Steve: I think there’s a large difference between opposing a speaker’s invitation, or trying to discourage attendance at the presentation, and what happened here.I don’t see a big difference between trying to get a speaker’s invitation revoked, and trying to shout him down while he’s giving his speech.The latter is probably more likely to lead to violence, but in both cases you’re trying to stop an invited speaker from disseminating his message.Could anyone who sees a big difference tell me what it is?

How is the person trying to get the invitation revoked? Is s/he arguing against it in a reasonable manner, or is s/he taking actions that prevent it (e.g., swiping the paperwork)? If it’s part of normal discussion, it’s acceptable; if it consists of actions to circumvent discussion and invitation, it’s not.

This argument is tired. There have been plenty of speakers that the MSU has invited on the campus that many disagree with. As far as I know, you have to go back to 2001 to find anyone disrupting any of the speakers they invited on the campus. Most students understand that when someone is presenting a lecture they should show some respect and let the speaker express his views. The speaker should not be shouted at repeatedly.

Anonnn says:
“NOT ONE person has commented on the remarkable similarity of the students’ interruptions to Congressman Wilson’s “You lie” interruption of President Obama.”

It would be great if these students followed Wilson’s lead. He realized he made a mistake when he disrupted the lecture and apologized soon afterward.

If you can’t guess the people I have in mind, I’ll give you
some clues—clues found in a major world religion that is many
centuries old. I’ll call it Religion X.
Religion X traces its roots back to the First Couple, Adam and
Eve. They were on earth before any other form of worship—before
Islam (appearing 14 centuries ago), before Hinduism or Buddhism
(appearing 25 centuries ago), before even the worship of various
gods in Mesopotamia (60 centuries ago).
Early on, Religion X’ers were told by their God: “Love your
> neighbor—and even the stranger who dwells among you—as much as
> you love yourself.” But it wasn’t long before Religion X began
> rebelling against the laws of the One who had blessed and
> preserved it so much. In response God warned: “All those who hate
> me love death.”
> After centuries of hating their God (which predictably led to
> hatred of fellow humans, God’s creations), Religion X’ers were
> allowed by God to be conquered and transported to ancient Babylon
> where they experienced a 1,600-year-long “vacation.”
> If you haven’t guessed yet, the religion I’m describing is
> Judaism. But don’t stop reading. The
> most shocking stuff is just ahead!
> While in Babylon, the “wise men” among the people began
> formulating new laws which supposedly supplemented and explained
> the time-tested Old Testament writings. But the new rules actually
> contradicted and eventually replaced the original laws!
> The “new and improved” laws are collectively known as the
> Talmud. Even though rabbis are Talmudic experts, probably not one
> Jew in a thousand (and not one non-Jew in ten thousand) knows what
> is in the Talmud. Without further delay, here’s some of the
> Talmud’s “wisdom” (plus sources):
> (I) THE TALMUD HATES SCIENCE:
> Hyenas turn into bats after seven years, and later on turn into
> thorns and demons (Baba Kamma, 16a).
> Being naked in front of a lamp causes epilepsy (Pesahim, 112b).
> There’s medicinal value in dirt found in an outhouse’s shadow,
> also in a white dog’s excrement (Gittin, 69a,b).
> (II) THE TALMUD HATES FEMALES:
> The birth of a girl is an unhappy event (Baba Bathra, 16b).
> It is never good to talk too much to women including one’s own
> wife (Aboth, 1.5).
> All women are “temperamentally light-headed” (Kiddushin, 80b).
> It is okay to divorce your wife if she spoils your food, or if
> you find a more beautiful woman (Gittin, 91a).
> (III) THE TALMUD HATES CHILDREN:
> It is lawful for a girl three years old to have sexual
> intercourse (Abodah Zarah, 37a; Kethuboth, 11b,39a; Sanhedrin,
> 55b,69a,b; Yebamoth, 12a,57b,58a,60b).
> When a man commits sodomy with a boy under nine years of age,
> it “is not deemed as pederasty” (Sanhedrin, 54b,55a).
> Sexual intercourse with a boy under the age of eight is lawful
> since it isn’t fornication (Sanhedrin, 69b).
> (In other words, Religion X became X-rated! Is it any wonder
> that many Jewish persons today are liberally involved with the
> current sexual revolution and are even favorable towards
