one correction to the above. The words were spoken by Peter Kent, Canada's minister of foreign affiairs. He said they represented Harper's views. There was no correction from Harper - and Harper does not tolerate conservatives who step out of line. Indeed, several days later, Kent's press secretary said Mr Kent's position was quite consistent with government policy. He would not have dared to say such a thing without Harper's approval.

The Zionist line is all an expression of the "manifest destiny" type of thinking that, given rein, has always, and will always, lead to cataclysm because that is what such ideas brace their followers for.  "God" gave Israel to the chosen people ... who are you or I, Biden, Obama, Beshpin or anyone else to stand in God's way? In those eyes we are enemies of God, as guilty as Al Quaeda, Arrafat and any 12 year-old Palestinian stone-thrower.

Judaism and Islam, and Christianity, are in their hearts expressions of one Abrahamic faith that has taken several cultural detours over the centuries. But beneath and beyond the cultural overlays there is the hope, promise and a consistent cajolling to peace. I do not believe we should be taking sides or packing heat... our position should be to urge, encourage and facilitate peace. We can help pick up the wounded, offer both sides assurances of aid and stop profiteering from arms sales. We should not be pulling triggers or pandering to the war and hate-mongers ... they are NOT on "our side" and never will be.

I'm getting quite scared of the world's hysteria, and how it has reached Canada in the shape its manipulation  by Harper. I saw the cover of MacLean's with its hugt picture of Palin, and a headline of how Sarah Palin is reshaping America.

Anerican decmocracy died a long time ago. It is now simply a corrupt collection of politiicians bought by big money, and creating and then manipulating the national fear to serve their own ends. I don't know whether Obama is part of the game. But he certaiinly is not going to change it. And it has now spilled over wll into Canadda.

And Chrisitans waste their time and their pricniples on chantings of stuff like "O Lord, thou art great!" it's surely time Christians forgot all the formal piousness, and turned their attention to what Jesus said.

Who cares about these places ?

I'm more concerned about the local economy , recession and jobs

Who gives a rats butt about hundreds year old conflicts and some shit holes in the faraway ?

 It was interesting to see the reaction of the Globe and Mail to the announcement of new Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. To its credit, the paper featured Paul Koring's column of March 11 on the front page but there was no editorial comment. The settlements which are part of the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel is just another example of a land grab that has been going on in the West Bank for decades, yet the editorial writers at the Globe remained silent. You can bet that if Hamas decides to retaliate, the Globe editorialists will cover the story like a wet blanket, with unconditional support for Israel.

jsouhaite, if you're more concerned about sometthing else, go there.

Considering the land belongs to Israel it's not remotely a land grab. Whether you agree or disagree with it from a political standpoint it's undeniably within Israels legal rights to develop their own land as they see fit. The worst it can be accused of being is undiplomatic and that's debatable.

Except that the land in question, is in fact in question.  When Israel was created, the city of Jerusalem was divided up and thought to be, loosely, an international city respecting a variety of indigenous people.  The land in question is in the boundary of the "Green Line" and is supposed to be hands off for Israel... as Israel agreed to, many years ago. That's why there is such controversy around it.  I grant you that a whole lot of things have changed since then.  Yet, Israel's push to put settlements in places like East Jerusalem or the West Bank could easily be compared to the British years and years ago when it tried to populate northern Ireland, thus pushing out the people who lived there in the first place.  But don't take my word for it.  Read this:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/12/f-vp-macdonald.html

Or, look up information about Rachel Corrie.

I'm hearing you -- I really am -- and this issue is a huge struggle for me -- the more I read -- the more frustrating it is.  

And at one point, even Jesus got angry enough to kick over a few tables.  

And correct me if I am wrong, was not the promise of being returned to "Israel" to coincide with the arrival of the "Messiah?" -- from a faith standpoint, I don't know that the creation of Israel was an actual fulfilling of prophecy.  I think it had more to do with international guilt and Balfour and Baron Rothschild than anything as spiritual as a burning bush manifest.

****The following is written by someone who sees the nation of Israel as ebing formed out of anti-Setitism, someone who is not one iota Zionist and who belongs to Jews Against the Occupation****

Nothing is black and white. Peace is not served by those who argue against war but firmly on the side of black or the side of white. It is in two sides, both black and white, being able to wander into each other's hue or being able to permit gray to exist. It is by others seeing both black and white.

One sided argument does not serve peace.

The problem is that all land is in question or disputed. That goes for all land everywhere. One says it was traditionally or historically theirs as indigenous peoples, someone else says it was the spoils of war, another says the war was illegal or "imperialism", someone else yet cites mapmakers... All land I know of is questioned and disputed.

One person can say that Jerusalem was divided as Israel was set up. They can say that the West belonged to Jews and the East to Muslim. Another can say that East Jerusalem was captured in 1967 in the 6 Day War along with much of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Someone can argue that the UN said land aqcuired by war were to be returned. Another can say that W. Bank and Gaza both had been under Jordanian and Egyptian control after being acquired in conflict and nobody ordered them returned.... It can and does go on forever.... until all sides are heard and welcome at the table and commit themselves to peace.

In 1967, the UN in Resolution 242 emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" as it applied to Israel in the 6 Day War?

Did it apply universally? Was it protecting Muslim and Christian interests?

In 1971, with British support, Iran took over three islands in the Gulf that were critical to the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman. Look at US actions regarding the Strair of Hormuz.

We also have to look at Resolution 242, in light of, does it help things or make them worse or just simply different?

What really stops Country A from invading or attacking Country B for their stuff or food when everyone takes their own toys home anyways?

If you cannot invade Country B, to control it, why not destabilize it and put in someone more cooperative or simply buy it?

Now, the UN worries about "neo-colonialism" and resource or silent wars... where foreign countries acquire by power instead of using actual war and rich nations purchase poorer ones. South Korea and other nations buy the Sudan. Saudi Arabia buys Tanzania. People buy the Congo. Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia own much of Africa. A proposed land deal between Madagascar and South Korea lead to a coup in Madagascar.

Didn't US imperialism cause support for Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, UNITA in Angola and the Contras in Nicaragua? Didn't US imperialism and oil supply tons to do with Iraq?

