Fighting in Gaza Strip

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

Probably not, some other idiot would have fallen in love with the idea of indiscriminately smashing the enemy from the safety of the skies. That's the lesson of history - there's always another idiot.



It isn't a secular state because it has a constitution, it is a secular state because the law of the land is based on a secular document. There is no portion of the Canadian Constitution that enjoins that the law of the land be based on the Bible or Jesus' teachings. Similarly, the oft-heard claim that the USA is based upon Christianity is not borne out by their Constitution, either.

I agree that Israeli law and government displays significant British influence. I also think that this influence could eventually evolve the state into one that is truly secular - but that is nowhere near happening yet.

Yeah... you're wrong. We have no official separation of Church and State in Canada. Remember the residential schools?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

As for how Israel differs from other countries based on a common ethnicity, it doesn't in many ways. But England has been moving away from this model, as has the rest of Europe generally, becoming more inclusive and secular as they go. I don't think Israel can diversify in the same way (and I do recognize it is clearly more inclusive than many of its neighbours) - if they do, they risk losing their identity as a Jewish homeland - the exact purpose for which Israel exists in the first place.

First of all I think your example of Britain is BS. Arab Muslims in Israel make up 20% of the country right now. The number of non-British minorities in Britain is much less than 20%. Britain is not moving away from their British character. In Britain you have the rise of the BNP, the British PM delcaring multiculturalism a "failed experiment", ethinic riots on the street. They have a long way to go before they are anywhere close to being truly multicultural. France is allowing in migrants, but only if they conform to a French way of life.

It's your tendency to single out Jews for wanting their own country and declaring that racist that I find offensive. What you've done is basically no different than saying all the problems in America could be fixed if all the black people went back to Africa.

As for Israel being based on Jewish people, what has being Jewish become other than a shared history and culture? When you say you are Jewish its doesnt imply a single ethinicity or even the fact you are religious. If forming a nation based around shared history, culture, and goals isn't just then what is?

[blankall]

Post edited for unecessary angriness. I apologize.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by blankall

First of all I think your example of Britain is BS. Arab Muslims in Israel make up 20% of the country right now. The number of non-British minorities in Britain is much less than 20%. Britain is not moving away from their British character. In Britain you have the rise of the BNP, the British PM delcaring multiculturalism a "failed experiment", ethinic riots on the street. They have a long way to go before they are anywhere close to being truly multicultural. France is allowing in migrants, but only if they conform to a French way of life.

It's your tendency to single out Jews for wanting their own country and declaring that racist that I find offensive. What you've done is basically no different than saying all the problems in America could be fixed if all the black people went back to Africa.

As for Israel being based on Jewish people, what has being Jewish become other than a shared history and culture? When you say you are Jewish its doesnt imply a single ethinicity or even the fact you are religious. If forming a nation based around shared history, culture, and goals isn't just then what is?

I think becoming inclusive and secular is a good thing. One thing that Britain and France are struggling with is a mainly Muslim minority that does not accept liberal democratic values. The French, in my opinion, are really struggling with this. How do you get the good values of the Revolution, like common rights for all, across to a very insular, suspicious group that does not agree with some of your basic premises, ie. the value and equality of women. What really distubs me about some of the positions expressed in this thread (not yours) is the moral relativity applied to all global regimes. Quite simply, I believe history proves that there are good ideas and bad ideas. I believe that the liberal democratic world (not necessarily states) will always err on the side of good ideas and anything else has to prove that they have a similar ethnic framework.

To me, Israel, in comparison with any other Middle Eastern state, passes my test of legitimacy with flying colours. Women are equal, religions are free to worship, and there is a functioning parliamentary body with an independent judiciary. Certainly, there are problems such as the state preference for Judaism, but in a liberal democracy, these problems are surmountable.

I would also say that to a certain extent, Israel has done a remarkable job in balancing three religions with often extreme elements, especially Islam. Israeli Arabs may feel discriminated against and unequal, but you notice they aren't moving out of Israel. They have free speech and a mosque to worship in. Being Jewish in any other part of the Middle East, indeed in many parts of the word, is not tolerated.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah... you're wrong. We have no official separation of Church and State in Canada. Remember the residential schools?

Oh, I must have forgotten about the Anglican tyranny imposed by our forefathers that continues to this day...

There's no denying that there are religious influences in public affairs, but if you think Canada is not a secular state due to their being no official separation of Church and State, you are the one that is wrong. The reason there is no such formal separation is that there is no need for it - religion has never had the influence here for the proscription to be needed. It would make about as much sense as legislating the separation of State and Hockey.