> legalization of adult-child sex?)
> (IV) THE TALMUD HATES ALL NON-JEWS:
> Since all Gentiles are only animals, all Gentile children are
> bastards (Yebamoth, 98a).
> When a non-Jew robs a Jew, he has to pay him back, but if a Jew
> robs a non-Jew, he doesn’t have to pay him back. Moreover, when a
> Gentile kills a Jew, the Gentile must be killed, but when a Jew
> kills a Gentile, “there is no death penalty” (Sanhedrin, 57a).
> It is okay to “use subterfuges” in a court of law in order to
> cheat a non-Jew (Baba Kamma, 113a).
> (V) THE TALMUD HATES CHRIST AND CHRISTIANS:
> Jesus was born a bastard (Jewish Encyclopedia, “Jesus”;
> Yebamoth, 49b).
> Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a whore and “played the harlot
> with carpenters” (Sanhedrin, 106a,b).
> Jesus “practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy”
> (Sanhedrin, 43a).
> Jesus was punished and sent to Hell where he ended up in
> “boiling hot excrement” (Gittin, 56b,57a).
> Christians will go to Hell “and be punished there for all
> generations” (Rosh Hashanah, 17a).
> Those who read “the works of the Judeo-Christians, i.e., the
> New Testament” will end up in Hell (Sanhedrin, 90a).
> The books of the Christians “may not be saved from a fire, but
> they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names
> occurring in them” (Shabbath, 116a).
> (Now you know what’s been inspiring many of the anti-Christian
> attitudes and actions these days.)
> By roughly 500 A.D. Jewish scribes had completed the voluminous
> Talmud, the written version of what had long been the Jews’ oral
> tradition—the tradition that Jesus condemns in the 23rd chapter
> of Matthew and other parts of the New Testament.
> Whenever anyone claims that for 1500 years the Talmud
> needlessly aggravated Gentiles (who in turn put Jews into ghettos
> and even the Holocaust), Jews can look at even earlier history and
> claim that the “anti-Jewishness” of the New Testament forced Jews
> to hit back with their printed version of the Talmud.
> Actually the New Testament, like a newspaper, merely reflects
> the true condition of Judaism at that time. If someone could prove
> that damaging descriptions of Jews never appeared before the New
> Testament, that would be one thing. But during many centuries
> prior to Jesus or any Christians, Jews were saying and doing the
> same things that we find them still saying and doing during New
> Testament days!
> If the New Testament record of their words and works is
> “anti-Semitic,” is the Old Testament record of the same
> rebelliousness just as “anti-Semitic”?
> A while ago I was talking with a young woman in Los Angeles who
> is training to become a rabbi. I asked her about the Talmud. (She
> seemed shocked I should know so much about it already!) “Oh,” she
> said, “I don’t think it’s as relevant as it once was.” When I told
> her that the “hate” movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” was an
> amazingly accurate reflection of the Talmud—and that more such
> “hate” films are in the works because Hollywood takes the Talmud
> seriously—she had no explanation.
> In the future when “hate” laws are passed, will the incredibly
> hate-filled Talmud and some hate-promoting film studios be swept
> under the rug?

[You are allowed to publish this non-copyrighted article. To avoid the prevalent internet censorship, feel free to change the title to "The Original 'Hate' Criminals" (or Crooks, etc.) or "The Earliest 'Hate' Rebels" (or People, Persons, etc.) or "The History of Hate" (or the Jews, the Hebrews, Judaism, etc.) or any other meaningful title, or no title.]

[Also Google "David Letterman's Hate, Etc."]

I don’t get it. The MSU showed up to protest Michael Oren, who is certainly 100% anti-Iran, but got invited to speak anyway. Are you suggesting that speakers should be prevented from speaking on campus because they oppose the policies of a FOREIGN government? Are you suggesting the Dalai Lama be barred because he opposes the policies of the Chinese government?

Libby: The claim that there is responsible and, therefore, irresponsible expression of free speech illustrates that they clearly do not understand what freedom is. When one is silenced, there is no freedom.

I don’t get it. Are you saying there’s no such thing as irresponsible exercise of one’s freedoms?

Libby: Again, these students, who acted uncivilly, were not there to protest. They were there to disrupt. If they truly wanted to be heard as an opposing point, they could have mounted a campaign that included speakers with opposing viewpoints, pamphlet distribution, blogging, etc.

