His first point is:

“Israel has done things that I personally consider to be wrong, and to be abusive.”

What are those things, why are they abusive and in what context are they abusive?

John’s second point is to question whether Israel is a Democratic nation by his raising a question as to whether “Palestinians/Arabs who live in Israel, and who have Israeli citizenship, truly have equal, democratic rights with others?

He then answers that question saying, Israel “fails (in my opinion) to meet the standards of a true democracy, where all citizens are equal, regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, or any other such factor.”

Again, John has failed to provide anything but his opinion that Israeli Arabs are not accorded the same rights as non-Arab Israelis.

NOTE: This post edited for length by the moderator.

There is no such thing as a perfectly democratic nation. But on the continuum of political democracy, Israel probably ranks up there with the Europeans or even North Americans. Israeli Arabs can vote, are guaranteed of civil rights and can be elected to parliament, rights which citizens of Arab countries tend not to have.

Israel is not a perfect democracy, or even a perfect country (Is there one? Maybe Sweden?). But given the circumstances of the neighborhood where it exists, I’d say it’s done a reasonable job of maintaining a democratic civil society within its own borders, whatever we might say about what happens beyond its borders.

I agree with some of what you say; but not all. I agree that Sid Ryan’s position and tactics are deplorable; and I am not writing this in order to defend him in any manner.

But I must contend with two points in the following statement:

“Canadians really need to pick sides between a democracy protecting its citizens from unrelenting aggression and the thuggish movement that is the source of that aggression”

First, I disagree that this is a black-and-white issue that “Canadians really need to pick sides” on. Israel has done things that I personally consider to be wrong, and to be abusive. Although I tend to side with Israel, I find it offensive that this means I should turn a blind eye to such things; or that raising objections to them means that I am somehow siding with their enemies.

This is no different than the whole George Bush “You’re either with us or against us” nonsense.

Wrong. Absolutely, inexcusably, undefensibly wrong. Rational, intelligent discussion and debate of international issues MUST avoid an “us vs. them” mentality, where anyone who dares to disagree or voice a dissenting opinion is shouted down as the enemy.

I don’t think this is what you are trying to do; but the way your article is worded, it is easy to get that impression.

Second, you talk about Israel being a democratic nation; but is it? In Canada, democracy means that ALL citizens have equal voting rights, equal rights to serve in government, etc. I would ask you…do Palestinians/Arabs who live in Israel, and who have Israeli citizenship, truly have equal, democratic rights with others?

There are many countries in this world that call themselves democratic, but fail to really live up to that standard. Israel, while making strides in that direction, still fails (in my opinion) to meet the standards of a true democracy, where all citizens are equal, regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, or any other such factor.

And while supporting Israel in wishing to defend itself from significant outside threats is warranted, granting them carte blanche, or turning a blind eye to these issues, is not.

I don’t want to see any more children killed. One way to reduce that is for Hamas to stop massing civilians in the streets and rooftops outside Hamas bomb factories and rocket launcher sites.

Israelis and Palestinians will have no chance for peace until Hamas goes, or at least gives up its violence.

Let’s be clear: I support the targeted bombing of Hamas terrorist infrastructure. That Hamas routinely uses Palestinian children and the elderly as human shields for their terror operations as a matter of policy sadly makes civilian casualties inevitable. Don’t believe it? See this video:

I would also point out that international organizations have roundly condemned the rocket attacks by Hamas and that the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank will readily admit Hamas provoked this conflict.

Cheers.

NOTE: This post has been edited for length by the moderator.

Precisely. I’ve got no problem categorizing both Fatah and Hamas as fascist movements. Glad you see it that way as well.

That Fatah had the good sense to stay out of this fight only makes it a difference of degree.

When the Palestinian people are represented by a leadership that is not defined either by rampant corruption or extreme violence, there will be a chance for peace.

Not sure what you’re on about in the third paragraph. I’ve never been supportive of theories about terrorist DNA and such. Tell me, where did you find all that straw to build that straw man? Same goes for the last few paragraphs as well. I’m afraid you’re barking up the wrong tree.

No sane observer would confuse Fatah for Hamas, yet in relevant periods of Palestinian history, both groups ostensibly behaved the exact same way toward the exact same end. It’s a simple narrative to memorize, and can be applied to any form of Palestinian resistance, secular, religious, whatever. Thus, any Palestinian who resists a rational, moral agent like Israel must be hell bent on destruction, either for themselves, against the Jewish state, or most likely both. Keeping to this narrative helps one glide over numerous complexities, chiefly, regional history. It’s an all purpose excuse, which is why it’s been used for decades.

Since all “extremism” resides with the Palestinians (a genetic trait?), there’s no need for Israeli state apologists to review Zionist comments about Palestinians being sub-human and diseased; no need to discuss “demographic time bomb” fears among Israeli politicians, their version of worrying about Mexican birth rates in the US; no need to unearth Zionist statements and charters calling for a Greater Israel, however unlikely that seems at the moment; no need to recall how the Israeli mainstream insisted that the Palestinians simply didn’t exist — they were an “invention of some Jews with distorted minds,” as Golda Meir once put it; no need to be reminded of death squad leaders like Begin, Shamir, and Sharon, who became Israeli Prime Ministers. There’s no need to do any of this. Why? Because Israel cannot be “extremist.”

There’s also the colossal disparity in body counts, a disparity openly embraced and excused by Israeli statists. To tell those who you have surrounded and outgunned that you will slaughter 100 of them for every single Israeli killed is not “extremist” — it’s how democracies function. This also holds true in weaponry. Qassam rockets with variable range and destructive capabilities: “extremist.” F-16s, helicopter gunships, tanks, bunker busters and white phosphorus — democratic. It’s really quite simple once you learn the lingo.

For American supporters of Israeli violence, the use of “extremist” is even more inspired, especially when you recall some of the crazed reactions to the 9/11 attacks. If the United States was ever treated like Gaza, a Hamas-like reaction would doubtless be viewed by many Americans as appeasement. Qassam rockets? Fucking pacifists.

I wrote: “I don’t consider all those protesting “Israeli War Crimes” to be fascist by default. However, I do consider Hamas to be a fascist organization. Since the protesters in Vancouver are habitually chanting, “We are all Hamas”, I consider all of them fascist as well.”

If Gabor Mate, Irwin Oostinde and Sean Orr chanted “We Are All Hamas”, then yes, I guess I would throw them in with the rest of the fascist contingent. I’d like to think they had the presence of mind not to.

Mind you, standing next to people who are chanting “We Are All Hamas” and not immediately denouncing them, or at least moving away from them, wouldn’t say much good about them, either.