It is often UN Resolutions that create the nightmares and that continually perpetuate it.

The problem is that we created a place where we vote and we think voting makes it beyond reproach, incapable of being inherently flawed and above criticism.

A free vote is not- you vote with me or else. 

Decolonisation by "winds of change" and peaceful disengagement and a nation becoming anti-imperialistic is always the best bet.

I am on record as no fan of the UN. Different rules for friends than enemies and different rules for the powerful over the weak... etc.... is not a system I praise. Collective and popular wrongs are still wrongs.

 The Globe and Mail's editorial board was a bit slow to react but I am glad it finally took a position on the new Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. (see March 15 editorial "Insincere and unhelpful.") I almost dropped my coffee this morning when I read "Mr. Netanyahu needs to go further and put a halt to construction plans." The problem of course is that this is just a tempest in a teapot and when the politicians and editorial writers finish paying lip service, the Israeli settlers, with the tacit approval of their government, will go back to building new settlements on occupied land. What is needed is for the Obama administration to encourage economic sanctions against Israel over the settlement issue. The odds of this happening of course are remote because of the uproar that would come from the Jewish lobby but in a perfect world this would be the right thing to do.

 jon71 wrote

"Considering the land belongs to Israel it's not remotely a land grab. Whether you agree or disagree with it from a political standpoint it's undeniably within Israels legal rights to develop their own land as they see fit. The worst it can be accused of being is undiplomatic and that's debatable."

I agree that the Israelis have the right to develop their own land. Back in the 1920s, the Jewish National Fund provided money to buy land in and around Jerusalem for farmers to grow crops and for Jewish entrepreneurs to set up businesses. I do not have a problem with this because the land was purchased legally.

After 1967 however the Israeli strategy changed. The Israelis no longer had to purchase the land; they found it much easier to occupy it. Israeli settlers poured into the West Bank and any Arab inhabitants who objected were taken care of by the Israeli military. Arabs became discouraged trying to survive in Jewish only neighbourhoods and moved out.

If you want to see how many Israeli settlements exist in the occupied West Bank, google Wikipedia "Israeli settlements." You will see increased Israeli settlements along the Jordan river, around Jerusalem and to the west of Nablus, all important areas because of their religious and economic importance. The Israelis could care less about Gaza. This is what I mean by a land grab. I could also talk about the Golan Heights and the infamous Segregation Wall but that is for another post.

Israel?  They don't even have a hockey team, let alone a curling rink.  Do they even have a Tim Hortons?  If we're speaking of land grabs, the formation of the United Church of Canada was one of the biggest land grabs in OUR history and sanctioned by Parliament.

The history of this doesn't matter. It's now and the future that count.

1' A junior minister, almost certainly with the consent of the PM, has comitted Canada to a war without any parliamentary debate, and without a shred of a mandate from the Canadian people to do so.

We would consider an attack on Israel an attack on Canada? Even the British Empire did not demand that of us. We were technically at war when Britain was, but were not required to play any role - Escept with the consent of the Canadian people expressed through their representatives. But a twit of junior minister now can commit us to war. So much for democracy.

2. Israel wants a war with Iran. It surely has said so often enough. The West gets into that, and it will be the third invasion of a moslem country in less than ten years. That will put us into a world wide religious war. (Andi it's not hard to make an attack on Iran look like a response to a threat to Israel.)

3. Any such war, given the nature of modern weapons would crteate more heaps of bodies than we have ever seen. Few can guess at the growth of even conventional weapons over the past fifty years.

4. Neither our economy nor our social structure would survive such a war.

5. Just a a footnote, the chances of avoiding a nuclear escalation would be zero.

I should have added....

6. Israel does not want peace. It has made that as clear as it possibly can. Obama had set up peace talks, making it very clear that the occupation of even more of the west bank with "settlers" had to stop as a condition of the talks. Isreal seemed to agree.

Then, with VP Biden on a visit and standing on public TV to pledge support to israel, Netanyahu chose that very minute to announce a huge expansion of settlements. He publicly rubbed Obama's nose in the dirt. I cannot think of any American president has ever been so pulbicly humilated. And this to the country that is Israel's largest donor of foreign aid, the aid  which has made possible the Israeli armed forces. Of, course, the very idea of peace talks collaspsed immediatly.

This is no small incident. Israel is so confident of its lobbying power in the US, that is knew it could humiliate its major partner and get away with it. Netanyahy doesn't give a damn what the US thinks. He doesln't give a damn what the world thinks.

And  Israel has 80 to 250 nuclear warheads.

And Nethanyahu figured the Americans exactly right. The political fatheads are still giving speeches about how the threat to world peace is if Iran gets one nuclear warhead. (Though they have stopped worrying about North Korea having at least four.)\

In reality the biggest threat to world  peace is the ambitious and irresponsible government of Israel.

 Two days ago, Israeli authorities ordered the destruction of a mosque in the West Bank. The locals have seven days to tear down a building that's been there since 1967.  Anyone hear about it?  Not likely.  I'll send you the info if you want.

Today, when Israel opens a synagogue in East Jerusalem, Palestinians riot and throw rocks.  And guess what's on the front page of CNN?

That's my problem, the coverage is so one sided.  I hear you about the future graeme, just need a little help getting there.

i don't want to get there.

History does matter, because it is history repeating. (Shirley Bassey and the Propellerheads)

It is not merely "their" history. It is "our" history.

Politics is about power and politics will always be about power.

The demographics alone show Jews will very soon be a minority within Israel. It is much harder to retain power effectively as a minority.

In most instances, throughout the world and throughout time, it is acheived by force.

The choice before the governments has been to make strategic decisions. It basically boils down to make peace - relinquishing parts of the territory - or to make war. Unfortunately neither just breaks out, we must make them.

They have chosen peace and war depending on their own stategy and dependent on public opinion. That goes for Israel and her neighbours as well as the Palestinians.

The falling apart of the former Soviet Union once meant Israel felt they could flex muscles. They would have an immigration influx. There is no immigration influx on the horizon after the Soviet Union. For me, it speaks of the quality of Israel as a Jewish society and as a democratic society. For others, they only see a Palestinian problem.

So, you are about to be overthrown by numbers in your own country, so now what?

It appears the intent currently is to make war, those who lose become refugees, and you maintain power that way.