But disruption is a form of protest. It might be a more effective form of protest than pamphletting, presenting speakers, etc. So if it only violates civility and not free speech, why not be disruptive?

Their own website http://www.msuuci.com says:
“As people of conscience, we oppose Michael Oren’s invitation to our campus. Propagating murder is not a responsible expression of free speech. Oren and his partners should only be granted a speakers platform in the International Criminal Court and should not be honored on our campus.

The claim that there is responsible and, therefore, irresponsible expression of free speech illustrates that they clearly do not understand what freedom is. When one is silenced, there is no freedom.

I wonder if their consciences are troubled by such rude and unrly behavior; let alone the irony of their allegations.

Anonsters:
If your speech maximally offends me, I have the right to speak up and say so, even if doing so disrupts your speech. Would it not be worse, as a matter of this abstract free speech principle, if I were censored from speaking, in the name of civility?

Would you even be asking these questions if you were the one interrupted? These students’ outbursts were not even in reaction to what Mr. Oren said; they were simply shouted to disrupt. Whether speech is “offensive” does not make it more or less valuable.

To be civil towards ones’ opponents, one does not need to be censored. However, etiquette does call for not interrupting. Again, these students, who acted uncivilly, were not there to protest. They were there to disrupt. If they truly wanted to be heard as an opposing point, they could have mounted a campaign that included speakers with opposing viewpoints, pamphlet distribution, blogging, etc.

The funniest thing is to read the school newspaper. People defending the yellers believe that any respective of Israel should not be allowed to speak at UC Irvine. They do not understand the First Amendment and the role of a university to exchange ideas.

Here is an exert of one published letter:

“the University should and must do to affirm its stance in support of human rights: Immediately release all arrested at the event, pay just compensation for any arrest and detainment and formally apologized from the president of the university and the chief of police; adopt a formal policy against any representative of Israel speaking on campus”

http://www.newuniversity.org/2010/02/opinion/11623/

I wonder what hospitals you’re talking about. A survey of hospitals in Israel reveals no hospitals in Palestinian areas that were established by Israel (http://www.hospitalsworldwide.com/countries/israel.php). The few hospitals that serve Palestinian areas predate the state of Israel and were established by European Christians.

Your universities claim fares slightly better. There is a tiny Palestinian university, which was founded in 2003.

Schools – yes. Israel has many Arab schools as part of its apartheid educational structure. They serve the useful social function of reconciling Palestinians to their third-class status while failing to prepare them for higher education.

Improvements in live birth rate, life expectancy, etc. are fairly universal, worldwide. They are not impressive counterevidence to a long-term genocide plan.

Israel made a political calculation to give citizenship to a small proportion of Palestinians in 1948. This allowed the western world to pretend that it is a democracy, a charade that still goes on, and relieve it from its responsibility for the expulsion of 80% of the Palestinians, the theft of their property and the destruction of their villages. In other words, it allowed Israel to consolidate the gains of its most genocidal act to date.

If Israel is not carrying out a genocidal plan, why has it expelled a million+ Palestinians from the areas under its control? Why destroy their villages? Why suppress the memory of Palestinian history in the land? Why implement apartheid in Israel, and a situation worse than apartheid in occupied territories? Why build the settlements in occupied territory? Why terrorize Palestinian nationalist organizations abroad?

Yankev:

Right, because until the Zionists came along and ruined everything, life was hunk-dory for the millions of Jews who lived in the middle east.

What does that have to do with the PA? And why the snarkiness?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9DQcqbxxJw&feature=player_embedded

Goat: Mainstream Zionists have by and large adopted his approach to resolving the issue — genocide — only they’ve found it much more difficult than Herzl anticipated, and are doing it in steps.

That must be why Zionists built hospitals, schools and universities for Arabs where there had been none before. It would also account for the dramatic increases in life expectancy, educational level, literacy rate and standard of living and decreases in infant mortality after they came under Israeli rule up until the time of the intifada, when the consequences of prolonged daily violence brought it down again — but still well above the levels it had been under Arab rule. It must also account for the increase among the Arab population. For a people who have accomplished amazing strides in technology, military tactics, and agriculture, the Zionists have to be the most incompetent practitioners of genocide in history.

Goat, is there any lie so scurrilous that you would be unwilling to tell it, so long as it is targetted at the Zionists?

