Point/Counterpoint: Israeli Apartheid Week

what a great discussion! i agree with savannah that the demands of IAW are consistent with international law. i'm glad asher acknowledges the deep flaws and segregationist project that israel has been enacting with respect to the palestinians.

a question for asher, in your advocacy of NGOs, how do you respond to the fact that the BDS movement was launched by over 170 palestinian NGOs and civil society organizations - including refugee rights organizations, peasant groups, women's organizations, labour unions, etc. - as a non-violent means of opposing Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands?

20 years of a 'peace-process' have only yielded increasing hardships for palestinians, including the expansion of settlement building, being walled-off and fenced-in to the world's largest open air prisons, an increasingly right-wing government in Israel, the cut off of aid, and repeated and periodic bombing and military campaigns taht result in disproportionate civilian casualties. since 'dialogue' has born little fruit, many in palestinian civil society view BDS as a non-violent means of creating pressure on israel to respect fundamental human rights..

A great article/interview with Judith Butler in the Israeli daily Haaretz about the importance of the BDS movement for social justice and for creating a space for Israeli/Palestinian dialogue: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1152018.html.

lame comments, like someone saying the sky is blue and people repeat it;s blue, and other taking advantage of a "debate" to promote their events. I'm not Jewish or have interest in Israel, but give me a break, it's a conversation, not a choir

The "demands" for simple adherence to human rights protocols, as established by the UN and other bodies, is "criminal"? Looks like Joe's moved to upside-down-world and he's not coming back.

Asher's comment piece is a joke, every paragraph repeats "its complex". No shit, huh? Notice he can't actually answer to any of the claims put forth by the BDS gang? I find it humourous that NO ONE actually came forth to defend Israel, you had to go off-campus (all the way to America?) to find a mouthpiece and "ask him to write" something. Guess UT has finally sided with apartheid, en masse.

Glad to see Zionism is still alive and well at The Varsity. Your paper's turning into a rag and at only eight pages long you'd better start calling it 'The Pamphlet'. I wonder where all our money goes?

The first article is better written than the second. Unfortunately, there's a huge discrepancy between what it says IAW does, and what IAW actually serves to do.

Savannah's argument is based entirely on the premise that IAW "brings to campus a relevant and compelling discussion". What's being hinted at, is that IAW provides a forum for discussion on an important issue. However, IAW is not a forum at all. Instead of promoting discussion and debate, the organizers hold a series of events where they present their side of the story and try to convince the uninformed that Israel is solely responsible for the problems of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Just because the issue is being discussed does not mean that productive dialogue is happening. The reason there is so much opposition to IAW is because it is so one-sided. Do they actually think that there is nothing Palestine could do to improve the state of the issue?

Of course, one-sided partisan events happen on campus all the time, but IAW deals with a much more complex issue and the opinions expressed are more radical, on both sides. The 3 demands on Israel Savannah mentions are not unreasonable. It is also not unreasonable to expect that discussions on such a complex topic not be entirely one-sided.

As a side note, if you go IAW's website and look at the list of supporting organizations, you'll notice a common pattern - all of them are left-wing fringe groups, or at best, student groups run by students who are members of left-wing fringe groups, dedicated to ideology and not problem-solving. None of those organizations are solutions-oriented. They just take up radical opinions and try to convince people that they're right...which is much more challenging than actually finding solutions.

Way to go comment board! I'm glad this has sparked a discussion.

What we tried to do with these articles was turn the discussion away from Israel versus Palestine, and towards a talk about what IAW itself actually does.

Cletus McFinkelstein, you bring up a good point that the intent and reality of IAW are quite different.

ModRobes, this is in fact not a discussion between two white men. Considering one of the authors name is Savannah, I though that would have been rather obvious.

Hopefully though, this year's IAW will be less of a shouting match, and more of a constructive discourse.

Savannah S. Garmon writes: "Some may point out nations including Sudan and Iran also have poor human rights records, so why single out Israel? We respond that Western nations have an intimate relationship with Israel that makes us more directly responsible, and gives us greater leverage. We can all sign petitions demanding Sudan stop the genocide, but the unfortunate truth is Canada has little leverage over Sudan; the situation is different with Israel."

Sure Western nations have an intimate relationship with Israel. However, Western nations also have an extremely close relationship with the government in Saudi Arabia that carries out public beheadings and floggings as a form of punishment. It's also a country where synagogues and churches are illegal. So where is Saudi Arabian Apartheid week?

If Israel was truly an apartheid state, why would Stephen Harper and Paul Martin before him strongly support Israel? Why would the UK's Gordon Brown, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, Germany's Angela Merkel, and France's Nicolas Sarkozy all throw their strong support behind Israel's government?

Savannah S. Garmon can only quote a "2009 report by the official Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa" to support the ridiculous notion of Israel being an apartheid state.

I conclude with this: If the IAW organizers are so concerned about human rights in the Middle East, why is there no condemnation of the grotesque financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority? And why is there no mention of the hundreds of thousands of Jews forced out of Arab countries since 1948? The Jewish communities of Iraq, Syria and Egypt do not exist at all anymore!!! Where is the outrage over that?

The illustrator here.

To answer "Why does the Varsity depict this as a 'two-sided' issue with two white men screaming at each other?"

Well, while my reference wasn't white, the paper I drew the man on was. I could have drawn a woman, but I realized regardless of what I drew, male, woman, person of any descent, there would be a message taken from it. There is no generic human. It's wonderful, but also a curse when having to illustrate a controversial issue.

Screaming, well that's my politics sneaking in. I believe it shows how little listening goes on during the week, on either side. Not much else to say on that.

Wow, 37 years ago. Might be time to let it go? Oh wait, I forgot: Jews have an exclusive patent on suffering. My bad.

French Fry, I suggest you brush up on some recent history as the border skirmishes between Saudi Arabia and it's southern neighbor Yemen have surely constituted an "attack".

You might also be surprised to know that Saudi Arabia is building a separation barrier to close off it's southern border to Yemen, this is highly ironic because SA is one of loudest critics of Israel's separation barrier.

In other news, pot calls kettle Jewish

EKS, so you're saying everyone opposed to IAW is a right-wing zionist Jew?

How would you explain myself and other people in this thread who are against IAW but are not Jewish or necessarily zionists?

You hit the nail on the head anyway, IAW isn't about real dialogue it's about those who are already anti-Israel getting together to parrot each other.

Re: the purpose of IAW, EKS writes, "No, it is about a dialogue amongst people concerned with ending racism, and segregation in Israel and Palestine."

...which, as proven by the shouting down of opponents of IAW last year, is interpreted by the radical organizers of IAW as "a dialogue amongst people who agree with us."

Most people consider "dialogue" to be happening when people with different viewpoints are discussing how to move forward, not when a bunch of ideological hooligans get together to hear from speakers they agree with and tell the uninformed why they're entirely right and everyone else is entirely wrong.