It is nothing many other nations have not chosen time and time again. The future looks bleak. All of ours.

 I have just read in today's Toronto Star (March 25/10) that the Israelis have approved 20 new apartments for Jews in an Arab neighbourhood of East Jerusalem. This is in addition to  the 1600 housing units announced earlier. How can anyone take Israel's desire for peace seriously when Netanyahu and company continue to undermine efforts by president Obama to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians to the table? Netanyahu's intransigence also undermines Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to reign in terrorist activities by Hamas. The view that Israelis can take East Jerusalem without regard for its religious significance to the Arab Muslims is outrageous.

If I recall my WWII history didn't the allies basically create Israel after the war, taking land from other countries to do so?  We did this to ourselves.

1. North American media are biased heavily in favour of Israel. And also heavily against moslems. Unlike you, I actually read a good deal of it every day.

2. You don't seem to have the faintest undestanding of what it going on. For openers, the expansion of settlements was deliberately timed to publicly insult Biden and, by extension, Obama. The added expansion was timed dleliberatlely to insult Obama during his meetings with Obama.

3. We are inches from nuclear war. Netanhayu is determined to attack Iran. If he does, that will have serious and unpredictable results. That attack would destablize the whole world, and take us into an undending state of war with the risk of nuclear weapons every day.

4. You obviously haven't looked on either side, and havn't the faintest idea what  you are talking about.

5. A little thinking piece for you. If it would be dangerous to the world for Iran to get a nuclear bomb, why isn't it dangerous for North Korea to get four? Nobody has even suggested attacking North Korea.

Why is it okay for Israel to to have dozens of them, perhaps as many as 250?

6. And skip  the anti-semitic crap. You don't even know what a semite is.

 Hey Beshpin....

At some point you have to make a stand. The issue at hand is the establishment of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, inhabited by Arab Muslims and whether such a strategy will lead to peace. I would suggest that this is a hugely important issue but you seem to slough it off by some vague reference to what Palestinians have done in the past. Please deal with the present issue and tell me if you think Netanyahu and company are doing their best to ensure peace not only in the Middle East but possibly  elsewhere in the world.

1. Heresay is properly spelled hearsay. (as in saying what you have heard other people say. Get it?)

2. You have twice called me an anti-semite.

3. A nuclear war has been possible for over sixty years. sometimes, we are closer than others. An Israeli attack on Iran would make it almost certain. There is a difference.

4. Your theory that the US is using Israel as an excuse to attack Iran is as bozo as they come. Even Bush was trying to hold down Israel on that one.

You haven't heard of the public humiliations of Obama and Biden by Netanyyahu? Where on earth do you get your news from?

5. Also notice that Netanyahu and Obama just met  for what both called an important conference. However, they did not issue a joint press statement after it? That is extremely unusual for such a meeting. Now, put on your little thinking cap, and figure out why they wouldn't issue a joint statement.

1. I won't waste time quoting anything. You'll deny it anyway.

2 There is n othing conjectural about. the Israeli government has already said it would consider using its arsenal. As well, any invasion of Iran would mean an American stranglehold on middle east oil Neither China nor Russia could afford to let that pass. Both have large stores of nuclear weapons.

Such an attack would cause an explosion in the whole moslem world. I know  you will say they deserve to explode. But the explosion would probably destroy the government of Pakistan which only holds power at all because of American subsidies. Pakistan would almost certainly be taken over byvery militant moslems. Anbd Pakisan has some 80 nuclear missiles.

And even if we escape that, we would find ourselves at war with the whole moslem world, a war that, based on results in Afghanistan,would last for generations and economicallyy destroy he US. It would also make a world war likely because neither China nor Russia could possibly tolerate an American victory with control of all th ose markets and resources.

Our chances of avoiding a nuclear war in such a case are zero.

3. Of course, I'm speculating when I find it suggestive that Obama and Netanyahu did not issue a joint press release. After all, I havent had time to phone with Net or Obama. But not issuing a joint statement is almost unheard of. And every diplomat in the world I have read commenting on it has said their is a dangerous gap between the American and Israli governments.

4. Yes, I did make an ad hominet comment.. That's because I always respond to people in the way they address me. Never back away from a bully.

Yes, somewhere in the world somebody is at war at some time. That is not the same as the whole world being in a war at the same time. You'll notice it when you supply of cheap, oriental I phones is cut off - as well as much of your furet supply frome areas south of here. You may also notice it the fange and power of even non nuclear weapons,and the rise of civilian deaths even here. You'll notice it in the collapse of economies - which is already happening here.. You'll notice in the inability to get fuel.

YOu may may well notice it the use of anthrax, much easier to get and easier to transport. If you think that's extreme, not the use has already used Agent Orance iin Vietnam. And there are lots more goodies than that in stock on both sides.

The record of war for over a century has been steeply rising civiilian death and starving and sufering over whole nations. In each war the weapons have beem more powerful, longer range, and less discriminate.

The temptation of a losing nation, floudnering in debt and hsteria , will be to use it's lasd card - nuclear.

These are not simply my conjectures about the result of an attack on Iran. They were publicly reported as the testimony of the the most highly rebard ged\neral in the US army,General Patraeus and of a US admiral while he was returning home after a long spell of duty iin Israel.

All disussion of the future is conjectural. I expect my car to start tomorrow. It has atarted every norming but one for five years. So to say it will start tomorrow is conjectural. But it's not "just" conjectural.

 It seems there is  some serious opposition in Israel to Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. President Simon Peres has called for the status quo; in other words the Jews in West Jerusalem and the Arab/Muslims in East Jerusalem. He points out that Netanyahu is the first Israeli Prime Minister to permit settlements in East Jerusalem. For more info go to Haaretz.com.
I wonder what the position of Tzipi Livni and the Kadima party  is on this issue??
I have also just emailed the Canadian Jewish Congress explaining my opposition and asking for their point of view. Anyone care to join me?

Finally I have just read that two members of the IDF have been killed in Gaza by Palestinians who did not like the idea of Israeli troops entering Gaza. This madness will never end unless more people try to understand what is really going on in the Middle East.

 The previous post should read Shimon Peres.