As for the PA’s ethnic issues — they’re a defensive reaction to Israel’s Jewish supremacy

Right, because until the Zionists came along and ruined everything, life was hunk-dory for the millions of Jews who lived in the middle east.

Chris Travers: AFAIK, Netanyahu (unlike Barak) never advocated or sought to remove Arab citizens from Israel as a nation.I agree that arguing that Palestinians should be transferred is despicable, but it is an order of magnitude less than the sort of ethnic cleansing programs the Effi Eitams and Ehud Baraks have sought within the Green Line.

Netanyahu was talking about the Palestinians in Palestine. The quote: “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.” (Talking about Tiananmen Square.)

Really, I don’t see how this is less despicable than the cases you raise.

Chris Travers
When calling the Israeli government “neo-Nazis,” Godwin’s law beats allegations of Antisemitism and is more accurate as well….Godwin’s law, at least, is viewpoint-neutral.

Yes, but an allegation of anti-semitism has some substance to it. Well, it’s an unsubstantiated smear 9 times out of 10, but at least is has the property that if it’s true, it’s consequential. Godwin’s law is not consequential. It is a silly game.

I agree with your understanding of the tension between Israel as a democracy and Israel as a Jewish state. Zionists are well aware of it too, and have been since Herzl’s days. Mainstream Zionists have by and large adopted his approach to resolving the issue – genocide – only they’ve found it much more difficult than Herzl anticipated, and are doing it in steps. The next major step is the establishment of a powerless and impoverished Palestinian “state” which would relieve Israel of the problems of occupation, while allowing it to continue to control and dominate the Palestinians, a situation likely to lead to more wars, and therefore more opportunities for mass expulsions.

Chris Travers:

Really, though, Israel isn’t the only one to blame.The Settlement Issue has a simple resolution: Allow the settlers to stay put and join the PA.Unfortunately the PA has not been supportive of this solution.The PA has been as even worse regarding ethnicity issues than Israel has.

That’s not a simple resolution. The settlers are well-armed, well-trained, and fanatically committed to Jewish supremacy. They would not submit peacefully to PA rule, and Israel would not permit the PA to deal with them as states deal with armed rebellions. Allowing the settlers to stay is a recipe for prolonged, bloody conflict.

As for the PA’s ethnic issues – they’re a defensive reaction to Israel’s Jewish supremacy, and they’re certainly not worse than Israel’s ethnic issues. The PA has to function in an apartheid framework that it opposes and that it did not establish.

Chris Travers:
I think a suitable agreement would greatly help with this, just as peace agreements have helped reduce support for Israel’s enemies by Jordan and Egypt.

I think the limited extent to which Egypt withholds support from Israel’s enemies is at least as attributable to the strings attached to American aid as it is to the peace treaty. Jordan less so, but Jordan also has its own history with the PLO.

It might not be perfect, but one can either allow occupation of foreign territory to fuel proxy wars of this kind, or you can given the land back provisionally under an agreement under which Syria agrees to behave.I don’t see any other options.

Well, they could annex it and made the residents Israeli citizens, an approach I’d consider both wrong and stupid for the West Bank. I really don’t know which Golan course would be most conducive to peace and security, but I don’t feel Israel is morally constrained to return it to Syria, so long as the residents aren’t kept in perpetual limbo. Countries that repeatedly invade other countries and repeatedly get their asses kicked ought to expect to lose some territory.

leo marvin: I disagree with your take on the relative merits and demerits of the Israeli left and right, but that’s a longer discussion, and anyway it’s beside the point. How does it pertain to the reasonableness of your assumption (“Getting Syria away from proxy wars with Israel would also greatly simplify the situation with the Palestinian situation as well as likely solve the problems with Hizbullah”) that Syria would stop supporting Israel’s enemies if it got the Golan back?

I think a suitable agreement would greatly help with this, just as peace agreements have helped reduce support for Israel’s enemies by Jordan and Egypt. It might not be perfect, but one can either allow occupation of foreign territory to fuel proxy wars of this kind, or you can given the land back provisionally under an agreement under which Syria agrees to behave. I don’t see any other options.

I said that later in my post. Keep reading….

My view is that the PA/Israel borders should be fixed at the 48-49 armistice lines, and that Jews who wish to remain in the PA should be allowed to become full citizens of the PA, becoming Jewish Palestinians in the same way that there are Arab Israelis. If the PA won’t accept that, this shows the ethnic cleansing intentions on their side.

