject of his speech, is simply nonsense. It mimics Bush's garbled words about terrorists versus American freedoms or everyone's being with us or against us. Israel is not so admirable a democracy nor is Hezbollah so terrible a group as he would have us believe."

Thanks for that clatification.

Without a doubt I want to go on record as saying this is the most blatant example of pure b.s. I have read since I have come onto this board. I expect the usual diatribes from Figleaf or Higgly or some others but this by far is the worst example of someone simply making anti-Israeli comments with no basis and trying to pass them off as fact. I am absolutely disgusted and took the time to respond because I feel silence condones such ignorance.

It is one thing to produce facts and statistics to citicize Israeli foreign policy, its another to come on to this post and simply state opinions as if they are facts.

Mr. Chuckman if that is your real name, may I say with clear and susinct words that I find you

and your opinions without basis and dsgraceful in inaccuracy and dishonesty. The next time you feel the need to lecture produce substantiation for your opinions or do me a favour save it. There are no shortage of anti_Israel wing nuts. Then again I am sureFugleaf will write in applauding you. I bet even my nemesis Mr. Higgly understands my disgust this time.

[Rue]

I stopped at the first sentence when the writer said, "Israel SAVAGELY bombed Lebanon."

If the rest of the commentary shows this kind of bias, it's not worth reading.

I also did not read the full diatribe, but a few things stand out:

Here are two examples of a problem that hampers all intelligent discussion. So if something challenges a predetermined position it’s not worth reading? Or is it the fact that something challenged the position of a party that you hold a membership in?

In these two cases the discreditors didn't even read the whole post. I'm guessing enough was read to determine that they didn't like the direction and like good foot soldiers fought for their party. Not with any counter arguments though...just with angry little criticisms of its direction. sad

I particularly like the claim of bias…of course it is biased…everything on this board is biased. In this case the definition of bias seems to be any statement that goes against a supported position. I’m guessing that statements like the Liberals are a bunch of lying thieves or the NDP are left wing nut jobs would be considered perfectly unbiased by the authors of the quotes above.

I think Jerry was correct in saying that this is “none of our business” and that “we can't fix the problem for them and we can't fight their battles for them”. That’s why I have a hard time supporting our government’s position on this issue. Why are we unequivocally backing a side that acts more like a terrorist group than the surrounding factions that have been labeled as such?

I also love how “our” side can support the enemy one minute and attack them then next. Israel supported Hamas so they could fight Fata and destabilize Palestine. In the past the US supported Iran, Sadam in Iraq, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Maybe it’s time to challenge ridiculous Western imperialistic foreign policy. I don't think we

No I think the point was Mr. Chuckman wrote a lecture posing opinions as if they were facts. Now of course we know where Figleaf stands on such efforts. He enjoys doing the same thing. However in your case, read what Mr. Chuckman said before you defend. With due respect to your opinions, you are defending something not worthy of your defence.

Here is a point for you also to consider. Yes Israel at one point supported Hamas against the PLO. At one point Stalin supported Hitler, then switched. The U.S. supported the same people who are now the Taliban fight against the Russians. Britain in 1969 referred to Sadaam as a good man they wanted to do business with and FRance ad Germany supplied Hussein with the gas he used to kill the Kurds and in 1984 Rumsleld went to Iraq and shook Sadam's hand and the US openly supported Hussein as long as he was fighting the communists and then Iran.

Britain recently saw its Prime Minister go to Tripoli, Libya and refer to Mummar Ghaddafi as a friend of Britain...the same guy who not too long ago blew up a passenger craft and was referred to by the British as a disgusting war criminal.

China which is responsible for more human rights violations in the world then any other country is great friends and the primary supporter of Sudan, Iran and North Korea.

France has openly funded Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups and has supplied weapons to Iran. This is the same France that once provided Israel with its technology to build a nuclear bomb.

So I am not sure what your point is about Hamas at one time being supported by Israel but the point is, in this world, political alliances constantly change and today's ally is tommorrow's enemy and then the day after's ally again. In the Middle East one only needs to look at the constantly changing alliances between terrorist groups and arab nations to understand this.

So my question is for you is why do you single out Israel and somehow make it seem unusual they would have supported a group that would come to bite them in the ass-for what point? What does it prove other then at one point Israel saw Hamas as a way to keep the PLO neutralized just as the Americans found the Mujadeen to their liking when they fought the Soviet Union?

What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting Israel is the only country in the world to form an alliance with someone who would later come to fight them?

Time for you to get a grip on reality. Israel supported Iran in its war against Iraq. You want to make a point on that? How about France. You want to comment on how France had no problems funding Hezbollah after Hezbollah killed 59 French soldiers in Lebanon?

