Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor of globeandmail.com, writes: For the past several years, globeandmail.com policy has been to close comments on all stories related to the Middle East.
Past experience has demonstrated that too many people post racist, vulgar, abusive and offensive comments, often encouraging violence against specific individuals or peoples whenever we allow the automated publication of comments on such stories without prior review by an editor.
We regret this. But it's a reality.
We at globeandmail.com continue to look for other ways to allow our readers to air their views or to ask questions of experts.
On Monday, for example, one of Canada's former ambassadors to the region, Michael Bell, was online to take your questions. The full transcript is available here.
Today, we offered our readers an opportunity to debate these issues in an intelligent and fully-moderated forum. The discussion closed at 3 p.m. ET. Thanks to everyone who submitted comments.
Please note that this was a change from our usual format. We edited comments for length and clarity. We do not publish libellous material, vulgarities, or comments that make unfounded attack on races, ethnic groups or religions, among other things.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Good morning. We've already received more than 100 readers comments so we're going to open up the discussion an hour earlier than planned. Let's get started.
J. Kenneth Yurchuk, Toronto: First, I would like to thank the editors for this opportunity to discuss an issue that is front of mind for many in Canada and around the world. I recognize that bigots and fools abound in the world. But for the many who just want to discuss and debate in a spirit of moderation, it has been frustrating to have comments closed. Some points I would like to make: Israel has the right to exist as a nation state. The Palestinians also have a right to a national homeland. Israel's policy of "containment" in Gaza has been counterproductive and does more to provide support to Hamas than to discourage it. Israel's (and Canada's and the U.S.'s) refusal to enter into talks with the Hamas leadership guarantees that no just solution will ever be achieved. It is disingenuous in the extreme to cite Hamas as a "terrorist" organization. They are the legitimate elected representatives of the Palestinians of Gaza. Never forget that Israel had its share of "terrorists" in its early years. End the blockade under international supervision to prevent the smuggling of arms. Begin negotiations with Hamas at the table. Nothing else other than genocide will end this.
Shirley Gunn, Matawan, N.J., U.S.A.: The events in Gaza demonstrate the dark side of human emotions and action. Hate and pride have led to the killing and mistreatment of generations of peoples. Might is right. It is easier to spend billions of dollars and time to convince the rest of the world that one group of peoples' position is more correct than the others'. It is appalling how world leaders take positions to ensure their own survival, rather than the survival of the innocent people being killed. The major western powers intervened in the former Yugoslavia but will not touch the Middle East. It is a sad statement on morality.
Seasoned Warrior: I am 60 years old. The conflict in the Middle East has gone on for my entire lifetime. While it is difficult for me to see an end to this, I do hope that younger people will take a more pragmatic view than their predecessors as they take up the reigns of managing the world. In regard to the effect on Canada, I hope that the bitterness and rancour of both sides can be left outside of the life that we have created here to include people of all faiths and cultures. Parents have a bad habit of inculcating their children with their own biases, hatreds and fears and expecting them to continue their old battles. Let the young people take up the ongoing challenge to keep Canada peaceful and a safe haven from conflicts in other countries. We came here from many countries for many reasons and while we may have cultural things from our various homelands that we cherish, if we want to progress as individuals and as a society, we must leave the hatreds behind. One of the strongest institutions we have in this country to bring people together is the public school system. Children know nothing of historical hatreds, they simply see each other as potential friends. We should be encouraging that if we want to see Canada continue to flourish as a safe and peaceful country.
Nav Saloojee, Ottawa: The suffering in Gaza is completely disproportionate to any attacks on the Israeli state. Furthermore, Israel is fond of saying that it wants a partner in peace. This requires that Palestinians develop institutions and infrastructure for self-government. The destruction in Gaza is a severe setback to the only ultimate solution to the conflict. That is, two self-governing autonomous states.
Allan B.: I see it this way: If Hamas wants to keep sending rockets into Israel, then Israel has the right to take out its enemy. Plain and simple.
Antony Di Nardo, Beirut, Lebanon: For the Canadian government to state that Hamas is responsible for civilian deaths in Gaza is tantamount to saying that gun manufacturers are at fault for the murdered victims of a drive-by shooting. Let's keep in mind who's pulling the trigger.