Oh, Beshpin - all opinions about the future are conjectural, including yours. I do have the advantage, though, of actually reading a great deal about the news. So I know that not only did Netanyahu and obama not make a joint statement, but they ate lunch separately, something almost unheard in a state visit. I have also read interviews with diplomats in the US and Israel that there is a wide space opening between the two countries. I also read the congressional testimony of General Petraeus that a war with Iran would be a disaster. (Have you heard of General Petraeus?)

I also know that the US has been unable to militarily defeat a relatively small guerrilla force of a country whose whole population is one tenth that of the US.

I also know it cannot sustain a large military force in the field because Americans won't join the army. That's why almost half the force in Afghanistan is made up of foreign mercenaries. It is losing in AFghanistan, and going broke in the proccess. Meanwhile, it has committed its forces to one side in Somalia, and there is not the slightest hope of getting out of Iraq for a decade at the very least - probably much longer.

So, I dunno, it seems to me, like, ya know, just off the top of my head, a war with Iran might be something of a strain.

oh, I know. I don't have evidence. Are you sure you know what evidence means? If you decide not to put on a raincoat because yesterday''s paper said it wouldn't rain, even though, as can see out your window that it's pouring, --- well, hell, you've got evidence it won't rain. a weather forecast is evidence.

Sometimes you don't have evidence. What you do have is a broad knowledge. And you have a brain. You put the two together. Which one do you think you should buy first?

oooh - sounds okie you have high contacts. We it General Petraeus?

I thnk that's called hearsay and conjecture.

What lies at the end of the road?  

How far will a state go to paint their own doors with the blood of innocents?

Just a Self-writing poem,

InannaWhimsey

Reading into joint statements or a lack of them is dangerous. It is dangerous when Israelis sell it to Israelis that Obama is thus an enemy OR Americans sell it to Americans that Netanyahu is the enemy OR a Canadian sells it that one or the other is.

Graeme not sure your source, but what I heard was they took dinner separately and that Obama went to have a meal with his family leaving Netanyahu to stew all because Net was stalling and Obama said "see ya in a bit".

Oh, I also heard they were supposed to meet for an hour and that it lasted 90 minutes. I also heard Obama retired to his residence and Natanyahu stayed in the Roosevelt Room to consult with his staff. That Netanyahu asked for a second meeting and Obama and him met in the Oval Office for another half hour give or take a few minutes.

On the list of things said is that this is one more clue that Obama is a closet Muslim and thus won't eat meals with a Jew. (sheesh, they never get done with that one)

What is accurate? Well, Netanyahu and Obama know. We only know what we read, hear or see. What is written, spoken and presented is another thing altogether and it is all over tha map and "pick your news" is not actual news.

Saying a skipped statement or a skipped meal is a snub is also dangerous and often erroneous. Taking a break in a meeting, for alone time, time to think and process is not always a bad thing and is not always a snub.

Sometimes they (joint statements)are avoided just because of the fire storm they can create or there simply was no progress made and not much to announce. Sometimes they are held because they make you look good. Sometimes they are not held to save face in their own political arena. Sometimes they are held just to get face time. Sometimes there are simply other places one must be.

It does not have to be a slap in the face. Couldn't it simply be diplomacy? A joint statement by Obama and Netanyahu would have made Palestinians mad. The same as a joint statemant made by Obama and Abbas would anger Israelis. Who did he make a statement first with? What was his facial expression? Did he use the word ___? It is all dangerous when it is being manipluted and milked. .

Obama made a statement with Hu (China) and it pissed off India and Taiwan. That is the climate of politics and the state of our world. Could a joint statment be made with Israel and it not be read into or distorted or played by the Middle East or Israelis or Palestinaians or Americans?

Medvedev (Russia) and Obama made a joint statement with renewed promise to START (Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty) and new transparency all the while both countries lie about the number of weapons they actually have. What does a joint statement even mean?

Obama gets slammed for phoning X or saying A and is said to be pro-Israel. He then gets slammed for phoning Y or saying B and accused of being pro-Palestinian.

What would have then President Carter speaking alongside either Begin or Sadat alone done to the peace talks?  Would it have been seen as favouritism?

If we look back to the day... what was the path, the framework,  to a stable Middle East? Reinforcement of the disengagement plans, recognition of Palestinian rights, and renewed relationships with the United States.

How is that going? Do we dare ask if anyone in political power really wants a stable Middle East?

When leaders of other nations call it an insult, they are usually working toward or for their own goals.

When other nations stir the pot, one should wonder what they think is in it for them to eat or if it is really their meal or their ingredients. Who is saying what and why? When the media picks a side one has to look at who their readers are and who supports them. Or we can simply eat what is served to us.

Netanyahu, who is of the Likud party, criticized the interior minister who made the statement about development during Biden's visit. Does anyone care? Does anyone know that the Interior Minister is Eli Yishai who is ultra-orthodox and part of the Shas party?  Does anyone say that the Labour Party said it may quit the ruling coalition over the decision of settler homes? The homes in East Jerusalem are supported by Elad, another right-wing group. Do most people know Netanyahu is in a coaltion government? Doesn't coalition mean one has to appear a certain way to those of "the other" party and not to your own? Does anyone know political parties in Israel or is Israel and Israelis and thus Jews painted with one big brush?

How would we accept Liberals and NDP and Conservative and Bloq and Green, etc... being seen as the voice of Canada or as representative of all Canadians? Is some cabinet minister who does something assinine the epitome of the regime?

Biden also said in Tel Aviv that his country will abide the UN-SCR that stops arms flow to Hizbullah and strip the party of its weapons. He slammed Iran for dealing arms to Hizbullah. Is this pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli?

The press and the poltical pundits and the fear mongerers play both angles (pro and con)depending on who the audience is and what the outcome desired is.

We can look at things any way we choose. We usually look at them in ways that align with what we already believe or support... We usually have our own motivation. The peace process means looking at the other side and not being rigid and being open and taking our own motivations out of it.

The agreement that Israel made months ago was to not bulid settlements in the West Bank. Abbas demanded including East Jerusalem before they would enter into the peace process. One can pick and choose who is avoiding the peace process, who is sidelining it, who is obstructing it, who is derailing it... It is all a matter of perspective. The truth is that both sides do at various times, the press does, foreign countries do...