As for the preamble to the Charter of Rights, it mentions a non-denominational "God", nothing more - offensive to atheists like myself, perhaps, but placing no religion above any other.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by blankall

Post edited for unecessary angriness. I apologize.

It's amazing how polarizing and emotionally engaging this conflict (not just the immediate one, but the longstanding one) really is. You can peruse all sorts of forums and comments pages under news articles, and the speed with which reasoned argument devolves into emotional mudslinging is staggering. I don't think anyone is immune to it, and its inevitable that, if you hang around the debate long enough, you're going to say something you wouldn't if you were thinking with a cool head - myself included. No wonder there's no end in sight to the conflict. Can you imagine the fury those directly involved must experience? Very very hard to put that aside.

Maybe we should have a ceasefire in this thread and a cooling off period...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

It's amazing how polarizing and emotionally engaging this conflict (not just the immediate one, but the longstanding one) really is. You can peruse all sorts of forums and comments pages under news articles, and the speed with which reasoned argument devolves into emotional mudslinging is staggering. I don't think anyone is immune to it, and its inevitable that, if you hang around the debate long enough, you're going to say something you wouldn't if you were thinking with a cool head - myself included. No wonder there's no end in sight to the conflict. Can you imagine the fury those directly involved must experience? Very very hard to put that aside.

Maybe we should have a ceasefire in this thread and a cooling off period...

I definitely agree on how easily this gets heated. For some reason this conflict above all others attracts people's attention and symptathy. I've always thought that kind of bizarre given the scale of many of the other tragedies in the world. A conversation concerning Sudan or Rwanda would be ignored by both sides, in a relative sense to the attention given to this conflict.

For the record that comment I deleted wasn't directed at you or didnt contain any mention of Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians. It was directed at teh "canada is a secular state" comment and on second reading it was obviously exaggerated and influenced by the general tone of the thread. In short I didn't think it expressed how I actually felt about the topic and wanted it down.

[Nage Waza]

I just have two points for all of us to ponder:

Regarding the interest this subject raises, the only reason I entered the fray was because of Hamas. One of my buddies, and a close second in line to being the best man at my wedding is Lebanese. We can argue heatedly all day about the middle east, but he has watched what radical Islam has done. The issues we are seeing today are not exactly the same issues we used to argue about. In other words, in no way shape or form does he support anything about Hamas, because he knows them to be a terrorist group. Any support they have is from them running elections by gunpoint, killing opposition and continuing the control of what kids learn and hateful propaganda. Hamas is also forcing radical Islam in a region that was once very tolerant. I suggest anyone here debating to try hard to separate what is happening in the region currently (missiles etc.) to the long standing issue of the Palestinians. There are three groups now, Israel, the Palestinians and Hamas. Think of it this way, Israel was recently fighting with Hezbollah based out of Lebanon, yet Israel is at peace with Lebanon and has predominantly good relations. Lebanon on the other hand is in the midst of some type of civil war between tolerant Lebanon and radical Hezbollah/Syria/Iran. Hezbollah's goal it seemed was to get the rest of the country (Lebanon) to join them in hating Israel and somehow to get people to become more like the population in Gaza - Radical.

People keep bringing up the separation between religion and state, but they are looking at it as the religion running the state. The issue of separation of the two is to prevent the government from running religion, not usually the other way around (for typical democracies). I wanted to clear that up, as some people seem to think it is usually in reverse.

Here is a pretty good article regarding the Gaza strip, something that appears to be what many of us were trying to say, but did not say as well as this author:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...konline03.html

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

Oh, I must have forgotten about the Anglican tyranny imposed by our forefathers that continues to this day...

There's no denying that there are religious influences in public affairs, but if you think Canada is not a secular state due to their being no official separation of Church and State, you are the one that is wrong. The reason there is no such formal separation is that there is no need for it - religion has never had the influence here for the proscription to be needed. It would make about as much sense as legislating the separation of State and Hockey.

As for the preamble to the Charter of Rights, it mentions a non-denominational "God", nothing more - offensive to atheists like myself, perhaps, but placing no religion above any other.

In a vague sense, you are correct. Canadians are on the whole, very secular. However, there is no official constitutional separation of church and state. Unlike the United States, we have always had to deal with a great deal of religious/political interference with one another. If the residential schools isn't enough for you (the last one was closed only 30 years ago) what about the brief introduction and recognition of sharia law in Ontario?

Quite simply, secularists such as myself, have no official recourse to prevent the intervention of either church or state in the other.