Jim Edwards, London, Ont.: Why is there so much disinformation about the Palestinian/Israeli issue? Why do the Palestinians do such a poor job of sharing their point of view?
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: One reader, who refuses to use his real name and prefers the moniker "Comments closed, censored, hidden, deleted, disappeared," takes issue with the reasons I outlined at the beginning of this discussion why globeandmail.com has for years prevented the automatic posting (without prior review by an editor) of comments on Mideast stories. He writes, in part: "At a time when UN schools are bombed and children are murdered like flies, this is a very poor excuse for censorship on one (only one) of the many subjects The Globe does not have what it takes to face and will not hear the true voice of outraged dissent from Canadian citizens. Such lack of courage and of basic humanity on the part of The Globe (and of the Canadian government, from a political standpoint) is simply revolting. Readers should refuse to comment whenever they are thus put on short leash like dogs. This is not the land of slaves... yet. --- Events, these days, speak for themselves."
I have a question for you in return, sir: Why don't you use your real name in your postings, particularly when attacking us for our policies? Would you express different views if other readers of globeandmail.com knew who you really are?
Paul Johnston: The Israelis shell on or near a UN school and our government blames the victims? If the Israeli actions are inhuman and despicable, the Harperites' response has been as worthy as the justifications heard earlier of slavery and apartheid.
Ben E., Quebec: Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself. Yes, Israel has the right to enter Gaza to neutralize the threat of rocket attacks. No, Israel does not have the right to indiscriminately kill civilians, prevent the entry of food and medical supplies and destroy the civil infrastructure.
Pole cat: I agree with what you're saying about some of the posters here but isn't what your doing restricting freedom of speech?
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: I'd argue that we're allowing freedom of speech but trying to make the dialogue as reasonable and intelligent as possible. We're not refusing to publish anyone's reasoned views on the subject. We're just not interested in the kind of deliberately offensive rants, taunts and personal insults we see far too often in comments on this region.
Allan Rosen, Panama: Let me state the obvious, which, unfortunately, few wish to hear. We have lived through 60 years of moralizing by all sides about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. This is, and has always been, a waste of time. The constant talk of "rights" and "justice" for either side has never let to any worthwhile results, and never will. History has never been moved by such talk. Nations and peoples do what they think they must do to protect their interests and security. Peace will come to Israel and the Palestinians if and when Israel is willing to offer the Palestinians what the latter consider their minimum needs. And it will come if and when the Palestinians are able to see past their own pointless rhetoric and accept the maximum concessions to which the people of Israel will agree . . . Will this day ever come? I do not know. I am not optimistic that we will see it in our lifetimes. Sometimes, the perceived interests of individuals and groups lie in perpetual conflict. That is where we are stuck now and have been for two generations. Hatred, anger, blind ideology and foolish obstinacy are often stronger historical forces than practical wisdom. There is no romance or high drama in realism.
John Blakley: I had the sad privilege of being in Gaza briefly about four years ago. At that time, the situation there was terrible. Since then, things have got worse. Although I do not approve of the rockets fired indiscriminately from Gaza, it is no wonder that it is taking place. Israel has targeted the civilian population there with check-point brutality and humiliation, economic ruin, risks to health and assassinations. Palestinians have been living with this for decades. It must also be remembered that this is not a conflict between two modern armed forces. Palestinians do not have attack helicopters, guided missiles or advanced modern military capacities while the Israelis are one of the most advanced military forces in the region. Israel sadly has no moral high ground here. The Israelis are like the village bully who can not resist humiliating the little guy, especially when the little guy tries to lash out. There is seldom peace without justice and there is no justice present in the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. It enrages me to see our government taking the pro-Israeli position which it does. I feel ashamed that our government has the lack of sophistication to see what is really happening.