To clarify what I just said, I had asked the student what SAIA had envisioned in the future after it was successful in its lobbying. In my example I had said that if the wall (which she later admitted was not the majority of the separation barrier) had been torn done, what next? Did SAIA want one state or two states? What would SAIA's envisioned state be like?

I am yet to find out.

"Hopefully though, this year's IAW will be less of a shouting match, and more of a constructive discourse." - Alixandra Gould

"Screaming, well that's my politics sneaking in. I believe it shows how little listening goes on during the week, on either side." - Cristina Diaz Borda

"IAW isn't about real dialogue it's about those who are already anti-Israel getting together to parrot each other." - Mark

Which is it, friends? A 'shouting match' or a festering pool of anti-racist 'parroting?'

Alixandra and Cristina, I'm not sure we've been attending the same Israeli Apartheid Weeks...Which 'shouting match(es)' are you referring to? Is there an article, or maybe a University of Toronto release describing such confrontations? As Varsity contributors, you would not, of course, have made such serious (read: fabricated) accusations without some form of documented evidence.

'IAW seems to only to contribute to the ongoing problem and offers no hope or solution.' - Canuck

Yet, Israeli Apartheid Week is back for another year, and bigger than ever, taking place in over 45 cities across the world. IAW maintains an (increasing) degree of political weight, at least to the extent that it merits official and unprecedented condemnation - that is, censorship and repression - by the Ontario Legislative Assembly, the Federal Parliament of Canada, and the Toronto District School Board.

Faraz: "IAW maintains an (increasing) degree of political weight, at least to the extent that it merits official and unprecedented condemnation - that is, censorship and repression - by the Ontario Legislative Assembly, the Federal Parliament of Canada, and the Toronto District School Board."

Political "weight" is useful if you're trying to get politicians to implement changes. You use that "weight" to get politicians to do things.

Turns out politicians have condemned IAW, unanimously in the Ontario Legislature's case, effectively casting it off as an unproductive series of radical events that offer no solutions.

What political weight?

Political weight in the sense that of all the events organized on Canadian campuses, IAW and the BDS campaign are the only ones that garner public condemnation and are seen as a threat to Canada's growing and one-sided relationship with Israel (at a time when other states are distancing themselves from Israeli policies that are leading to apartheid). Such political intervention on campuses hasn't been seen since the 'red-scare' of the 1950s. Canadian politicians look ridiculous in the eyes of the Western world. This is an issue that is debated in major papers in Israel as well; but we can't talk about Israeli apartheid in Canada?

No Canadian politician has ever spoken about any activism around Tibet, Sudan, or any other issue that students rightly express concern over or suggested that such campaigns are inherently anti-Chinese or Islamophobic. In fact, students are generally applauded for taking on such issues (including many who happen to also participate in IAW). Nor have Canadian politicians spoken about the fact that York University is playing host to "IDF Week" which celebrates the Israeli military and where pro-Israeli students hold prayer services for Israeli soldiers while wearing T-shirts of the IDF. Yes, Zionist organizations at York University are holding a whole week to celebrate the Israeli military...

Of course, celebrating a military that last year killed 318 children in 3-weeks according to the Israeli human rights organization B'tselem must be much more conducive to dialogue and consistent with Canadian values... After all, with a Canadian economy in a rough spot and accusations that Canada is sending Afghan detainees to torture the Conservatives can begin the post-prorogation parliament with a real hot topic by condemning IAW (Tim Uppal from Edmonton is already preparing the motion).

Makes a lot of sense to me as a response to a series of lectures held on campuses... Yes folks, these are lectures, mostly by academics (i.e. not very exciting affairs; little to no shouting; maybe some graphs; photos; statistics; quotations from human rights organizations). There is a question and answer period that follows usually. Anyone can ask questions. Pretty run of the mill... and so the question then posed is "Why is this seen as a threat worthy of suppression and condemnation?"

Ehud Olmert: "There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement - and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement - we need to implement a unilateral alternative....More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."

Ehud Barak: "The simple truth is, if there is one state [including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza] it will have to be either binational or undemocratic. ... if this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

Martin Kramer (at the same conference that Barak spoke at): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smfbF_l0euo...

So, tell me... Given the above article from the 1980s, are leading Israeli politicians and their strongest supporters thinking like the leaders of the 'only democracy of the Middle East' or the heirs of the apartheid tradition? Is this a conversation we shouldn't be having or is this something we should begin organizing and mobilizing around?

ModRobes, if you're trying to make a point, please do so succinctly instead of pasting quote after quote as if they have any meaning.

Fittingly, this is exactly what SAIA and IAW do. Instead of presenting ways to solve the problem, they merely dig up quotes, anecdotes, and stories as proof that Israel is wrong and...and nothing else!

Also, I am still waiting on a response from any of you IAW supporters as to whether or not you would support a week called ATW: Arab Terrorism Week, which would be a series of lectures and talks about how the Arab world is full of terrorism and oppression yet provides no discussion about possible solutions to the issue. And of course it wouldn't be complete without posters depicting a crazed Arab man blowing up a bus full of young Israeli children with teddy bears.

If anyone finds the above idea ridiculous, take a look at last year's IAW poster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Apartheid_Week

Wow, Cletus, you just outed Joe Howell. How do you posyt hyperlinks?

Always keep the conversation moving towards peace. Join the Pax evolution. Check out www.twitter.com/pax_101, http://middleeasttutorial.blogspot.com/, or at Pax101 on Facebook. Peace.

I'm not clear on how you are framing this. Certainly in the case of Apartheid in South Africa or Canada's colonial relationship to indigenous peoples in this country there are 'two-sides,' but does that imply the need to listen to 'both sides' when the issue is one of settler-colonialism? There were two sides in the Jim Crow Southern USA. Should the civil-rights movement in the southern USA have organized panels that included 'both sides' of that issue?

Yes, we can listen to 'both sides' but it doesn't mean that both will be morally consistent with fundamental precepts of international law or universal human rights norms that most people claim to uphold.

When you say that: "IAW inherently alienates and disregards one side completely," I'm not sure what you're referring to. I think you're conflating 'identity' with 'political stance' and assuming the two are synonymous. I guess you're assuming there are 'two sides' as in Israelis and Palestinians and that both have mutually exclusive claims to the same piece of land. Correct?

Yet, IAW gives lots of space to Israelis and Jewish activists who are concerned with human rights (in fact many of them are organizers of IAW). Since it is a week committed to anti-racism and human rights this is the 'side' that is represented regardless of the identity of the speaker. The 'two-sides' are the side of the oppressor and the oppressed as in any colonial situation. There is a side building a wall and a side that is being enclosed by it. There is a side that is military occupying a population and a side that is being occupied. There is a 'side' that is organizing and ruling over two populations according to differential legal norms and a 'side' that is subject to these policies without the right to participate in these decisions.

It is a question of fundamental morality.