(BTW, I want to see Palestinian refugees compensated and helped to move out of the refugee camps, but I want to see Arab nations included in providing that compensation given the number of Jews that were formally expelled in the 1940′s too. To make up for it, they should help solve the refugee problem.)

As I say, write me in as a presidential candidate in 2012 and if I win all our problems will be solved ;-)

Chris Travers: I agree that arguing that Palestinians should be transferred is despicable, but it is an order of magnitude less than the sort of ethnic cleansing programs the Effi Eitams and Ehud Baraks have sought within the Green Line.

To say nothing of the assumption that the Arabs are entitled to have a state free of Jews, as demanded by the PA, with the apparent acquiescence of the Clinton and Bush administrations. Israeli law permits Arabs to own land. PA law prohibits Jews from owning land and makes it a capital crime for Arabs to sell land to Jews (within the green line as well, if I am not mistaken). Arabs can walk freely in Jewish neighborhoods (yes, there have been isolated assaults, but the Israeli government prosecutes the perpertrators) but Jews take their life in their hands walking through an Arab neighborhood. Two Israelis were arrested by PA police for the “crime” of taking a wrong turn and ending up in an Arab town. The PA police turned them over a lynch mob who beat them to death. But somehow it is Israel that is supposedly the neo-nazi apartheid state.

“Do you want the university to prevent these speakers from speaking? If so, then you do not believe in free speech. Instead, you believe in policies that advance your point of view and oppose policies that reject your point of view.”

Perhaps, I did not explain that clearly enough. Jewish students have complained specifically because of harassment, insults, intimidation and on occasion (minor) assault. As to speech, nobody has ever tried to disrupt or shut down an MSU event. Even when speakers like Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who calls for the violent destruction as Israel and calls suicide bombers heroes and martyrs comes, he is allowed to speak. Same when Mohammed al Asi comes and calls Jews, “Low-life ghetto-dwellers and says, “You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew”, he is allowed to speak.I myself have engagewd Ali 5-6 times during the Q&A after he speaks. Our exchanges are spirited but civil. Unfortunately, few others at UCI have the balls to challenge Ali. I too believe in free speech. The fact is no MSU event has been disrupted as was Oren’s speech. MSU tried to take away Oren’s right of free speech and our right to hear him.

You praise George Galloway. On May 21, he came to UCI and collected funds for Viva Palestina. He too spoke without disruption. During the Q&A, I recited to him a list of pro-Palestinian protests in Ft Lauderdale, LA, SF and Toronto (during the Gaza fighting) in which some people shouted, “Long live Hitler”, “Jews back to the ovens”, “Hitler didn’t finish the job” etc. At that point, he broke in and called me a liar as his crowd of some 800 in the hall erupted in cheers. (All of the incidents I mentioned are on Youtube and documented on my blog.)

I do not share your enthusiam for Galloway. He is a demogogue and a liar.

I disagree with your take on the relative merits and demerits of the Israeli left and right, but that’s a longer discussion, and anyway it’s beside the point. How does it pertain to the reasonableness of your assumption (“Getting Syria away from proxy wars with Israel would also greatly simplify the situation with the Palestinian situation as well as likely solve the problems with Hizbullah”) that Syria would stop supporting Israel’s enemies if it got the Golan back?

epluribus:

[zuch]: I think I said something similar … yeah, maybe about the third comment on this thread….

Well, what do you want–a prize? You have a problem, zuch, which you don’t seem to appreciate. You post way too much. Although I agree with a lot your posts, maybe most of them, I don’t read them all, because there are just too many. Aim for quality instead of quantity and you might get more readers. And don’t get your tater feelings hurt when all of your posts aren’t read.

Yeah, well, I said it early, and then a bunch of people jumped all over me for saying it. Should I just ignore the fact that these people are mistaken? Do I need to just sit back and wait for someone else to say the same damn thing to put the nay-sayers in their place? Perhaps so, but I wouldn’t count on it always….

Cheers,

leo marvin: Those both assume facts not in evidence about how Syria would behave once it regained possession of the Golan. My wildest eyed optimism says it’s an open question.

My point is that Netanyahu is now generally acknowledged to have had the moral courage to go down this road. This mitigates a lot of criticism regarding his past administration.