G. Jacques, Montreal: It is impossible to know what the truth is. Everyone is against the killing of children, women, elderly people and innocent bystanders. But terrorists have been accused of hiding among the crowd and of using churches, schools and even hospitals to hide weapons and themselves, firing weapons from these safe areas trying to prevent retaliation and also using civilians as shields. We have seen that all over the world -- in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Palestine. Terrorism will never win because of these tactics. They are trying hard to get the world's attention but everybody knows that and they are not fooling anyone. In the meantime, innocents are killed everyday and they don't care. To them, it is martyrdom and they abuse the lack of knowledge, hate and religious beliefs of the people to control them. On the other hand, Israel has always been the underdog and does often overreact. But if someone was launching rockets at your house everyday, wouldn't you do something about it? The good people of Gaza support or suffer the presence of Hamas for now, but they will have to do something eventually. Hamas and Israel will never get along, that's for sure. It is not in God's hands. It's in the people's hands and they need to do something about it and quick.
Reality Bites, Gadsden, Alabama, U.S.A.: The entire world, aided by the media, consistently use the word "peace" when referring to a hopeful outcome in the region. I believe, however, that the problem is that the Palestinians and most Muslim countries don't want peace. They want nothing short of the total destruction of Israel. What would you do in this case? The world cries for the Palestinians, when they themselves have brought this on. Real peace is actually easily attainable and Israel is willing to accomplish this by extraordinary concessions. Israel has relinquished almost half its territory in an attempt to appease the Palestinians, but to no avail. What have the Palestinians contributed to this process other than slaughtering Jews on a daily basis for 60 years and prior? War is ugly, but necessary under these conditions. There cannot ever be peace as long as the Hamas, Hezbollah, and their proxies exist. Peace is attainable only when both parties at the table sincerely want it. So let's stop the phony propaganda and Israel-bashing. No other country on the planet goes to the same humanitarian disciplines in war or has endured what she has. I can assure you that if ever Israel goes, we go!
Helga Ross, Burlington, Ont.: There can be no peace without justice. A Palestine was promised along with an Israel - that's 60 years of bargain overdue by my compute (including the 40 years that Israel has kept the added territory it seized from the Arabs by war but agreed to give back.) There is a history of coming close to agreement by both sides in the conflict more than once, so I do not believe peace is impossible to achieve. Demonizing the Palestinians, seeing only the Israelis' side, won't do it. Peace must have a fair and honest broker, and the needs and rights of both peoples need to be addressed. I sincerely and strongly wish it would be Canada, as it used be in the days of Lester Pearson. But we appear to have abdicated that role. Perhaps an internationally respected Canadian still could step forward to take a key role as a private citizen if the government of Canada won't. We do still have such people I would dearly love to see Canada play an important role and regain its status in the world.
Haldir Perez, Toronto: I am not pro-Israel but neither anti-Israeli either. They have the right to exist as an state and the right to defend themselves. But they don't have the right to kill innocent civilians. Hamas is a terrorist organization and Israel is a state, a member of the UN. Israel should not respond to terrorist attacks in the same way terrorists do. There are plenty of examples everywhere in the history of the world that tell us that indiscriminate violence is not the right way to defeat guerrilla warfare and terrorism. On the contrary, it has usually backfired - resulting in reinvigorated resistance. The defeat of Hamas should come from isolation from Iran and Syria (by political and economic pressure from the international community), improvement of quality of life for Palestinians and, of course, a carefully-targeted police/military strategy. Israel will gain nothing from behaving like a 19th century European colonial power. They can destroy all of Hamas' rockets and kill 80% of its combatants now but eventually it will either replenish its ranks and equipment or be replaced by some other Islamic organization.
John Chuckman: Should Israel talk to Hamas? It is so elemental a question, yet one rarely mentioned in the mainline press. Hamas has been demonized so thoroughly and with so little genuine reason that its situation provides prima facie evidence for the immense reach of the Israel lobby. The world is horrified by Israel's bombing of Gaza's densely populated area - and rightly so. But the bombing is only a more intense horror than the blockade. The word "blockade" comes so easily, so cleanly, without any feeling for what it reality means. It is one of that class of terms you find dissected in Orwell's great essay "Politics and the English Language." It truly means here that an entire population is abused and tortured for months because it voted the wrong way. I do think most of us, if treated in this fashion in our homes by a foreign power, would use any means at hand of protesting and fighting back, even if that fighting is hopeless, as it is.