One can hone in on Jerusalem and rightly so, but where was the attention to settlement when the plans were filed in Aug 2009? It was in Haaretz, the country's oldest and most influential newspaper? So, in other words are we to think there was no US outrage at the plan just the timing of the public announcement? How is it a public announcment if it has been announced for months in the news? Or is this simply posturing on all sides for cameras and news coverage and clout?

If you are going to look at Jerusalem  one has to ask longer range peace questions then about a settlement .  Yes, a two-state solution requires provisions for Palestinian building in East Jerusalem. Is the goal of this plan to thwart that? This paln definitely stoked the flames in Jerusalem.

Yet, one has to look longer range. How does Jerusalem, as Israel's current capital, also have East Jerusalem become the capital of the Palestinian state intended to be established in Gaza and the West Bank? It is what Abbas says his people want. Is it feasible? Prudent? Will it work? What are the Palestinains and Israelis willing to risk? What are the areas and the worlds Jews, Muslims, Christians willing to put on the line in the name of peace? The city of Jerusalem? What are the world nations willing to risk for peace beyond the city? Will they risk they own strangeholds over an entire region? What nightmare is created by Kansas City, Kansas and  Kansas City, Missouri and it being international as in flight plans, documentation, visas, passports, etc... with a Jerusalem, Palestine AND/OR Jerusalem, Israel? What if Jersusalem being two capital cities of two separate states is not supported? Is denying a state capital in East Jerusalem denying the Palestianians a viable state if done by Israel? What if done by UN?

 
I am not a Zionist, that said, I do not see all Israelis or all Jews as supporters of Netanyahu, as supporters of this settlement, as not wanting a two-state solution, as blocking the peace process....  It is like any nation and its people, they are not homogenous.  To do otherwise is stereotyping and I am not a fan.

 Yes - the delicate nature of diplomacy.  As pointed out in this clip:

Does it matter that netanhau told off the minister for making the statement about expanding the settlements? Did he stop the settlements? Are they being built despite Netanyahus disapproval?

Nor did I stereotype, I have spoken many times of the peace movement in Israel. I have Israeli friends in it. I have Jewish friends in Canada in the peace movement. They are stereotyped as anti-semites by zionist organizations. I have been listed as a friend of  Palestinian terrorists in an American slander website, and all because I defended a Jewish colleague who had been named an anti-semite for his criticism of Nethanyahu.

Please don't preach to me. I know well, and never said, that all iraelis support Netyanuahu. I never said all support the settelements.I never said all are blocking the peace process. Please. in that last paragraph, you accuse me of things I  never said and you did it with trite and self - righteous blather about no nation being homogeneous. Gee. duh. What wise and insightful words. I never knew that.

As to getting information from news, I know the news is biased. I have many times said so. The answer is to read a wide range of news sources. For example, not long ago, I listed the Israeli Haaretz as an excellent paper, and one that opposes Nethanyahu. Read The Independent (Britain). Check the BBC site. And the BBC. Both are far superior to most news services.  Al Jazeera is far better than it is given credit for, infinitely superior to most US and Canada news sources. (Of course, it is. It was created and is run largely by people with background work in and cooperation with BBC and CBC.

As to the building of settlements, it has been going on for fifty years. I have known some of the settlers, too, so I know exactly the contempt and hatred they feel for Palestinians. The settlements were always in defiance of UN rulings, of international law. And those Palestinians who try to live in Israel find they are second class, and easily kicked out - as many recently were for having the nerve to have houses in a Jewish district.

It made the news recently because it was well known that an end to extension of the settlements was a requirement to get peace talks underway. Netanyaju knew that. That's why they were built.

But above all, beware of preaching to people - at least until your reading skills advance somewhat. Either that, or become an evangelical TV preacher in Alabama.

graeme,

I did not, as I do now, above address my comments solely to you. It is something I tend to do when directly speaking to someone or addressing something they said. You may or may not have noticed.

To the best of my knowledge, that one creates a thread does not give them ownership rights. There may be many people reading and there were that I saw at least 5 seriously commenting. My remarks were and can be to those as well as to you. They can also be to those who read and have not said a word.

You seem to have taken them completely personal and that they were accusatory and preachy.

As we spoke of news bias, so too do people have bias. Readers getting their Middle East opinions from you is not without bias. You have your own bias and it is evident. I too have my own. That said, I am not a Zionist and I believe Israel by inception and design was anti-Semitic. I am not a supporter of Israeli policy on Palestine and actually belong to Jews Against the Occupation. I have not, as a person of Jewish background, met the radical opposition or accusations of anti-Semitism you have. Now, that may be because I do not encounter the radical element often or that I am not perceived as a radical myself.

You asked a question that highlights a dilemma.

"Does it matter that netanhau told off the minister for making the statement about expanding the settlements? Did he stop the settlements? Are they being built despite Netanyahus disapproval?"

Nothing matters to you short of stopping the settlements. That is hard-line.

Those who say Israel's control over all of Jerusalem is non-negotiable, are also hard-line.

I am in neither camp.

To me, peace cannot be brokered that way and peace is not enforced. It is nurtured and created.

No, Netanyahu only criticized the timing. He did not say he would stop the settlements. He won't. The ones the Biden incident brought to our attention were announced publicly and loudly last summer, then nobody seemed to notice. I think the plan are 50,00 new housing units in East Jerusalem alone in the coming years. So, how could he say they are stopped, unless we prefer lies to truth. He cannot stop them, the Israelis want housing units built. They want the Law of Return and they want a Jewish and democratic state and I am not sure both are possible at the same time.

I accept that Abbas has a role to fulfill. People will have to be a go between because he will not meet with Natanyahu or go to Jerusalem. They will have to go between Ramallah and Jerusalem.

I accept the Netanyahu also has a role to fulfill. He is part of a coalition government and as such has to appease more than just his own party or supporters.

Unless compromises are arrived at that allow both to look like they did not compromise their cause or their country or their people... they are at an impasse.

Right now, (and always) the US is pumping aid to both sides. Neither side is going to tell Mitchell to stay away, it would be inhospitable. But, there is no legitimacy to this "peace process" either when neither will even sit down and talk with the other. That is neither peace nor any process. This is badly acted theatre done by political leaders.