You say, it's not 'black and white' but according to Israeli law there is a clear distinction made between 'Jewish' and 'non-Jewish' citizens of the State of Israel. In fact, there are 26 laws that discriminate between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens. Any Jewish person in the world can claim 'citizenship' in Israel even if they've never been there, while Palestinians expelled from their homes in Israel are not allowed the right to return.

This is as if in Canada we had laws that distinguished between 'Christian' and 'non-Christian,' etc. It is as if Canada barred any 'non-White' and 'non-Christian' population from immigrating. Any such policies that discriminate are worth talking about, wherever they occur. Pointing that such discrimination happens 'elsewhere' doesn't invalidate the fact that it is also happening in Israel.

Those concerned with Palestinian human rights have a right to talk about these issues without being called 'anti-Semitic.' That's like calling every person concerned about Darfur 'Islamphobic' or anyone talking about Tibet 'anti-Chinese.' It just doesn't make sense. And yes, as Canadians we have a responsibility to address the human rights abuses our government is most directly complicit in. That's why I campaigned to have Canadian oil companies divest from the Sudan and that's why I campaign for Canada to cut ties with Israel that perpetuate racist policies and human rights abuses. Ottawa has already imposed sanctions on Hamas, why so one sided in our condemnation of 'two armed factions' in a conflict? Why only criminalize Hamas in Canada and not members of the Israeli military as well?

There's nothing wrong with you disagreeing with the way 'Apartheid Week' is framed, but your attack on the 'framing' question isn't a counter to the actual allegations brought forward by the organizers of Apartheid Week. It is on the basis of these allegations that Apartheid Week continues to grow because they are credible to those who look at the situation on the ground in an objective way (hence the quotes from international bodies like the UN and international human rights NGOs).

Spend a day traveling through the West Bank with Israeli settlers and then spend a day traveling through the same space with Palestinians... I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusions, no quotations included...

I saw the Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh speak at York University on Tuesday. He's the Palestinian affairs producer for NBC news and has been since 1988. He is originally from the West Bank and is an Arab Muslim Israeli citizen.

He said that Israeli Apartheid Week accomplishes nothing, and just inflames both sides on campus.

He emphasized that even in the West Bank and Gaza, universities don't hold "Israeli Apartheid WeeK". Mr. Toameh also noted that many of the so-called "leaders" of IAW are not even Palestinians but are Lebanese, Egyptian, Jordanian etc. These people come from Arab states that officially discriminate against Palestinians under their legal systems by denying them the right to hold passports or to work in certain professions.

Palestinians are officially denied the right to work in 62 professions in Lebanon and are denied Lebanese passports. So, where is Lebanese Apartheid Week? At least be consistent.

Mr. Abu Toameh's best remark: Yasser Arafat's government chose to use international aid money to build a casino in Jericho. They built a casino in Jericho instead of investing in infrastructure and helping to build a civil society.

Are you going to blame the choices of corrupt Palestinians leaders on Israel? Israel didn't choose to have Arafat build a casino.

These are the real issues that should be discussed. All that I can sense from some of the previous posts are conspiracy theories about why the Ontario legislature has UNANIMOUSLY condemned IAW. These are our elected government officials and they did the right thing. We are a progressive democracy and our elected leaders have used their moral suasion to condemn a hatefest that accomplishes nothing.

Forbes magazine has run numerous articles about Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's corruption. Hundreds of million in international aid unaccounted for. Whose fault is that? Why did Arafat's wife live in Paris in luxury while Palestinians on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank saw little of the aid money from the international communities?

Address those issues first. Figure out how the Palestinians can govern themselves and NOT have their leaders building casinos in Jericho. Then you can blame Israel once the Palestinian leaders have gotten their acts together.

Meanwhile, a civil war rages in Yemen, with 200,000 Muslims displaced and thousands dead. Will there be a week to condemn that? I don't think so. Why? Israel is not involved.

Here's the newest policy of the Hamas organization all you IAW and anti-Zionists seem to think should be allowed to rule their own state:

Hamas bans men from women's hair salons

Hamaas is indeed (rhetorically at least: they can't think they seriously have a chance) committed to the destruction of Israel. I find it hardly surprising, however, that such a sentiment to arise among the victims of a brutal occupation towards their occupiers. One good way to deprive radical terrorists like Hamas of popular support would be to end the occupation. Once they have their homes, security, and dignity back Palestinians would have to be insane elect as government that wants to pick a fight with Israel.

As for requiring Hamas (or any Palestinian government) to renounce violence in order to be considered legitimate - and subverting elections by violence (as has been done) to prevent them from winning - that requirement would exclude both Labor and Likud from Israeli elections (a proposition which we would find strange to say the least).

In the apt words of Noam Chomsky "Occupying powers have no rights, only responsibilities" Israel must adhere to international law, withdraw immediately and unconditionally to pre-June 1967 boarders, and cease attacks against civilians. This is the only just basis for a two-state settlement.

As for the classification of Apartheid, it is uncontroversial if you understand what the term means, and know the facts. Incidentally, we also have a system of apartheid here in Canada - they way we treat the First Nations is criminal and disgraceful - and it is rather unfair (though not wrong) to condemn Israel for Apartheid while overlooking or denying our own crime.

Cletus:

No, I am not trying to justify Hamas's violent actions. Violence is unjustifyable, except in the rarest and most extreme circumstances. However, neither do I justify Israels terror. Attrocities in the conflict are more or less proportional to the balance of forces: Israel has far greater means, and is responsible for far greater attrocities. I justify neither and condemn both.

Hamas attacks on Israeli soldiers within the occupied territories, it should be noted, are legitimate under article 51 of the U.N charter, which gives occupied peoples the right to expel their occupiers by force. That being said, I believe that this is not the correct course of action for Hamas, and palestinians. Every death is a tradgedy, and peaceful resistance is Palestine's only hope at freedom, they will not defeat Israel militarily. All Hamas, PLO, and any other attacks on Israeli civilians are unjustifiable. However, so are all Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.

Consider your view on this: "You don't cede to a crazed militant group. Hamas must show that they legitimately will not attempt to harm Israel before anyone aids them" By this logic we should not aid Israel, as it has committed far greater atrocities against Palestinians than vice versa, and shows no intention of stopping. Add illegal appropriation of land and resources to the list of war crimes, and there is a far better case for refusing support to Israel than to Hamas.

There is a double standard which many of us share: Hamas terror is criminal, but Israeli terror is legitimate. I don't believe this is the case. Palestinian and Israeli civilians must both be unnaceptable targets in this conflict.(I should note that I find deliberate attempts by Hamas and others to provoke Israeli attacks against civilians particularly reprehensible, although this does not absolve Israel)

What I argue, in a nutshell, is that if Israel complies with the international consensus, based on U.N 242, and gives the Palestinians back their land, water, and homes - and agrees to a mutual ceasefire, then the Palestinians would have to be crazy to elect radicals like Hamas who could ruin their chance at freedom.

John, that's a very good point, it was only back in 2006 that the Lebanese army was dropping bombs from helicopters flattening Palestinian refugee camps but we never hear about this.