Alex Wilner: The most interesting outcome of the current Israel-Hamas conflict has been the lack of rebuke Israel has faced from the Arab and Muslim world. Usually, the Arab League is quick to slam Israel for any and all violence. Today, however, we hear about a few demonstrations, but very little else. In fact, it seems that many Arab states, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, are quietly siding with Israel. It's as if they are hoping that Israel will deal a blow to Hamas. Perhaps Canadians should ask themselves why that is before they consider rebuking Israel themselves. Is it because Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others have common cause with Israel in fighting Islamic militancy in the Middle East? Is it because these states share a common fear of Iran and reject its continued sponsorship of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other destabilizing sub-state proxies? Now ask yourself where Canada's national interests rest. Have we allied ourselves with other like-minded states into a global counter-terrorism movement? Are we fighting Islamic extremists elsewhere in the world? Are Hamas and Hezbollah listed as terrorist organizations and banned by Canadian law? Do Canadians want a stable, peaceful, moderate, and developing Middle East? Canada's interests rest with Israel, and though all conflict is a sad waste of human potential, that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and a variety of other strange bedfellows agree that Hamas needs to be dealt with should be enough for Canadians, living on the other side of the planet, to stand firm.
C. Rob: I have simple questions: At what point does a humanitarian crisis become more important than the fight to destroy Hamas? And why are UN forces not in there right now? It is only my opinion, but it seems to me that where poverty exists and the people feel enslaved (either rightly or wrongly), where innocent children are killed, terrorists always thrive. In any country. Why is that so difficult for anyone/everyone to grasp? Why?
Anna K from The GTA: Harper's unwavering pursuit of American ideology in Canada frustrates me beyond belief. Regardless of the role Hamas has played in this situation, how anyone can be so staunchly supportive of Israel throughout this humanitarian crisis baffles my mind. That he is doing so while representing me and so many other Canadians who I am sure do not share his viewpoint is just one more reason why I can't consider his government to be my own.
Al from the U.K.: It seems that you have finally decided that subjects that generate the most ire are exactly the ones that need to be discussed in a rational manner. Well done the G&M. My point is that, despite all the wrongs that have been committed by all sides in the Middle East, we are now where we are. The only solution seems to be for both sides to obey UN Resolution 242, which was intentionally made non-binding. Hamas are clearly in breach of this resolution and only when they accept the right of Israel to exist (as other Arab states have done) can Israel be expected to withdraw, which they then must do. But how can Israel withdraw completely without such an undertaking, leaving the field open to an elected government that openly calls for its destruction? No government truly responsible to their electorate could do that, just as no elected government should take actions guaranteed to put their innocent civilians in harms way, as Hamas have done. Clearly the people of Palestine knew, or should have known, that electing Hamas, with their clearly stated intentions towards Israel, would result in the hell that is now being visited on them. Perhaps people get the governments they deserve, perhaps not! In short, the two sides must state publicly their intention to let the other side exist, cease all warlike actions and then sit down and talk. Without this, nothing is possible.
David Smith, Toronto: Why is it that the CBC website allows comments on the conflict but The Globe and Mail does not? And guess what, most of the comments are reasonably civil on that forum. Perhaps that says more about the readership of The Globe and Mail than the Middle East conflict itself.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: I would venture to guess that part of the reason for the reasonable civility of posters on cbc.ca is the fact that their comments are vetted by editors prior to publication, similar to what we're doing here today. I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain the CBC uses an outside company with full-time moderators to handle their online discussions. The Globe has no moderators. None. Zero. That's one of the reasons why we permit the automated (not pre-vetted by editors) publication of reader comments on 98-99 per cent of articles on globeandmail.com. We also believe that's the most democratic approach. The other 1-2 per cent, including Mideast articles, are closed by policy. If we want to host a fully-moderated discussion, as we are doing today, one of our online editors who has other full-time duties must take time away from those duties to host/moderate. That's one of the reasons we can't do too many of them.