Abbas has to be seen as seeking peace or he de-legitimizes his government around the world. He has to look as though he wants to negotiate with Netanyahu. The cost of not doing "peace" is too high. The Palestinian Authority is/has been propped up for years by the US. They have no access points and collect no taxes/duties, those go to Israel. They were dependent on that money from Israel that they stopped transferring in 2006 with the Hamas elections. The US picked up the ball. Abbas and his Fatah party would not win an election. Hamas as a duly elected political party is not an option for the rest of the world. Most Palestinians are tired of and hate pretty equally Israel and the Americans and they do not want any of that hand shaking and ass kissing. The people get mad if he so much as talks about peace.

Israelis say they want peace, but there we are with those US dollars again. Do they want a two-state system that hands over important territory? No. Will they ever agree to the bottom and hard line of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem? As likely as hell freezing over and all the little devils going ice skating. Do they want a one state system where they are or will be shortly in a minority? No, that is simply suicide. Israeli public opinion is not that surrendering land will bring peace.

The "peace process" are often spin and words to those in power. The people want peace, as in an end to danger, but often without their leaders making peace or giving an inch. The outside world wants what they want and peace often gets in the way of what they actually want.

My comments about stereotyping were is response to what Easydoesit brought up about opposition to settlements inside Israel. I was once again pointing out, as I have in every post, that I am a non-Zionist Jew and that we do not all support Netanyahu or settlements.  

Again, without your name at the top, my comments were to the topic at large and not to a particular poster, so I never accused you of anything. Your assumption of such may have flavoured your response to me.

As much as you have went on in political debate, even to the point of addressing what was "right" and what was "wrong",  I do not recall ever telling you that you were preaching to me.

I also take offense at the comments about reading more newspapers and acquiring some reading skills.

I also know those who because of Law of Return, also a UN  ruling, went to settle in Israel. I also know a few who returned to the US and Canada and they did not/ do not hate the Palestinians. Our experiences are our own.

I expect personal attacks from some and from others, not. You really were not one I expected it from, but seeing how you react to others who disagree with you, I should also not have expected to be exempt.

Saying you are only reacting to an ad hominem attack does not fly here, to me. People reading can draw their own conclusions.

Saying you are just responding in the way people addressed you does not fly here either, to me. Again, people can draw their own conclusions.

I know my intent and I know how I was treated.

I will not follow your lead in the whole reacting thing and wander off to critique spelling and whatever else might serve to make me feel good.

Anything I add to this thread will be to the thread and not directed to you. I have nothing I wish  to say to you that I would be proud of having said. 

The only person referred to in your letter was me. And you put it close to the start.

And you, who said no group of people is homogeneous are the one who says above that there is broad agreement among Iraelis.

Yes, Netanyahu has some pretty wacky political allies to play to. But they, and not more peaceful people are his allies because he chose them rather than the others to be his allies. Nor can I think of a moderate word said by him in his whole career.

Luckily, all the principals in this group (Israel, Palestine and Egypt) rely heavily on American aid. Without that aid, neither Israel nor Egypt would be defensible. The solution is quite obvious. Cut off the aid until they agree to talk and come to a settlement. Two things prevent that. One is a very poweful Israel lobby in the US and Canada. And the fact that much of that aid is welfare for the American arms industry, the biggest one in the world.

And of course I'm biased. All human are.

I was going to mention the lunch/dinner.... and mentioned you and your source since you stated it was lunch and insinuated intent....  and because the time and the meal and the circumstance are all over the map. 

If it had been said by anyone else, I would have mentioned them there.I would have just as easily been typing and come to something and said "jon, where did you get that?" That does not mean, for me,  that my whole statement was addressed to that one person. It would mean, for me, that comment. If you inferred the whole, I did not intend that.

I have consistently used names at the top of my posts when addressing a person and broken them apart when they quit being personal discussion and became a topical comment. If you were/are not aware of that pattern,  I certainly am.

I did not state there is broad agreement among Isrealis.  That is you reading that into it from what I wrote.

Netanyahu is elected and accountable to Isrealis. Some Israelis will support a two-state system, but not a one-state. Some who support a two-state solution will be willing to hand over some territories, others who support two-state will not want to turn over those same areas. Some who support a two-state system will support a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, others will not. Others will support a one-state and cannot envision a two-state system. Some will not support a one-state system because of principal. Some will not because of population numbers. Some desire peace but do not see land concession bringing it about. In all of that, you have Isrealis of many opinions in agreement on certain things and not on others. In all of that, I do not see them reaching agreement  to hand over important territory or that hands over East Jerusalem, not because of unity, but because of all the divisions. No different than anywhere.

The Likud, Natanyahu's party, is the centre-right party within Israel. What we think is left , right and centre depends upon where our own feet are or what we are conditioned to or can be based on a worldview. He and his party are pretty centrist, as were Sharon and Begin. That said, the Likud party line is, for over the past decade, based on a platform that has right of settlement and no Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan.

Now, that should resolve all remaining conversation between us.

well, I'll add one thing. I am, admittedly, short-termpered from having too many meetings with Zionist propagandists. I see now that you aren't one.  I guess it's a block I've been around too many times, and it a subject that is profoundly emotional for me.

It was the Montreal Jewish community that made the biggest, single difference in my life. I was close to them, and felt them more Christian in their behaviour and attitudes than most Christians. I owe them thanks for the whole direction my life took from my teens on.

And I see Zionist propagandists as the destroyers of that community and, indeed, of Judaism.

Some of those people, close friends, now live in Israel. And I can see Netanyahu following a course which leads to disaster for Israel. It is surviving by reliance on a USA, a reliance which can only lead to broadening of war to a world war. It is also reliance on a USA in a steep decline from which it is not likely to recover, and in which it will be unable to provide Israel with the support it needs.

Israel needs a peace settlement at least as badly as Palestine does if either of them is to survive. And the time is becoming very, very short.