My point is Mr. Chuckman produced dribble and you are picking the wrong person to try defend just as your own concern about who Israel picked as an ally at one point can also be criticized as being a moot point if even that.

[Argus]

ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND CANADA

John Chuckman

Canada's Thirty-Percent Prime Minister, Stephen Harper,

Well, nice to let us know right from the start that this is going to be a smarmy diatribe.

He also continued driving an ugly new Republican-style wedge into Canada's national politics after calling Liberal leadership candidates "anti-Israel."

Seems to me the Liberals accused the Reformers of being anti-Canada for questioning their lack of action on Quebec. They even accused Stephen Harper of not "loving" Canada because he found ridiculous nationalistic blowhard questions surprising. Liberals, in fact, have been the masters of divide and conquer, doing their best to demonize whole groups of people on any issue they can, from abortion to gay rights to Quebec.

Harper did not define what he means by viable. Palestine, as anyone familiar with the situation knows, cannot be viable as a walled-off set of postage-stamp Bantustans, the only concept of a Palestinian state Israel has ever considered.

There is no way a Palestinian state can be viable, with or without Israeli cooperation.

Hamas won an honest and open election in Palestine,

Hitler won one too. What's your point? That the world should have been nicer to Hitler?

Because most leaders of Israel, probably all of them, have never given up the frenzied dream of achieving Greater Israel,

I doubt that. What I don't doubt is the hatred of the Palestinians and Arabs for Jews. Their dream is of gas chambers, of dead jews rotting in the sun while the victorious Arabs chant praise and glory to Allah.

Harper's definition of democracy appears to be the American one: those governments are democratic who agree with American policy.

Drivel.

Harper's statement of total support for Israel in Lebanon is not in keeping with traditional Canadian views and policies. Canadians want balance and fairness.

Balance between a free, democratic state and a terrorist organization which attacked it, killed its people and kidnapped its soldiers? Why in hell would we have balance under those circumstances?

Israel has proven, over and over again, it needs the restraining influence of others. Criticizing Israel does not make anyone anti-Israeli.

True. On the other hand, based upon this post, I have not the slightest shadow of a shred of doubt that you are anti-Israeli.

Israel has invaded Lebanon twice with no legitimate justification

It was entirely justified by repeated attacks on it from Lebanon. If the Lebanese want no more attacks they need only keep terrorists and guerrilas from attacking Israel from their territory. Easy, eh?

Democratic values must reflect respect for human rights, which apply to all, something about which Israel has been particularly blind.

Not nearly as blind as the Palestinian Authority, which regularly engages in the murder of its own citizens.

Your one-sided rant against Israel is supremely unconvincing. Israel is not the perfect democratic state. It's been surrounded by hostile savages for half a century, attacked repeatedly, always under assault, its borders probed daily. But it's still ages ahead of the backward religious savages which make up the governments that YOU support. So there's no reason why we wouldn't support Israel. Well, except for those of us who hate Jews, of course.

[Argus]

Irrelevant.

Why can't Israel obey international law and stop oppressing the Palestinians?

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages who love killing Jews. Israel being a Jewish state, well, I can see where they'd have a problem with that.

[Argus]

Israel bashing has become just a smoke screen for Jew bashing.

Lie.

No, he's quite right. Not that everyone who so zealously attacks Israel is into Jew bashing, of course.

But all Jew haters bash Israel, and many of them cover it by self-righteously declaring that they're only interested in the human rights abuses, and in protecting the poor palestinians.

[Figleaf]

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages ...

That is a sickeningly bigotted and basically depraved comment. If the rules of the forum did not prohibit it, I would say the same of you.

[Figleaf]

Israel bashing has become just a smoke screen for Jew bashing.

Lie.

No, he's quite right. Not that everyone who so zealously attacks Israel is into Jew bashing, of course.

So it's a lie.

[Argus]

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages ...

That is a sickeningly bigotted and basically depraved comment. If the rules of the forum did not prohibit it, I would say the same of you.

Depraved? How can it possibly be "depraved"? Do you even know what the word is?

As a people - there is great sickness with the Palestinians' culture. This is a culture in which parents celebrate the death of their children through suicide attacks! Where playing cards of suicide bombers who murdered children are eagerly traded about, and where their pictures adorn walls and fences. This is also a culture where women and girls are murdered by their families in "honour killings" because they are seen walking alone with a male. This is a people who voted in terrorists as their government.

As for bigoted, I merely have standards of behaviour which I hold all people to in equal measure.

[Argus]

Israel bashing has become just a smoke screen for Jew bashing.

Lie.

No, he's quite right. Not that everyone who so zealously attacks Israel is into Jew bashing, of course.

So it's a lie.

But as I said (which you cut) many do use it as a smokescreen to spew anti-Israeli venom merely because they hate Jews.