Mamma B., Toronto: Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. But first: The notion that it's your readers' "right" to express themselves any time, without reference to civility or any standards at all, is silly. We have no freedom to speak as we like on any company's website. Please don't be shy about telling us so. Many of the forums have long been abandoned by reasonable people because to read them is to wade into a cesspool of pompous vitriol. There is no happy truth about the situation in Gaza. The unhappy truth is that while it remains possible for a small minority on either side to agitate for violent attacks and reprisals, peace will remain out of reach.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks, Mamma B. On both counts. We're aware of the long-standing problems with our automated forums. We hope to have new software and new policies in place soon to make these discussions a more-rewarding experience for our online readers.
Derry McDonell: I think poster Allen Rosen has it exactly. This conflict has gone on so long, with so many atrocities, betrayals and bad-faith negotiation on both sides that I seriously doubt either one would even recognize, let alone accept, a serious peace proposal from the other. You could have Moses and Mohammad themselves leading the truce talks and there would still be rednecks in both camps who would refuse to go along. Frankly, I think it would be better for everyone if the rest of the world just stopped giving a damn about the Middle East for a while and let them figure it out for themselves. There are certainly enough worthwhile causes elsewhere in the world (e.g. Zimbabwe, Congo, Somalia) that need and deserve our attention at the moment.
We need solutions, Horatio, not curses: Am I wrong in thinking that with all the modern surveillance methods available today it is not impossible to discover at least some of the sites from which the rockets are fired? That the IDF is destroying residential and public buildings in which civilians are living and taking shelter indicates to me that the motives for this action are not the defence of Israel. Putting aside the question of the upcoming election in Israel, it is plain that the motives are the same as those of an idiotic teacher who would punish a whole class in order to revenge himself on one or two individuals. I think that in the present circumstances the pathetic expression that Israel has a right to defend itself voiced by Israeli spokesmen and repeated by Bush and other Western leaders is not germane to these actions by Israel. I have yet to hear prominent Western leaders express outrage that the continued occupation of the West Bank is a roadblock to any peaceful termination. So Israeli citizens and Palestinians continue to die over a matter concerning mere real estate.
J. Boland, U.S.A.: Gaza, unfortunately, has become a microcosm of all that is wrong in the Middle East. Israel picked up and departed lock, stock and barrel more than three years ago, in essence making Gaza its own little state. Instead of taking advantage of that new-found freedom from so-called "occupation" by instituting economic development and civil discourse in building a nation, Gaza has reverted to authoritarian rule with zero economic development and become a puppet state for Iran, in effect a huge staging area to attack Israel.
P. Logan, Calgary: Those who criticize Israel is this discussion commonly hide behind abstractions and generalizations (comparing numbers of dead, effectiveness of weapons, etc.). Imagine that rockets and suicide bombers were occasionally active in any Canadian city, say St. John or Sherbrooke or London or Medicine Hat. For how long would that activity be tolerated before the Canadian public demanded that the government act to eliminate it? Over the years, Israel has showed remarkable restraint considering what the country has had to endure. In response to terrorist bombings in New York, Madrid, London and other western cities in recent years, the entire western world was thrown into panic and an orgy of offensive and defensive measures that have changed our lifestyles completely. Similar events have been the norm in Israel for decades. And we have the gall to demand that Israel endure it?
Philosopher King: Find a way to raise the hopes and expectations of the average Palestinian, and Hamas will find it harder and harder to operate within the population. Continue to punish the innocent and cowed with disproportionate responses and Hamas will always have martyrs to their cause. However, it has become clear that no action or inaction on the part of Israel can effect any positive change. The enmity simply runs too deep. If any situation is crying out for the world's peacekeepers, this is the one.
Politicians Are Fascist Pigs: Jim, what does "intelligent commentary" mean?
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: I'm tempted to respond by saying it would involve a conversation with someone whose pseudonym was a bit more "intelligent" than yours. But seriously, you raise a good point. As I said above, we're hoping for a dialogue on the issues, not racist/vulgar/offensive/violence-threatening diatribes. I think we're doing fairly well on that point so far today.