"I find deliberate attempts by Hamas and others to provoke Israeli attacks against civilians particularly reprehensible, although this does not absolve Israel"

So Hamas can shoot rockets targeted at anyone they can hit and then sets up their headquarters in the basements of hospitals and schools, this is their entire strategy.

Hamas loves to blur the line between civilian and soldier, whether it's them using ambulances to transport their gunmen or setting up their headquarters in hospitals and schools.

It's a lose-lose situation for Israel.

Sheldon I put this question to you, after Israel handed over Gaza, Hamas took over and the whole place became a terrorist haven, why would they feel compelled to hand over any other piece of land?

inb4 "well it's Palestinian land!", no it's not, it was British land, before that it was Ottoman land, before that it was Roman land, there has NEVER been an independent Palestinian state.

Why aren't you criticizing Hamas and the Iranian government for openly stating that their goal is to completely eliminiate Israel by any means necessary?

The only unsubstantiated nonsense is your own babble.

beivets,

While stevieb is certainly a nonsensical racist punk-bitch, I don't agree entirely with your argument.

I certainly condemn Hamas and Iran for their rhetoric on Israel - as do many. Hardly anyone in the west, however, condemns Israel for it's similar stance on Palestine.

As Noam Chomsky put it, correctly: "the Palestinians have already suffered the catastrophe that Israelis rightly fear."

Iran will not, however, succeed in it's professed aim. The country would be turned into a crater before they could even arm a missile (if indeed they ever weaponize uranium) and they would have to be suicidal to try. As for Hamas, they can bluster all they want about the destruction of Israel. They couldn't destroy Palau, an they know it.

It's me again, the little cardboard robot.

Can a simple cardboard robot succeed where world leaders and educators have failed?

Tune into Pax_101 on Facebook and Twitter – @Pax_101 and decide for yourself.

Join the Pax evolution in Israeli-Palestinian peace-brokerage and social media.

Civil dialogue and respectful debate are the roads to the future!

Any thoughts?

"The reason for Israel Apartheid Week, besides the support we give to Israel the concomitant responsibilities, is that Israel, unlike Jordan, is illegally occupying another country and oppressing the population while illegally transferring their own to appropriated lands."

What country is Israel occupying? Please clarify.

Cletus,

Palestine. You dunce.

The Internet,

I'm sorry for breaking you. Now John the Law Student is deprived of his impeccable youtube sources! Whatever shall he do?

Oh, and a thousand pardons for actually having documentation to support my arguments. What was I thinking!?

Cletus,

I had a feeling that was some kind of pathetic setup. Semantics? Really? That's all you have...? Really? Congratulations.

Nevertheless:

Fact: the Palestinian people have the inherent right to national self-determination under the international law. Being that the Israeli OCCUPATION precludes their forming of a functional state, the argument that Israel is therefore not occupying a state is on about the same intellectual level as your second argument - that evidence and reason don't exist. if Iran occupied Israel by force, destroying it's viability as a state, would you argue that Iran was then accordingly not occupying a "state" but only territories?

Secondly, what I cited in response to Youtuber McLawschool (above) was not "some piece of political writing" it was a decision by the Israeli supreme court on the legality of torture concerning Palestinian detainees.

Furthermore, I (as any serious person does) form my opinions BASED upon evidence - not the other way around. Leaving aside the nihilist lunacy of you argument that there can be no rational evidentiary basis for positions on a "political" issue and we should all just make up unsupported bigotry, there is a wealth of uncontroversial evidence about israel/Palestine upon which to form opinions. (Note: supporting evidence is the basis of all scholarship, even regarding politics)

For instance, the Israeli Occupation has been found illegal by the highest judicial body in the world (the International Court of Justice - or World Court) and condemned 42 consecutive years by the most representative body - the UN general assembly. The main document, UN 242, stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war - hence, the Occupation is illegal.

I'm sorry if this "political writing" intrudes upon the maelstrom of ignorance and uninformed opinions which you believe to be the ideal of debating.

If, indeed, "it is very easy to form an opinion and then find some piece of political writing that supports your argument" then try it.

Sheldon,

All you've said is that the Supreme Court allowed for a possibility of a "necessity defense" being raised by Israeli interrogators. That's about it. For a country that has had its buses, restaurants and schools blown up by cowardly suicide bombers, I have to give credit to the Israeli Supreme Court. The last paragraph of that decision reads as follows:

" The GSS does not have the authority to “shake” a man, hold him in the “Shabach” position (which includes the combination of various methods, as mentioned in paragraph 30), force him into a “frog crouch” position and deprive him of sleep in a manner other than that which is inherently required by the interrogation. Likewise, we declare that the “necessity defense,” found in the Penal Law, cannot serve as a basis of authority for interrogation practices, or for directives to GSS investigators, allowing them to employ interrogation practices of this kind. Our decision does not negate the possibility that the “necessity defense” will be available to GSS investigators—either in the choice made by the Attorney-General in deciding whether to prosecute, or according to the discretion of the court if criminal charges are brought."

Name an Arab country in which Palestinians can even go to a supreme court at all. Certainly not in Lebanon, where Palestinians are banned from 60 professions, and certainly not in Kuwait, where Palestinians are banned from home ownership.

And again, I repeat that and ARAB judge, Salim Joubran, now sits on the Supreme Court of Israel.

Palestinians could have had a state by 2000. What did the Palestinian Authority do?

Yasser Arafat took international aid money and gave it to his wife for shopping sprees in Paris.

The Palestinian Authority constructed a casino in Jericho in the West Bank with international aid money.

On the issue of the West Bank:

If Israel was to pull out of the West Bank today, Hamas would take it over in an instant.

The Abbas regime has very little legitimacy since its term in office expired in January 2009 and there have been no elections.If elections were held today, Hamas would win. Abbas barely has legitimacy outside of Ramallah.

If the IDF left the West Bank today and "ended the occupation", the Abbas government would literally be dragged through the streets by Hamas and murdered, just as the Fatah members were thrown off of apartment buildings by Hamas gunmen in Gaza in 2006.

Then Israel would have an Islamic mini-state in the West Bank under Hamas, and a huge problem. The Jordanians would also freak out and shut their border crossings to the West Bank in all probability.

That's why Israel is still in the West Bank, to prevent a mini Islamic state from being born under Hamas, where rockets would be fired from the West Bank at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa. The West Bank settlements, such as Gush Etzion which I have personally visited, are hardly the major problem facing Palestinians in the West Bank.

Occupation is bad, and Israeli settlements are completely wrong, but Hamas taking over the West Bank would be catastrophic.

Many Palestinians in the West Bank would likely suffer more under a Hamas regime than under IDF occupation. Just look at what Hamas did to Fatah members in Gaza, murdering them in cold blood.

The Palestinians need constructive solutions moving forward. Yes, Israel has made serious mistakes in the past but everyone in the region needs to think constructively.

It's a mess but it's time to stop the blame game b/c everyone needs to co-exist over there. Solutions are needed, not endless finger pointing.

