"Canwest is shamelessly pro-israel"
The Aspers are proudly pro-Israel. Canwest is a whole collection of newspapers and other media, each with its own editor and editorial dept. I'm familiar with only one of them.
Re. "Confrontation at Concordia" I haven't seen it.
I do know that at Concordia U, the thugs are all on one side of the issue and it's not the Israeli side.
"What is wrong with suggesting terrorism should not apply to people under occupation?"
First, there is no absolute right to resist occupation.
Israel occupied the West Bank & Gaza during a defensive war. It has absolutely no obligation to hand over sovereignty until the Palestinians agree not to repeat their past aggression.
Second, armed resistance to any occupation should always be a last resort. But the current Palestinian war against Israel is not a reaction to the occupation at all; it's a reaction to the peace offer that would have ended the occupation.
In short the Palestinians have no right to any kind of armed resistance.
Next, I agree that targeting civilians is always wrong. MacDonald is saying an exception should be made for people under occupation. They should be allowed to target civilians - men, women and children.
If you don't know what's wrong with it, I have a great sweatshirt I can send you. On the front it says: "I support terrorism" On the back it says: "Target civilians" above a big bull’s-eye.
"how on earth are McDonalds comments anti-semitic?"
You're getting my comments mixed up with someone else's. I've never said MacDonald is antisemitic. My jury's still out on that.
MacDonald is obviously prejudiced against Americans, though.
You write:
"He goes on to say that “if Palestinians have committed terror, the Israelis have certainly committed war crimes.'"
I think this is a fair statemnt."
I don't think MacDonald's position is fair at all. There are laws against certain acts committed in war. That's why we have the term "war crime." MacDonald is arguing against the UN adopting an enforceable definition of terrorism - in other words, he is arguing that non-state actors should be exempt from the rules of war (i.e. terrorism is okay for people "under occupation").
Under the rules MacDonald wants, if an Israeli soldier deliberately (or perhaps even accidentally) kills a non-combatant, that's a war crime. If Palestinians blow up a city bus or shoot children while their mother reads them a bedtime story, that's legitimate resistance.
Also, Israel does not commit war crimes. We do know that individual Israeli soldiers do sometimes commit crimes against Palestinians. We know this because Israel investigates reported abuses, prosecutes when there is sufficient evidence and convicts soldiers who are guilty.
Does the Palestinian leadership prosecute "militants" who murder Israeli civilians? Hardly. The leadership is directing the attacks. Their entire strategy has been to commit an on-going crime against humanity.
There is no equivalency between what Israel does and what the terrorists do. Israel attempts to minimize civilian casualties. The Palestinians attempt to maximize them.
"The Aspers are proudly pro-Israel."
When running a media empire, espousing such a hard-line, unwavering bias is not something to be proud of. If you call Canwest proudly pro-israel then you must also call Al Jazeera proudly pro-pal in the same positive light. I'm not saying you don,t I'm just pointing that out. Personally I'd call them both 'shameless,' but as long as the criticism is consistent then no worries.
"I do know that at Concordia U, the thugs are all on one side of the issue and it's not the Israeli side."
A window got broken and one jewish kids hair got messed up, hardly thuggery.
Targetting civilians under any circumstance for political reasons is terrorism. But if McDonald wants to argue otherwise, he should be able to.
I don't agree with your assertions as the pal motives for violent resistance. I see a third world country with no dignity or money or future being violently oppressed. Suicide bombings speak for themselves as homicidal terrorism, but Israel has a long list of wrong-doings under its belt too.
"Does the Palestinian leadership prosecute "militants" who murder Israeli civilians?"
The pal leadership has been disarmed and stripped of any power. If it ever tried to stand up to the terrorist organizations in palestine they would get blown into outer-space. That is just a lame argument to absolve israel of responsibility. Regardless, security in an occupied territory is the responsibility of the occupier, in this case israel. You can't take away all the power from the pals then expect them to run an effective government.
"Their entire strategy has been to commit an on-going crime against humanity."
Wouldn't it make more sense that they are fighting for their people to stop being violently oppressed? I could say that the israeli strategy is to keep the arab heathens impoverished. Both statments are baseless and pure propoganda.
"There is no equivalency between what Israel does and what the terrorists do. Israel attempts to minimize civilian casualties. The Palestinians attempt to maximize them."
The death toll on the pal side is far higher than the israeli side, including kids under 12. Add that to the disenfranchisment and oppression of the whole population. Bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers? Can you imagine the US government bulldozing the homes of convicted killers? Forcing their families to live on the streets? Putting checkpoints everywhere and pretty much doing anything in the name of security with no accountability.
I do not in any way support what the pals do, I don't think it helps their cause. Given that israel is supposed to be a democratic western nation, not a third world theocracy like palestine, I think they should be held to higher standards than they are. Things like bulldozing homes is not acceptable, nor is building towns on their land. Just because pal terrorists kill 2 kids does not give the IDF the right to kill 4. If the US was doing to mexico what israel does to palestine, would you really be surprised when stuff started blowing up? I wouldn't be.
You don't have to choose sides. The nutty muslims are not going to be reasoned with, so that leaves us with the nutty jews. Fortunately israel has a bit of secularism for leverage. The pals are not going to stop, they think dying for allah will reward them, and we can't just kill them all. Israel has all the power, and they'll do anything to convince the world they have no other option than to keep the violent oppression going. I don't believe that's the only option. Sharon's disengagement plan is an excellent step in the right direction.
If Norway was violently oppressing its neighbour the way israel does, I'd criticise them too.