I hope you'll understand my anger came not at you but at the despair I feel as I watch what is happening, both to Israel and to the community I knew so well.

graeme,

I stated, as I do in every conversation regarding Israel, that I am from a Jewish background and am not a Zionist and have never been. I have also stated a time or two, that like my grandfather before me, I see the creation of Israel as an act of anti-Semitism. (The world was anti-Semitic and had refugees to deal with that nobody wanted.) That you needed to let it go so far before you saw that, to me, is a sign of how blurred one's vision can get when mixed with sweat, tears, anger....

I already knew you were angry, that there is a sense of despair for the region, that the topic is one you are passionate on, etc. I knew you get angry and emotional on this topic and thus can see Zionist monsters under the bed. The same as when others are angry and emotional on the same topic and see anti-Semite monsters under the bed.

However, regardless of my understanding your anger or despair, there is also no way I can feel it did not come AT me when you hurled the insults you did.

 StevieG

Allow me to react to some of the comments/thoughts you have expressed in recent posts.

You say that you are a non-Zionist, that you do not support the Israeli policy on Palestine and that you belong to Jews against the Occupation. Why then are you not pounding the table in opposition to Netanyahu's plan to build housing units in East Jerusalem? You seem to accept as inevitable and unavoidable the 5000 units you say he has planned for the future.Also, how can you say on one hand that you are a non- Zionist and on the other say that stopping the settlements is "hardline?"

Much of your argument focusses on pointing out  the differences of opinion that exist among the general Israeli population as well as among the multitude of political parties that constitute the Knesset. Some israelis favour a two state solution, others a one state etc etc. You point out the danger of "painting Jews with one big brush." History would suggest otherwise. How else do you explain an occupation that has gone on for over 40 years and allowed thousands of Jewish immigrants to settle in occupied land? And as Graeme has pointed out, this in defiance of the UN and international law. Netanyahu himself just a couple of days ago said he is doing exactly what previous Israeli governments have done in the past. Where then is the difference of opinion when it comes to the issue of settlements?

You also suggest that in order to arrive at peace in the Middle East, each side needs to compromise. If a burglar were to enter your house with the intention of stealing your wife's jewellery and you offered him half as a compromise, I wonder how long you would stay married?

One last point. You mention the difficulty of having West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. I would argue that this is indeed possible if both sides are willing to share. Unfortunately the Israelis under Netanyahu don't appear to be prepared to do that.

You have mentioned the Right of Return a couple of times. I would ask that you clarify for me what you mean by that. Are you suggesting for example that the Israelis have the Right of Return but the Palestinians don't?

Finally (and this really is my final point), I do favour a strong Israeli state but within the "Green Line" (Israel's border with Jordan from 1949-1967) or failing that land concessions for Jewish settlements that are now too big to dismantle.  Giving the Golan Heights back to Syria would be a start.                        

p.s. I am intrigued by your avatar.

StevieG, you are quite right. I did take out my anger on you, and I regret it. I do feel a sense of despair. I despair for the change in the community that was the centre of most of my adult life, and the strongest force in shaping it. I despair of an Israeli leadership that I think is leading Israel into disaster.

The Jewish community I knew in Montreal was the most caring one I had ever known, and the one most intellectually and culturally involved. I've been out of touch now, except for a few close friends, for three years; and my sense is things have changed.

The deepest roots of this lie, as you say, in the holocaust. Nobody helped. Not Canada, certainly. Not the US. That changed the nature of zionism by coupling the desire for a homeland to a contempt for what the rest of the world might think or want. The joining all of that with a strong American influence led moslems, quite correctly, to see Israel as a part of the western world that had been interfering with their countries for centuries.

Zionism, as originally proposed, was not a bad idea. The mistakes came with where the new Israel was planted (not at all a part of the original plan); and the other mistake was leaving the new Israel, at first, to fend for itself militarily. And, of course, the world's failure to settle matters with the Palestinians, making it inevitable they would end up in a huge prison camp forever.

Easydoesit,

You will find that the more Orthodox one is the less likely they are to be Zionist. Zionism is viewed as being secular and a Jewish state, to some, is even believed to be against Jewish law. That said, for clarity, there are Haredi political parties within Israel.

My background is that I am a mix of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish background because of the history of the region on the Italian-Slovenia border.  My grandfather did not support WZO (World Zionist Organization) or it predecessor ZO (Zionist Orgainzation). They have a history back to 1889-ish. He opposed nationalism, period. He did not support the White Paper or the Biltmore Program. None of his children would have considered entering the military of any country.

That said, many Jews did support the Balfour/White Paper binational solution (which is close to what they aim for in the peace process of today).

My grandfather did not believe in it on religious grounds, but also because he felt it was anti-Semitic, dangerous and naive. He did not see peaceful co-existence in Palestine. He did not believe an international UN administered Jerusalem was a good thing. After all, he had seen the world's attitude at Evian. He felt that later, in 1942, the Biltmore Program's aim for a Jewish Commonwealth was religiously and politically a wrong move. He felt he had more equality and was safer where he was, as an Italian Jew. Then in 1943 his city, once part of Austria, went back in the hands of the Reich. Afterwards, his attitude was that the Biltmore Program's  focus on a Jewish Commonwealth instead of Jewish rescue served to kill countless Jews.

That brings us to me, I do not support the elimination of the state of Israel, but I would not have supported its inception as such. I cannot say I would have supported Balfour/ White Paper and a binational Palestine. I feel I must support it now, as the best solution to a bad problem.  I cannot say I support a UN administered territory. I oppose defining Israel or Jews as a nation. I oppose the action of the Israeli-government at times. I definitely oppose the actions that result in ghetto-izing other human beings.

So, why am I not pounding the table about housing units? I do not support them in ways and I do in others. I would likely pound my fist harder if they had broke the agreement signed months ago about housing units (by plans for Gaza or the West Bank). There was no agreement made about Jerusalem. Israel have been unwavering in that it has status as an eternal undivided capital.  All adminstrations have felt that way and it is the Israeil concensus.

1941, Resultion 181, was to have a partition plan for a two-state system. It did not have Arab support. The state was established and immediately invaded. The partition plan never materialized.

By 1949, based on an armistice agreement, Jordan controlled the Eastern city. That agreement was deemed not legally valid based on the earlier partition plans and a plan for an  internationalized Jerusalem. In 1950, Jordan annexed. The world does not recognize Jordanian claims or Israeli ones.