Won't be too long before Sheldon gets back online and calls you a dunce. Even better, he might quote someone who once called you a dunce...

Cletus,

Cletus,

Pay attention, you dunce.

I posted the agonizingly simple solution to the "problem" pages ago: Israel must (gasp!) abide by international law.

Tadaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

If Israel does this crazy thing that all states are expected to do (and which we scream about when official enemies do not -Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia - then there will be a just peace. Here it is, enumerated, to make it easier for you're little non-evidence-using brain.

1. Israel must unconditionally withdraw to pre-June 1967 boarders (with "minor and mutual adjustments") as per the international consensus and UN 242.

2. Israel must stop stealing Palestinian water and natural gas, making the economy of the new state viable.
   

3. International monitors must be allowed into Palestine and Israel to observe the peace.

4. Israel must pay full reparations (to be determined by the the UN) for their aggression (meaning invasion -the supreme war crime established under the Nuremburg principles, being that it contains within it all resulting crimes).

There you go. Dunce.

Who knew that there was such an amazingly simple, practical solution to this "problem"? (hint - anyone who read my earlier posts)

I apologize if 'blaming one side over the other" offends your delicate sensibilities. In cases of armed aggression and military occupation the aggressor/occupier does tend to be "wrong.", however.

One way to participate in meaningful dialog would be to acknowledge the possibility of Palestinian security issues - not just those of Israel.

John,

You seem to have misunderstood the paragraph quoted. It's okay, sources other than youtube clips can get a bit complex.

The reproduced section of the ruling (above) effectively legalizes torture of Palestinian detainees - as I mentioned at the start of this thing.

"The GSS does not have the authority to “shake” a man, hold him in the “Shabach” position (which includes the combination of various methods, as mentioned in paragraph 30), force him into a “frog crouch” position and deprive him of sleep IN A MANNER OTHER THAN THAT WHICH IS INHERENTLY REQUIRED BY THE INTERROGATION. "

In other words: The GSS can't torture - unless they want to.

What a spectacular affirmation of human rights!

The High Court's comforting rhetoric about "necessity" not granting authority to torture is somewhat undermined by it's ruling that if the GSS does torture, then the Attorney General can simply elect not to prosecute them if they "claim to have acted from "necessity"".

"claim"

eg. torturing Palestinian detainees is illegal, but no one will be prosecuted for doing it. Ergo, it's legal.

It's great that you're getting information from non-youtube sources now. The next step is reading and understanding them. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it!

As for the rest of your posts: I can't begin to articulate fully how utterly irrelevant your personal speculations about what would happen if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank are, concerning this real-life case of the "supreme war crime" - aggression, and the pertinent international law.

Contrary to popular fairy tales, Israel is not holding the West Bank to prevent an Islamic mini state, or for "security: purposes. The Occupation is a major CAUSE of attacks against Israel, and embitters much of the Arab world against it. The reason for holding the West Bank is annexation for israeli settlement -which the government subsidizes - and the stealing of West Bank aquifers, which provide 1/3 of Israel's water.

Even if your unsubstantiated claim were true, it would be inherently racist and illegitimate. Israel does not have the right to "prevent" anything - an Islamic mini-state, Hamas government, or what have you, within another nation. Would any other nation have the right to invade Israel to prevent a "Jewish mini-state" - which, to date, has been far more aggressive and terroristic than any Islamic state? Or to prevent the election of terrorist governments? (Likud and Labor both have committed far greater atrocities than Hamas, and they did not have the Article 49 right, under the UN charter, to expel an occupier by force).

If you give Israel the right to intervene military to prevent Hamas from being elected because Hamas is violent, then you favour PLO bombing to disrupt Israeli elections if Labor of Likud run, and Iraqi, Vietnamese, Grenadan, Nicaraguan, and Panamanian military intervention to prevent U.S elections if the Republicans of Democrats run (both are openly committed to violence).

Would you grant the above rights to the PLO and other nations?

Hardly.

Regarding your assertion:

"Occupation is bad, and Israeli settlements are completely wrong, but Hamas taking over the West Bank would be catastrophic."

This statement speaks for it's self. The brutal occupation of Palestine, with thousands of civilian deaths, collective punishment, torture, water-theft, institutionalized brutality, and innumerable war crimes, is not a "catastrophe". A "catastrophe" is the election of a Palestinian government which is demonstrably far less violent and criminal that either of Israel's two major parties.

In short: a "catastrophe" is something that happens to Israel. On the other hand, a catastrophe far worse than any threat facing Israel from the OPT happening to Palestine (and lasting for forty years) is just "bad".

I'll let readers think what they want about this definition.

Next.

"Israel, however, needs to defend its citizens. If Hamas took over the West Bank, it would likely result in rockets being fired into Israel and huge mess. Just look at Gaza. No Israeli troops were in Gaza yet thousands of rockets were fired at Sderot and other Israeli towns."

So there it is: "Israel needs to defend it's citizens" Palestine does not. It cannot. Israel is constantly attacking Palestine's citizens, with far more than hand-held rockets -does the PLO have the right to invade and occupy Israel to prevent this? No. The right to defend citizens is something that Israel has and Palestine does not.

Furthermore, the brutal occupation mentioned above is not a "huge mess" - a "huge mess" along with "catastrophe" can only happen to Israel.

The argument that Israel cannot pull out of The West Bank because when they pulled out of Gaza rocket attacks continued is barely worth refuting.

Nevertheless

The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was accompanied by simultaneous expansion in the West Bank. Was it surprising that Gazans continued to fight for the liberation of the rest of their country even after the media-stunt of a "pull-out"?

Again:

If Israel were occupied by Iran, would Israeli's fight back? You bet they would. Would they attack Iran-proper, including civilian targets? Well, if they are willing to invade Lebanon and kill thousands of civilians because of attacks in response to THEIR occupation, then they would probably feel justified in attacks against population centres in a country that was occupying Israel, wouldn't they? Probably. Now, if Iran were to say, pull out of Netanya while taking over more of Tel Aviv, do you think that Israelis in Netanya would suddenly stop fighting for the liberation of the rest of their country? ...Would they be justified in continuing to fight? Hmm... now thats a tough one!

Lastly,

"Solutions are needed, not endless finger pointing."

This is true.

Would you say it to Georgians complaining about Russian tanks in the street? Would you say it to Manchurians whining about the Japanese? or French about the Germans?

"Solutions" come AFTER international law has been observed, and the occupation has ended. International monitors are not a "good idea" they are the only reasonable way to ensure a just peace. If only Israel weren't opposed to them....(sigh).