[peter12]

To clarify the church/state thing... Secularism or separation of church and state means freedom FROM religion, at least in the American context. The state does not endorse any religion, all religious people are free to worship with the added caveat that public discussions involving religious moral etc... must be conducted peacefully, respectfully and with reason.

With the exception of some extremists and some concessions to the Orthodox community, Israel has as free a religious society as anywhere in the Anglo-American world, with the exception of some of their political parties which embody, to some extent, variations of Judaism.

In my opinion, due to the instability of the Israeli Knesset and the inevitability of coalition governments, this sometimes results in the more extreme Orthodox sects gaining temporary control of the state affairs. This process must be changed gradually.

[Jayems]

There's a crazy video just released on LiveLeak of close combat between Hamas militants and IDF forces / officers. Basically, the video is shot by a drone or helicopter. It was broadcast by presumably an Israeli news channel and explains what's happening, because it's kind of hard to tell.

Either way, the IDF unknowingly stumble upon 2 militants hiding in the bushes. They get a grenade chucked at them, but it misses. The IDF return fire and kill 1 of the militants, thinking he was the only one.

Then, out of no where, the other militant is found and he chucks a grenade. An IDF officer races over, grabs the militant and uses him as a sheild, placing him directly over the grenade.

Hard to imagine. From both sides. Crazy, crazy crazy. Something you'd expect to see in a movie.

I won't link it because a lot of people have a problem with that site and so people can use their own discretion.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

To clarify the church/state thing... Secularism or separation of church and state means freedom FROM religion, at least in the American context. The state does not endorse any religion, all religious people are free to worship with the added caveat that public discussions involving religious moral etc... must be conducted peacefully, respectfully and with reason.

With the exception of some extremists and some concessions to the Orthodox community, Israel has as free a religious society as anywhere in the Anglo-American world, with the exception of some of their political parties which embody, to some extent, variations of Judaism.

In my opinion, due to the instability of the Israeli Knesset and the inevitability of coalition governments, this sometimes results in the more extreme Orthodox sects gaining temporary control of the state affairs. This process must be changed gradually.

What most North American's don't realize is that a pretty large number of Jews are not religious in the sense they don't believe in the old biblical texts. In fact most of the keep to traditions as a people not as a religious people.

Jews are irreligious and I'm sure that only angers the Islamists even more in the region.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Well, that didn't take too long for Hamas to break the cease fire.

JERUSALEM, Jan 27 (Reuters) - A bomb planted by Palestinian gunmen killed an Israeli soldier and wounded three other troops close to the border with the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, the Israeli military said, confirming media reports of the death.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLR67082

[Azure]

No surprise there.

So what now? Israel hit back again?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Azure

No surprise there.

So what now? Israel hit back again?

They bombed a couple of the tunnels that were being rebuilt.

One of the news sites was reporting that the Gazans were repairing their tunnels and that the tunnels would be operational by the end of the week. It has pics of the digging. Interestingly, the guy the reporter interviewed said that they have two types of tunnels - ones for weapons and ones for black market goods, and that the Israelis know which tunnels are which and only destroy the weapons tunnels.

[TheDragon]

I'm starting to wonder if "Cease Fire" actually translates into "Reloading" in Arabic/Hebrew.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by jammies

As for the preamble to the Charter of Rights, it mentions a non-denominational "God", nothing more - offensive to atheists like myself, perhaps, but placing no religion above any other.

Does that honestly offend you? Seriously?

Seems about as silly as american athiests getting their panties in a knot about "in god we trust" being put on the money or fundie christians wanting to ban harry potter.

[mykalberta]

Globe and Mail had a great article today on that supposed UN school that was shelled by Isreal.

I guess it turns out that nothing actually landed within the school grounds, while people in the school complex were injured, it happened because of shratenal. A total of 3 mortars landed in the street adjacent to the school. That is it - I suggest anyone who takes news reports from that area of the world seriously, pick up your own copy to read. Very telling stuff. Not even the UN can be trusted (they put out a press release indicating they were hit immediately after the event).

Its no wonder the BBC wont air that call for aid money, its likely they cannot trust the numbers being reported.

Link to article online - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...pecialComment/

[Azure]

Interesting to read that now, and props to the reporter who went and figured it out.

But how many people are going to notice this article?

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Azure

Interesting to read that now, and props to the reporter who went and figured it out.

But how many people are going to notice this article?

So what exactly is there to notice? Rather than the mortars landing directly on the school, they landed beside the school killing 43 civilians.

I guess everything is OK now because the civilians were outside the school.