The plan is an international regime for the city and UN administration. It always has been. That is why embassies are in Tel Aviv, the world does not recognize Jerusalem as anything but an international city.

So, not only how can it be Israel's capital city, but how can it be the established state of Palestine's soon to be captial? It can't be!  The UN, the world, is making promises or alluding to things they have no intention of letting happen. Jerusalem, East and West, are to be internationalized.

Do I think an international city thing is wise or will work? No, I personally don't.

With a law of return, that Jews can go to Israel anytime they want....they will build settlements. Stopping settlements won't ever happen. Will they stop in occupied territories or outside 1967 borders? I certainly hope so.

Do I support Israeli-only settlements? No, I find that in a democratic state it is discriminatory.  International law prohibits all forms of racial segregation in all countries. That said,  altering the demographics being illegal has never stopped western nations from  playing with the demographics in housing projects. It is rather complicated whether settlements are racially discriminatory. Are Jews a race? Do I support Jewish settlements? Yes. Israel has a Law of Return for Jews and more religious, versus secular, Jewish populations, the world over, have tended to form communities or separate around the world. Of note is that I am not speaking of the internationally recognized right to return or re-enter to country origin, which I do believe Palestinaians and all people internationally should have. The problem as it relates to Palestinians, and the way it works in most countries is that you must have been born there and historical origin does not qualify one for immigration, return or re-entry.  I am speaking of the uniquely halakha Law of Return for Jews.

The Oslo accords did not include an obligation to stop the settlements.

What is ok and what is not has depended. Carter said illegal. Reagan said legal. Bush said pre-67 borders were not realistic. Clinton said there had to be concessions. Obama supports taking down settlements.

It is a peace process and for peace to be possible both sides need to be willing to move, negotiate and compromise. They are not. as of yet. 

The world community is also not prepared to accept a divided  and self-controlled Jerusalem.

All sides and the world need to quit lying and pretending and be serious.

Well, we're in broad agreement. But I'm surprised you're partly sephardic. I didn't know know there were any substantial sephardic communities in Europe. (and the fact that your parents married each other, relations between Ashkenazes and Sephardics must be warmer in Italy than in Montreal.)

To take your attitude toward the creation of Israel, I would add that in recognzing Israel, the world took on an obligation to two societies - Jews and Palestinians. Instead of facing up to that responsibility, it ignored both societies - leaving Israel to militarize itself, and leaving Palestine a prison camp. now, that attitude of ignoring our obligation has created one hell of a threat for all of us.

graeme,

Sephardic Jews came from Greece to the current Italy-Slovenia border area in the 1830's.

Apparently, Triestino Jews lived alongside each other. In fact, they still do and the synagogue in Trieste is a two-in-one (two synagogues in one building) and is used by both Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. It may have to do with many Italian Jews taking refuge in Corfu many eons before. It may have to do with the fact that there were also in that area Romaniote Jews and Italkim and they are not Sefardi and not Ashkenazi. My grandfather's roots go back to Austria/ Germany. My grandmother's family came from Corfu, where they came from before that, who knows? So, my father was a blend. BTW My mother's maternal side of the family, though converted to Lutheranism, were also originally Germanic Jews.

Okay. I'm hopelessly lost. I can only add that I was long a friend of a Jew whose name was McGowan.

 Glad to see the two of you work it out.  Seriously, well done.

graeme,

Not sure where you got confused, though it is complicated for sure. Trieste is in Italy, but on the border of Slovenia. It was/is home to both Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews and others. The S & A actually share a temple there. Though most people think about only Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews, there are more branches and most people think Sephardi are limited to Spanish or Arabic, but it includes Greek, Bulgarian, and Turkish Jews also. Romaniote Jews are from Greece since the time of Alexander and speak Greek and have Greek sounding names. Italkim are native Italian Jews and have Italian names. Luigi Luzzatti was an Italian Prime Minister before WWI who was an Italkim Jew. Ironically, so too was Mussolini's mistress Margherita Grassiti/Sarfatti. 

Well, that clears something up for me. The synagogue in Montreal was followed Sephartic practices, and found Sepharic rabbis in Boston for many years. I could never square that with the long predominance of Ashkenazis in Montreal.

Then I remembered that the early Jews in Montreal were from Britain. They had fled to Britain  from Spain and Portugal some generations earlier. Thus Spanish and Portuguese synagogue in Montreal.

Today, I would guess most of the Sepahardi in Montreal are French speaking, and from North Africa.

 It was interesting to read Jeffrey Simpson's column in the Globe and Mail yesterday (April 20) where he talks about the "Cracks in the bedrock of US-Israel relations." In an annual BBC World Service poll of 28 countries including Canada and the US, 19% of respondents held a positive view of Israel while 50% held a negative view. Simpson goes on to point out that most Israelis consider "soft power" a fool's game. This of course is nothing new for Israel. It wants complete control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and cares little for international law or world opinion.

I think that Israel is doomed and that we are approaching the brink of a new holocaust against the Jews.  This may take a little while, however.  Future leaders are now young people in university, an environment which is a hotbed of anti-semitism.  I think that within 10-15 years, support for Israel will diminish and an arab nation which has acquired nuclear weapons will use them against Israel.  It could be sooner but in any case, I am not planning any vacations to Israel soon!

Just my opinion, of course.

I taught in universities for forty years. I never saw any evidence of anti-semitism. In fact, in my last year of teaching, the whole top administration of the university was Jewish.

The only public attack I ever saw on a Jewish professor was an attack by a ultra-zionist web site called campus watch. It named him (he was not only Jewish, but and observant Jew) an anti-semitic Jew because he was not hard line enough in his support for Israel. They publicly named him a supporte of Islamic terrorism. They did so based on information from an un named student who was anonymous, and whose charges were never revealed and never studied. In consequence, a devout Jew found himself demonized in  his own community and lynch mobs of the local zionist organizations jumped in.

He was a friend  I knew well.  He was a gentleman, honorable and decent. He most certainlhy did noto support anybody's terrorism.

When I wrote an angry letter protestinig the treatment of him, they added my name as a supporter of Palestinian terrorism.

It's still there. Google Campus Watch. I'm proud to be condemned by such a gang. I think there are thousands of professors across Canada and the US who should be ashamed they are not on the list.