Sheldon, Your rudeness does not help your case. Calling people "dunces" when they make points just as valid as your own just makes you sound like an a-hole. I really don't understand how anyone can possibly have support for Gaza, which chose through democratic election to elect Hamas-a known terrorist organization which is supported by Iran and seeks to destroy not just Israel (although I'm sure you would not mind that) and not just Jews, but also America, Canada, and the entire Westernized world. Iran and most terrorist organizations are a threat to YOU. They hate us for our value system, they hate us for our modernity, and they hate us for not being like them. Of course, Islam is actually a very peaceful religion and it is an unfortunate truth that it sometimes comes to be represented by the small minority of religious fanatics who become terrorists. But when in a democracy, moderate, peaceful Muslims elect these fanatics as their government and expect peace and economic prosperity? It makes no sense. American and Canadian governments show overwhelming support for Israel because they realize this. The Ontario government spoke out against IAW because it accomplishes nothing and supports anti-Israel rhetoric which the government of Canada does not support. It is really that simple.

Rachel,

I'm extremely for the "rudeness" of my calling people"dunces" - instead of the polite term: "a-hole"

You clearly haven't read any of my posts, or any of the arguments, and have no idea what you're talking about.

Let's review you're statements:

"Calling people "dunces" when they make points just as valid as your own just makes you sound like an a-hole."

If you bothered to read the postings you would know that my points are based upon international law, the moral principle of universality (no double-standard), rational argumentation, and documented evidence. The points of my several interlocutors are based mainly on ranting, unsubstantiated claims, and the assumption that Israel is above international law and Palestinians have no human rights.

These assumptions, as well as the methods (or lack of methods) of argumentation, are not "just as valid" as my points - which have reasons, logic, and evidence behind them. Read the posts.

"I really don't understand how anyone can possibly have support for Gaza, which chose through democratic election to elect Hamas-a known terrorist organization"

Terrorism is a precisely codified term meaning violence, especially against civilians, for the purpose of achieving some goal (political, religious, fiduciary, etc...). The definition is NOT, as we believe here: "the violence that THEY do to US and our allies".

Going by the first definition, which can be found in greater detail in the US Army's Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Likud and Labor are both uncontroversially terrorist governments, and, as such, it should be hard "to understand how anyone can possibly have support" for them. That is only, of course, if you don't believe in the double standard which I articulated above: only Israel has security needs and the right to defend itself, and only Palestinians/Lebanese can engage in terrorism.

"(Hamas) is supported by Iran and seeks to destroy not just Israel (although I'm sure you would not mind that) and not just Jews, but also America, Canada, and the entire Westernized world. Iran and most terrorist organizations are a threat to YOU. They hate us for our value system, they hate us for our modernity, and they hate us for not being like them."

This kind of hysterical, unsupported, nonsense is rather unremarkable, as it's the rhetoric of EVERY propaganda system when trying to demonize it's enemies. Iranian government propagandists, the Taliban, and Muslim extremists generally, say the same things about the west and Israel -of course when they do it we don't take it seriously.

I might point out, as well, that while Iran certainly does support Hamas, this is not an indictment. All Israeli governments have been supported far more by the U.S - the most aggressive terror state in world history.

"But when in a democracy, moderate, peaceful Muslims elect these fanatics as their government and expect peace and economic prosperity? It makes no sense. "

Again, Israelis and Americans both consistently elect terrorist governments. This point is not a point.

"The Ontario government spoke out against IAW because it accomplishes nothing and supports anti-Israel rhetoric which the government of Canada does not support. It is really that simple."

I condemn, of course, antisemitic expressions. I also condemn illegal occupations - and apartheid. What is called "anti-Israel rhetoric" is often principled criticism, and the accusation is meant to deflect inquiry into Israel's policies. Furthermore, anti-palestinian, anti-Hamas, ant-Iran, and anti-muslim rhetoric is rampant in the West, and the accepted norm.

For some good examples see your post above.

Doubtless, anti-semitism is real and persistent - and IAW will sometimes be used as an excuse for anti-semites to express ugly views. That does not mean that the event should be canceled. It is the responsibility of Canadians to speak out against the Occupation.

What is simple are the basic facts of the conflict, and the pertinent international laws and moral truisms.

If you have real arguments to make I'd love to hear them. What you've written is propaganda.

Sheldon: I'm not merely speculating. The undisputed fact is that Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have very little legitimacy in the West Bank. Abbas is only in power because his authorities are propped up by western aid and Israeli military assistance.

I've heard from Arab Israeli Journalist Khaled Abu Toameh three times, including once in Israel. He was in Ottawa last week and I heard him speak yet again.

He's the Palestinian Affairs producer for NBC news, so I think he knows a thing or two about the Palestinians. Especially bc he grew up in the West Bank and goes there every week to speak to Fatah and Hamas leaders.

Mr. Abu Toameh told everyone that there will be a Hamas-orchestrated coup in the West Bank if Israel left the West Bank tomorrow.

Abbas' term in office expired in January 2009 yet there have been no elections. Why? Because Hamas would win in a landslide and Abbas and his Palestinian Authority cronies would be dragged through the streets of Ramallah, just like the Fatah members were thrown off of apartment buildings in Gaza City in 2006 when Hamas took over.

I don't care if Hamas wins and rules the Palestinians. If they want Islamic rule, then that's their choice.

Just keep in mind that Settlements and IDF troops leaving the West Bank would leave the area in a state of chaos, where Fatah and Hamas would engage in a bloody civil war. It happened in Gaza and will happen again.

Hamas is funded and trained by the same fanatical Iranian government that murders Iranian opposition protesters in the streets of Tehran and other cities.

And countries have the right to defend their citizens. Hamas, which is armed and funded by the fanatical Iranian regime under Ahmedinejad (who murders Iranian opposition members), would rain rockets down all over Israel, and the Jordanians would also seal off their border. It would be chaos. It happened in Gaza, it would happen in the West Bank.

And my YouTube clips are of the former British Commander in Afghanistan who is a renowned military expert, as well as former Canadian Attorney General Irwin Cotler who is a leading legal scholar. You haven't refuted anything Cotler or the British commander said.

Roflmao,

RE:

"The brutal occupation of Palestine, with thousands of civilian deaths, collective punishment, torture, water-theft, institutionalized brutality, and innumerable war crimes..."

Propaganda alert! Propaganda alert!

I'm not sure what you think propaganda is. The above quote contains simple facts about the occupation which you can read about in any of the numerous reports by both International and Israeli human rights groups. Give it a try.

John,

I did not dispute that Abbas has no legitimacy. Hamas is the peoples choice. You seem scandalized by Ahmedinejad killing political opposition, but have no problem with the U.S and Israel bombing the West Bank to prevent elections from coming out the wrong way.

Your speculation was regarding the results of withdrawal, which of course must be accompanied by UN inspectors. Arab troops, perhaps from Saudi Arabia and Egypt (U.S clients) could likely moderate Hamas after withdrawal.

The main point is that your prophesies about hell falling from the sky if Israel withdraws don't change international law, or give Israel the right to occupy Palestine.

You could have a youtube clip of God and it would be a laughable source.

Kemp's statements are at best radically hyperbolic, contradict the accounts of international human rights groups, PCATI, B'Tselem, and Doctors Without Borders Israel. If Kemp is right, all he proves is that all other occupiers in the history of war were even worse than the IDF. Military sources are also not the most credible - do you still believe that there are WMD in Iraq?