If you want to ensure that no new peace deals are ever enacted, try to help ensure that Labor and Kadima win the main elections. That way the whole issue can be how everyone else can be made to seem unreasonable, while Likud has a record for secret negotiations and trying to tackle these questions.

Rabin was a rare exception.

Shamir (the former terrorist who endorsed Zionist-Nazi collaboration efforts even though these eventually never went anywhere), Begin, Netanyahu, etc. have all provided more to the peace process than the whole of Labor minus Rabin.

Goat: As far as I knew, Barak was the one who initiated peace talks with Syria. I agree with you that he sabotaged them.

Sharon’s disclosure of Netanyahu’s role in this was what caused Netanyahu to lose the chairmanship of the Likud party to Sharon. Netanyahu began the talks but it was a very well kept secret for the rest of his administration.

One of the most aggravating things about internet discourse is the use of Godwin’s Law as a way to shut down discussions. If Godwin’s law is a rule of some stupid game, then it has no place in rational discourse.

When calling the Israeli government “neo-Nazis,” Godwin’s law beats allegations of Antisemitism and is more accurate as well. One of my big complaints about the way Prof. Bernstein characterizes Norman Finkelstein is that he trots out the argument that he is Antisemitic and such without really trying to get to the heart of the arguments. Godwin’s law, at least, is viewpoint-neutral.

If you’re a liberal supporter of liberty, democracy and human rights, this is not a question at all, and the fundamental question is: What’s the best way to promote liberty, democracy and human rights in the region?

Agreed. However the answer to that and “allow a Jewish state an unconditional right to exist” are irreconcilable. Unfortunately, most of the population in the US seems to feel that it is more important for Israel to remain Jewish than for Israel to respect human rights.

There is a big problem with this however. If we accept that Israeli Arabs, under current trends, will eventually be a majority in the state then Israel cannot remain democratic and at the same time remain Jewish. The Israeli National Security Council under Sharon published (publicly) a report which showed they understood this problem and indeed it was one of the major reasons for the push for the Gaza disengagement and the West Bank fence. However, reading between the lines of the report, it is clear that these issues don’t go away with these policies and that it is kicking the can a bit further down the road.

The fundamental problem is this. The Israeli government knows that the world will not stand for ethnic cleansing or disenfranchising the Arab citizens. They know the birth rates are far higher for Arabs than for Jews. It is only a matter of time before the Jewish State experiment implodes. The problem is that hostility generated in forestalling this process will likely become the basis for antisemitic programs at the hands of the Israeli Arabs when they eventually become a majority. Consequently, Israeli Arabs are made into very second-class citizens and their court decisions in their favor are frequently ignored. The idea is to forestall the inevitable, but this creates the exact scenario that Israel-supporters most fear.

Really, though, Israel isn’t the only one to blame. The Settlement Issue has a simple resolution: Allow the settlers to stay put and join the PA. Unfortunately the PA has not been supportive of this solution. The PA has been as even worse regarding ethnicity issues than Israel has.

Chris Travers: Getting Syria away from proxy wars with Israel would also greatly simplify the situation with the Palestinian situation as well as likely solve the problems with Hizbullah.

Those both assume facts not in evidence about how Syria would behave once it regained possession of the Golan. My wildest eyed optimism says it’s an open question.

Goat: As for neo-nazis, in Israel they control policy almost completely.

This is (choose one):
(a) a Complete misuse of the term neo-nazi.
(b) an example of the Soviet-originated canard that the Jews/Zionists/Israelis are the new nazis.
(c) a complete inversion of reality.
(d) Scurrilous.
(e) a and c.
(f) So absurd as not to deserve the dignity of a substantive response.
(g) All of the above.

Chris Travers: People sometimes tell me I’m an optimist, but really I look at record as opposed to rhetoric.I see Netanyahu’s election in Israel as being a long-term benefit to the peace process because he may be able to finish what he started in his last administration:the return of Golan to Syria and a peace treaty with that country.

I don’t know this history. As far as I knew, Barak was the one who initiated peace talks with Syria. I agree with you that he sabotaged them. My belief that Netanyahu is vile comes from the fact that he has made statements supporting mass expulsion of Palestinians, his contributions to the occupation and annexation of Palestine, and his contribution to inflaming religious tensions over Jerusalem. (In comparison, the vilest thing I can think of Galloway having done is participating in the suppression of hate speech). Frankly, I think Syria is a side show – important to the residents of the Golan, but far less central to global affairs than Palestine. I also don’t see how peace with Syria would help the Palestinians.