Peter Stern, Toronto: The way I see it, the Palestinians brought the attack onto themselves. During the last "ceasefire," they kept launching rockets. Were these rogue militants or were they backed by the government? Either way, it doesn't matter because the Palestinians allowed it to continue. And Hamas didn't even renew this so-called "ceasefire," so what do they expect? Guess what? Their luck, and Israel's patience, just ran out. And to those who say that using force isn't a solution . . . hmmm. I seem to recall that force was the solution in dealing with the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2. The truth is, effective use of force can be the solution and history shows that it can be highly effective. I'm on Israel's side on this as long as there are people in Gaza launching rockets into Israel. Once the rockets stop, then I expect Israel to be planning to pull out of Gaza.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: R. Carriere of the Maritimes cites my earlier exchange with "comments closed" and says: "Jim, I am not him - LOL - but [globeandmail.com communities editor]Mathew Ingram addressed this same issue recently when he opened up comments concerning anonymity and using real names. Many posters suggested they were afraid and frightened about some type of identity theft and other troubling situations. Over the years, some have complained about the same. Therefore, I believe perhaps your comment is rather harsh. It really is up to the G&M to set the rules. If you allow unverified anonymity, it is hard in the same breath to chastise one who uses it. Thoughts?
In response, Mr. Carriere, I'm going to limit my thoughts because Mr. Ingram will be hosting part of this discussion later today before it wraps up at 3 p.m. Mr. Ingram has been asked to take a look at all -- repeat all -- of our policies relating to comments, as well as the software we hope to introduce soon to make this a better experience for our readers. Perhaps he will want to give a fuller answer on the underlying principles.
I understand the need in many cases for posters [for example those who have sensitive jobs]to remain anonymous and we have no plans to take away that option.
But in terms of "comments closed" and others like him, I just personally think it's hypocritical to attack others harshly while hiding behind a pseudonym. That's my personal opinion. I'm not afraid to put my name to it.
Larry Romanoff, Shanghai, China: It is almost impossible to comment on the Israeli situation without being accused of being anti-Semitic -and that is so grossly unfair. That weapon has become too effective. Israel's actions are horribly disproportionate . . . We should remember that for 60 years the Israelis have been encroaching on Arab territory until only about 5% of the land of Palestine is actually left for the Palestinians. The West Bank is so full of Jewish settlements that it will forever be impossible for the Arabs to have any semblance of a normal life. Why are these people the terrorists, when it is the Israelis who have armed themselves and driven the Arabs off their lands for the past 60 or more years? And why has the whole world sat by and watched and done nothing? What if the U.S. were steadily encroaching on Canada, swallowing large areas every year by military force? Would any of us eventually become "terrorists" too? Israel's actions are just as good an example of terrorism as those of the other side.
Kim Philby: Where were the worldwide protests when Hamas started lobbing rockets at civilians in Israel? Why the surprise and outrage when a people quite naturally react to being attacked? Whatever historical wrongs have been inflicted on the Palestinians, it's time to deal with reality. Israel will not go away. So, seek a peaceful solution, even if it means not getting all that you want. To do otherwise is to continue producing generations of irreparably damaged people - damaged physically, and damaged by fear, hate, and mental illness. Ideology is not worth the cost in ruined lives.
J. Howard, Cambridge, Ont.: The sad reality is that most of us only know two things about the Gaza tragedy. First, our own biases as they have evolved over the years. Second, the limited rational editorial comment that from time to time is presented through media. We do not and cannot understand or appreciate the realities both sides are facing. On the surface, it seems clear that Hamas rocket attacks upon civilian populations ensured Israel's strong response. Surely common sense says "don't fire rockets." But somehow I think we need to know and understand much, much more. Is this purely racial/religious hatred and distrust? Or are there root economic and social issues that responsible people must address? Seems to me a genuine "non-aligned" security force should be established to protect both Gaza and Israel while all issues are identified, publicly tabled and resolved in a genuinely independent forum, then presented to the UN for ratification and implementation.
Arthur Kidd: I understand G&M's position on commenting on Middle Eastern topics. I wonder, though, in a hypothetical world, if vulgar and racist comments were made on every topic, would that mean the end of open discussion?