All Cotler said was that Palestinians can petition the supreme court. This is true. They can also be held in indefinite incommunicado detention without charges and be tortured with the tacit blessing of the supreme court. The point is irrelevant.

You still seem not to have read my posts. Israel does indeed have the right to defend it's citizens. So does Palestine. Why does this make Hamas terrorists but not israel govt's?

Sheldon loses.

In a special feature, the Varsity brings the very best of SAIA and IAW to the comment section!

See the wonders of endless rhetoric!

See the logic chasm!

Don't miss it- the Middle East is on the verge of peace!

John,

Let's review you statements in turn.

"When did the U.S. ever bomb the West Bank? That's a bizarre comment that is entirely false."

Every Israeli military action is undertaken with crucial U.S aid and ideological support, using U.S-supplied arms and vehicles, and with U.S diplomatic protection at the security council. Hence, every Israeli crime in the OPT is also a U.S crime. I don't want to single Israel out unfairly for blame.

"And I don't know when Israel last bombed the West Bank. They executed Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 to stop the wave of suicide bombers who loved to prey on Israelis in restaurants and buses. That involved mostly ground troops--no other army in the world would send so many ground troops into urban combat zones instead of using attack helicopters.The U.S. just sent attack helicopters to attack Fallujah. Israel sent its own ground troops to secure dangerous urban areas, just to prevent Palestinian loss of life."

Israel bombed the West Bank DURING Operation Defensive shield - using U.S-made Apache helicopters to "intensively" bombard civilian houses with missiles in Jenin and Nablus. The killings of Israelis, predictably, intensified during the operation. Those attrocities were, to begin with, part of the Al Aqsa intifada - a protest against the occupation. A better way to mitigate the killings would be to remove their cause - the occupation - instead of attacking the West Bank, resulting in an increase in terrorism against both Israelis and Palestinians. Operation Defensive shield did indeed consist mainly of ground troops - troops who carried out the now famous massacre of civilians at the Jenin refugee camp - better than Falujah, for sure, but still nothing to brag about.

"And Israel allowed elections in Gaza and pulled every single settler and IDF troop out of Gaza. Hamas was democratically elected, but then started to fire thousands of rockets at Israel. Just because you're democratically elected doesn't give you the right to fire thousands of rockets at a neighbouring country."

That is absolutely correct. Being elected does not give you that right. Neither does it give you the right to invade and occupy neighbouring countries, steal their water and resources, transfer your population to their arable lands, and then periodically incur militarily to maintain the occupation - bombarding houses, slaughtering refugees, and dropping white-phosphorous as you go.

"If you've ever been to the West Bank, as I have done, you'll actually see a pretty nice place complete with buildings, running water, hydro, grocery stores and schools. Who built the infrastructure like water treatment plants and Hydro? ISRAEL, since 1967. Not the Palestinian Authority. So much for the "brutal occupation"."

The West Bank sounds like a veritable paradise. Perhaps Israel's benevolent grocery store-building is in reciprocity for the stolen West Bank aquifers that supply 1/3 of Israel's water - or the occupation generally. Who demolished thousands of Palestinian homes as collective punishment (a war crime)..? "ISRAEL, since 1967" - not the PA.

If you want to argue that the building of infrastructure by an occupier balances out the systematic destruction of infrastructure by that power (as well as the massacre of civilians, legalized torture, collective punishment, bombardment of civilian areas, and the use of banned chemical weapons in civilian areas) to nullify the "brutal occupation" go right ahead. We'll let the readers decide about that one.

I might ad that the Palestinian Authority would have possibly tried to build some of the infrastructure you mention above had they not been brutally occupied by "ISRAEL, since 1967" - and they could build some pretty nice infrastructure if they had the billions in U.S aid that Israel has enjoyed in that time period.

"As for B'Tselem, I've heard from them in Israel. A lot of them are left wing Americans who have never served in the IDF and don't have kids in the IDF, so I fail to see how their opinions are better than that of Colonel Kemp." "The woman from B'Tselem I heard from in Jerusalem in 2007 was from California and hadn't served in the IDF ever, so I hardly see why I should be listening to people like that."

If you consider the only credible sources in a conflict to be soldiers from the side that you favour I don't know how to help you.

That's like me arguing that sources "who have never served in the PLO and don't have kids in the PLO" have opinions by definition inferior to some Iranian Colonel.

This thinking is seriously frightening. When you dismiss independent sources - like human rights groups - as incredible because they are not part of the army of the side that you favour it makes one worry about your objectivity. Note that, besides B'Tselem, I also mentioned Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, PCATI, and Doctors Without Borders Israel. None of them are the IDF, granted, but they are respected human rights organizations: eg. real sources.

As for Colonel Kemp's argument - that Israel has done more to protect the people which it occupies illegally than any other power in the history of war:

It might be true. It's like arguing that rape is legal if you use a condom - making you, by comparison, better than other rapists. It's a ludicrous argument. It doesn't make the occupation legal, just, or any less brutal - and it certainly doesn't make the IDF, the PLO, and youtube credible sources.

"Here's a good question: Which country has a more moral army than Israel and takes more care than the IDF to prevent civilian deaths? Name the army or armies."

All countries who do not currently occupy a neighbour have more moral armies than Israel.

All nations at war who have not used white phosphorous or massacred refugees took more care to avoid civilian deaths.

In short, the answer is: most of the countries/armies in the world.

Again, even were Israel's army the "most moral" (something of an oxymoron when describing armies) it would not justify the occupation of make it less brutal - it would just make everyone even worse than Israel.

Here's a better question. What occupying power has been portrayed as a victim in the media for being attacked by the people it occupies? What country is allowed to invade it's neighbours to maintain it's illegal occupation? What country is given immunity from the Geneva conventions and international norms while stealing land and resources and transferring it's population to conquered land? Name the country or countries (besides the U.S, of course).

I think U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross says it best in this video clip.

What he says in this one minute applies to all of the anti-Israel activity on campuses and at the United Nations.

Next time you hear about a boycott of Israel or see Israel on the front pages of the papers because of a new settlement being built in the West Bank, ask yourself what Ross is asking in this video. He mentions Syria, Sudan, and China. Why not have a week devoted to atrocities in those non-democracies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJJp7Mb8syQ

John,

Please stop sourcing youtube clips man, you're embarrassing yourself.

Ross's argument is so superficial it's depressing; and we've been over this already in earlier posts.

Nevertheless:

We are not responsible for the actions of the Chinese because we do not give them crucial support. Syria is not occupying a neighbouring country on U.S tax-dollars with U.S helicopters and planes. And if you want to get into Darfur, the U.S funded the initial SLA uprising that sparked the genocide, and then refused to send in troops to stop it because of the economic ramifications with China.