Chris Travers: I am not quite sure how to respond to that except to suggest Godwin’s Law has been fulfilled and we can all go home.

One of the most aggravating things about internet discourse is the use of Godwin’s Law as a way to shut down discussions. If Godwin’s law is a rule of some stupid game, then it has no place in rational discourse.

Chris Travers
There are Israeli political parties in Israel I would consider fascist and these exist both on the far-right and the center-left of Israeli politics.

I agree. When it comes to race issues, what passes for “center-left” in Israel, such as the Labour party, is far to the right of what passes for right-wing in the United States political scene. That’s why I use terms like “neo-nazi.” Labour actively supports apartheid both in occupied Palestine and in Israel, and like you mentioned speaks of Palestinian Israelis as though they’re a problem to be dealt with, rather than as citizens. If you want to get to parties that would be on the Democrat-Republican spectrum, you’d have to go to the left wing of the Labour party and Meretz, where there is moderate opposition to apartheid. If you want parties that are seriously pro-democracy, you’d have to go to the communist and Arab parties.

Chris Travers
The fundamental question is:What is hte plan to prevent the Arab-Israelis from taking over and turning Israel into an Arab state?

If you’re a liberal supporter of liberty, democracy and human rights, this is not a question at all, and the fundamental question is: What’s the best way to promote liberty, democracy and human rights in the region?

Goat: Far viler people than Galloway have been routinely permitted entry into Canada — Netanyahu comes to mind — but of course, people disagree on who’s vile and who’s not, which is why we have free speech.

To his credit, he lost the Likud chairmanship because of his secret attempts to negotiate peace with Syria and in the process give Golan back to that country. The negotiations were later sabotaged by Ehud Barak.

I don’t see Netanyahu as particularly vile, actually. He postures as a strong man, but he seems willing to make the hard choices in favor of peace that few other Israeli politicians seem to be willing to. Can you imagine any other Israeli PM from the last few decades considering giving Golan, in its entirety (complete with water rights, which was the area sabotaged by Barak), back to Syria in exchange for a peace treaty? Getting Syria away from proxy wars with Israel would also greatly simplify the situation with the Palestinian situation as well as likely solve the problems with Hizbullah.

Goat: As for neo-nazis, in Israel they control policy almost completely. In the United States, much of the policy in the last 10 years is based on their ideology; examples include torture, arbitrary elimination of due process in criminal punishment, and military aggression against Muslim countries.

I am not quite sure how to respond to that except to suggest Godwin’s Law has been fulfilled and we can all go home.

Israeli politics has some fundamental problems and the first thing one has to realize is that rhetoric doesn’t equal action. There are Israeli political parties in Israel I would consider fascist and these exist both on the far-right and the center-left of Israeli politics. These are the groups who talk openly about the “demographic time-bomb” (Ehud Barak did during his part of the Sharon administration. Oddly to your point of view perhaps, Sharon did not).

The problem though is that Israel is on a collision course with itself. Arab-Israelis are still one of the fastest growing demographics within the green line and the demographics are continuing to shift towards an eventual state where the majority of Israeli citizens are Arab. This feeds a lot of very inflammatory rhetoric inside Israel not only from parties like the old National Religious Party, but also from parties like Labor and Kadima. To their credit, top Likud politicians have largely stayed away from that issue.

The fundamental question is: What is hte plan to prevent the Arab-Israelis from taking over and turning Israel into an Arab state?

You figure Galloway is odious. I figure he’s one of the few honorable legislators in the western world. Given that Galloway was entering the country in order to give talks, and given that Canada does not generally bar people from entering, I’d say it’s a fair assumption that they don’t want him giving the talks in the country. Far viler people than Galloway have been routinely permitted entry into Canada – Netanyahu comes to mind – but of course, people disagree on who’s vile and who’s not, which is why we have free speech.

As for neo-nazis, in Israel they control policy almost completely. In the United States, much of the policy in the last 10 years is based on their ideology; examples include torture, arbitrary elimination of due process in criminal punishment, and military aggression against Muslim countries.

Goat: Immigration in its narrower sense (excluding things like visas) isn’t speech, but restricting someone’s temporary entry into the country because of what they say is infringement on free speech.

It also has a chilling impact on those of us who are citizens who are married to non-citizens.