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Fascinating question, Mr. Kidd. I think not. As I said earlier, we permit the publication of reader comments on 98-99 per cent of the articles on globeandmail.com without prior review by an editor. In those cases, we rely on our readers to "flag" comments they consider to be vulgar, racist, offensive, violence-threatening etc. Then, one of our editors reviews the "flagged" comments and decides whether to retain them or delete them. So, the system generally works in the vast majority of cases, IMHO. The difference with the Middle East and a few other areas is that the proportion of inappropriate or libellous comments is so high that we can't permit automated publication without prior review by an editor.
Dee B.: I have 2 questions regarding the deployment of UN forces - capable of employing deadly force - as recommended yesterday by retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie in his Globe column What is the world waiting for? Deploy in Gaza How does such a force get inserted into the area - do they wait for an invitation or do they "blast" their way in? Once in, if side 'A' breaks the ceasefire and side 'B' chooses to retaliate, what response(s) would be expected from the UN forces?
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: I don't think anyone at globeandmail.com can - or should even try - to answer those questions. But they are good questions.
Aksel Hallin, Edmonton: I would suggest that the big issue is that there isn't a simple answer to what the Palestinians want. Some fraction (and hopefully that fraction can grow) simply wants to live in peace and respect with the rest of the world. Another fraction wants to destroy Israel. I think our goal should be to do what is possible to strengthen and satisfy the goals of the first fraction, while remaining implacably opposed to satisfying any of the goals of the second. How one does that, of course, is not simple. The tragedy is that the rockets are fired by the radicals, and the suffering from the invasion is shared by moderates.
Don Adams, the Conservative Centrist: While I do understand that the G&M wants to contain the radical elements on both sides of this debate, IMO, what you're doing by having no comments on stories is simply censorship! And, it appears you're doing it with more and more stories all the time. It would be far better to allow comments, but go to a fully moderated forum. You could still keep the objectionable comments out, but the public would still be able to read centrist views on a per-story basis. As far as the Middle East goes, does Israel have any other choice? Does anyone actually believe that withdrawing to their pre-1967 borders would magically bring peace? If so, I want to talk to you about a piece of Florida swampland I have for sale!
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Mr. Adams, I know that you posted this question/comment before the discussion started, so I'll just direct you to my answer above. Unlike other media websites, globeandmail.com does not employ any moderators. Zero. None. So "fully-moderated" is not a viable option for us on a regular basis [although I must say that today's forum has been very pleasant for me to host because of the thoughtful questions and debating points raised.]/p>
Mark Hannah, Calgary: To the G and M: Thank you for your position on posting comments on the Middle East conflict. I am a strong advocate for free speech, but I too have become increasingly concerned about the hatred and bigotry being posted on newsites from enraged supporters. There must be some way to carry on a civil discussion without resorting to such vile speech and thinking.
Peter Benton, Fredericton, N.B.: It is an interesting discussion and I like that it is fully-moderated. In some of the other discussions, I have seen attacks against others that do nothing to contribute. As for this topic, it would seem to me from reading the comments and others, that a solution will need several steps: (1). We need a way to end the current fighting - and that includes the rocket attacks. A ceasefire may work long enough to establish a better system. (2). The comments of the hardships on the Palestinian people at checkpoints and such may be addressed by an independent police or border force being employed. Perhaps all the countries complaining could contribute to it, though both Jordan and Egypt should probably play a role, as Arab contributors that Israel may accept. (3). A way to put a more independent police force into the Palestinian areas that do not have an association with one of the political groups, so the people could trust the police. This may help build a more reasonable government for the people and an independent state.
The Economic Hitman Jr., Vancouver: First, thanks to the G&M for offering an outlet for discourse. This is a difficult subject and building community has many facets. This is beyond institutionalized violence, blood feud, traumatic stress, or religion. This is humanity's ultimate failure on display.
Truitt Bradshaw: It is not anti-Israel to call for a ceasefire. It's not anti-Israel to acknowledge the fact that in attempting to stop dozens of deaths in Israel from Hamas rocket fire, they have put Palestinian civilians in a situation where they cannot leave their own towns, by building a wall around it. There are plenty of Israelis who disagree with the way the Israeli government has conducted itself. I know people who have gone to Palestine to volunteer for various organizations and all of them have come back with the same story: What we hear here in Canada is not reflective of reality of the Palestinian situation.