That being said, we SHOULD boycott China - for many, many reasons. And Sudan. And Syria. And dozens of other countries. States are not moral bodies - they almost all commit atrocities. Israel, however, is special for several reaasons:

1. We give them crucial financial, military, ideological, and diplomatic support.

2. They are an occupying power which is in the process of committing politicide with our help.

3. We (Canada and the U.S) can directly, easily end the occupation by simply refusing to continue funding it. This is not the case with China, Sudan, of Syria.

In brief. We SHOULD boycott many other countries as well, but we give Israel unique support, and therefore it's at the top of the list.

Mark,

My posts are long because I take this topic very seriously and have information to support my positions. The point of an argument is not to be concise - it is to systematically arrive at the truth, or an approximation thereof.

Furthermore, I do not use rhetoric. I refer to international law and basic moral principles, like universality.

Writing "brutalism" instead of "brutality" in not a typo, it's hallucinating the suffix of a mundane word. I did not claim that correcting it invalidated Obvious's point. Obvious did not make a point - he just fabricated my views and threw in some invectives.

In today's media culture we are used to 30 second news segments and factoid-based information. This isn't TV, however. We're university students and the topic at hand is a complex one. To inquire meaningfully into an important subject like this requires care, thoroughness, and documentation.

Obvious,

My argument does not "imply that supporting Israel follows the same logic as supporting a rapist who uses a condom" - that is your input to the discussion.

My argument does not imply anything. It states clearly that the argument that the argument made by Col. Kemp/John, the the Occupation of Palestine is somehow justified because it is less brutal than other occupations is on the same moral and intellectual level as arguing that rape is justified by the use of a condom or some other mitigating circumstance.

This type argumentation is known as moral relativism - the idea that crimes are qualified by their relativity to other crimes, and nor in absolute terms - and is categorically flawed. This reasoning, again, is not mine, but John/Kemp's.

Again, obvious, I did not compare Israel to a rapist - or anything for that matter. My comparison was between two arguments. This can be seen as a slight against Israel only if you consider Israel to be an argument, and not a state - hardly a tenable thesis.

As for implying that support for Israel is like support for a rapist. I did not mention "support" for anything in my comparison, and did not liken Israel to a rapist. What I wrote was that justifying the Occupation with moral relativism was like justifying rape by moral relativism - both are incorrect.

Incidentally, support for Israel is not the same as support for the Occupation - just as support for America is not the same as support for the invasion of Iraq, or Vietnam, or any other illegal military campaign. I, like many in Israel, believe that the occupation precludes any realistic chance of peace in the region, and that Israel will be in a constant state of war and under constant threat until the occupation ends and a peace deal can be reached. Not all Israelis want their children to inherit an eternal war, and not all think that sacrificing security(lives) for expansion is a good tradeoff.

I'll repeat this, again, because I fear you may still not understand:

1.My comparison was not between Israel and anything, it was between two arguments which used the flawed principle of moral relativism. Israel is a state, not an argument.

1. Support for any state (right to exist, security etc...) is not the same as granting that state the right to occupy another state. I do not give America the right to occupy Iraq - does that mean I don't "support" America?

2. It is in Israel's interest to end the occupation and move towards peace. For better reasons than I can give see: Zeev Maoz, Uri Avneri, Israel Shahak, and others within the Israeli peace movement.

Please stop making up my positions - I've stated my positions very clearly. Please stop interpreting my statements creatively - I don't stoop to taking something you've written and deciding that it "implies" something offensive and completely unrelated.

Also: please please please please please learn to think. You worry me.

If you hadn't intended to make an Israel/rape comparison, you would not have used the analogy (in ANY context) in the first place.

Also, I don't need to have a peace proposal. I'm not a politican.

The original argument here was about the efficacy of IAW. Many of the points made here were critical of IAW's usefulness in actually doing anything constructive.

The big mess of an argument here is a perfect example. You're not changing my mind, but for some reason you seem to think that talking down to your opponents (calling them dunces and telling them to learn to think), many of whom aren't arguing what you are saying but the WAY you say it (including the use of comparisons which only serve to offend).

This is the EXACT type of behaviour that IAW propagates. If any solution to the situation is to be found, this is most definitely not the way.

I'm also not sure how to go about "changing your mind" seeing as you haven't taken a position.

if you'd like to take a position we can have a rational, constructive discussion.

I just came across these comments last night, and am really impressed by Sheldon's thoughtful and articulate argument.Her (rational) argument is rooted it in accepted and documented historical facts. She managed to stay calm throughout, which, given the vitriolic attacks many readers were spewing at her, is impressive. I hope she reads my comment, and knows that some people were impressed by her excellent responses.

What's actually terrifying is the anger several people directed at Sheldon. She wasn't saying anything controversial. That, in accordance with U.N. Security Council 242 Israel is an illegal occupier, that the majority of Palestinians in Israel do not live with full citizen rights, etc., are facts. They are transparently documented and recorded by Zionist, anti-Zionist, and non-partisan organizations. The moral relativism, ad hominem attacks, and historical revisionism in the comments of some students, who should be fairly educated and able to engage in thoughtful conversation (exactly what Sheldon was attempting) is chilling.

Obvious,

Please, I am begging you, actually read posts before you reply to them.

LS did not say that I did not use ad hominems - this is another one of your hallucinations.

LS said that I stayed calm throughout this series of posts despite many affronts - which is true. I have been called a troll for rejecting the principle of moral relativism, and had many strange and offensive views dreamed-up and attributed to me by persons who shall remain nameless. This is a bit worse than calling someone a dunce - which, incidentally, is not antithetical to calmness.

Again, the word dunce is a descriptive - it means one who is dull-witted or ignorant, and hence incapable of rationality and comprehension of simple ideas. I applied it for various reasons which we can review if you like. Perhaps this was rude of me - it wasn't, however, the explicit libel of publicly misattributing fictional and defamatory statements.

The term dunce, while impolite, was applied with basis. The posts can be reviewed for details. The point is that 'dunce' is a word which implies certain behaviorisms.

For example: that term might be legitimately applied to one who carries on an imaginary argument based upon fictional views that he thought up himself for the purpose of libel despite clearly articulated views to the contrary repeatedly amplified right in front of him in plain writing while never taking any position on a subject about which he knows virtually nothing but upon which he inexplicably sees fit to comment.

It might also be applied to one who writes the phrase "multiple people" - 'people' being, of course, a plural of 'person', and naturally multiple. That's what is referred to as reDUNdanCy. .....E

Sheldon,

Stop being rude, condescending, and obnoxious.

Stop setting up straw man arguments and attempting to refute them.

In general, stop acting like an ass.

Good riddance to you. This discussion is over.

After reading all these thread, sheldon wins. He makes good points backed up with facts - agruments against him are mainly nonsense, or pointless criticisms of the way he writes, not what he's saying. Sheldon is more productive as he offers a solution, everyone else just rants bout palestinian terror but have no solution or facts, If you wanted to be usefull discuss facts. Also, no other writers seem to not know what they're talking about or have any ideas so they just complain about the way sheldon argues and avoid the real discussion.