G. O'Hanlan, Toronto: Like Robert Mugabe, who was also elected, being the winner in an election does not automatically bestow any degree of legitimacy on the victor! That comes about when those who are elected take a much larger world view of their purpose and modify once-hardened positions so they can begin the process of becoming a nation state. Hamas, by its most recent actions, has declined this opportunity and insists on using the only means at their disposal to provoke a response from Israel they know must follow. In order to legitimize its existence with their own people, this endless cycle of violence will continue unless and until they are inclined to stop it.
Patrick Scott, Yellowknife: I admit I don't fully understand the animosity that exists in the Middle East but I am baffled how the Israeli government can use such tactics for the wholesale destruction of Gaza and its people when their ancestors suffered similar destruction by the Hitler regime in the Second World War. It's unfortunate that Western countries won't invoke sanctions against Israel to signal that this attack is unacceptable. But then I suppose the U.S. should face similar sanctions for its attacks on the Iraqi people. These useless wars certainly make the message of Christ - love your enemy, do good to those that hate you - so relevant to ending the conflicts. Certainly continued greed, fear and quests to control pockets of geography will never create a healthy world.
Anti-fascist: The fundamental question remains: When is Israel going to give the stolen lands back?
Campbell McDougall, Berlin, Germany: I abhor violence from any side but clearly Israel has the right to prevent an outside force from sending missiles into its cities.
Catherine Medernach, Winnipeg: The violence in this region began before Israel even existed as a formal country, while the area was still under British control. In the decades since, the Palestinians have been victimized by their fellow Arabs as much as by Israel. Support for terrorism grew because even with the combined forces of three Arab countries, they could not defeat Israel and usually lost more territory. Land-for-peace deals have not benefited the Palestinian population. Many people overlook the fact that Egypt as well as Israel was involved in the recent blockading of Gaza. Even some Palestinians in Gaza have been upset with Hamas for endangering civilians by using them as human shields - for firing rockets into Israel from places where Israel cannot fire back without killing/wounding civilians. How do you make peace with those who are committed to your destruction regardless of the cost to their own population? Terrorists do not make good rulers. By definition, they have chosen terror over politics to achieve their ends.
Paul Andrews: Several of the contributors to this discussion have suggested that Hamas is "the" body representing Palestinian interests. However, this ignores the fact that Palestinians are themselves divided into several camps - the most important split occurring between those who support Hamas and those who support Fatah. In terms of geography, Hamas presently controls the Gaza strip, and Fatah presently controls the West Bank. In June of 2007, Hamas defeated Fatah forces in Gaza and assumed control of the region. Hamas and Fatah have expressed radically different stances on the recognition of Israel as a nation and, as a result, the international community has largely recognized Fatah as a legitimate political organization while branding Hamas as a radical Islamic terrorist organization. The truth, I'm sure, is not quite so clear. In making these points, it is not my intention to express support or sympathy for any of the organizations mentioned. Instead, it is simply to inform readers (and there are many who do not fully appreciate the subtleties of the situation, myself included) that the present situation cannot be exhaustively described as one of Israelis against Palestinians but instead deserves a much more finely-grained analysis.
Gordon Nodwell, Toronto: For many years I worked with the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto. I have also visited the Middle East a number of times, having contact with both Israelis and Palestinians. Out of this experience, a number of things now dismay me: The quickness of my Jewish friends in Toronto to accuse anyone who criticizes the actions of the Israeli government of being anti-Semitic, and the spirit of revenge on the part of both Hamas and the Israeli government, denying one of the fundamental teachings of both Islam and Judaism, as well as Christianity. But most of all, I am dismayed by the impossible situation in which the Palestinians in Gaza have been placed. It is as if they have been herded into a pen and rendered impotent while their captors can do whatever they like with them - whether destroy their livelihood or their lives. Yes, Hamas should stop building their crude rockets and lobbing them over the fence to destroy whatever they may hit. But in such a situation, it is not difficult to understand a Palestinian cheering on anybody who can find a way of reacting to their situation.
Righteous Indignation: Mr. Sheppard, what is wrong with diatribes and rants? Some of the greatest speeches in world history, from the Old Testament prophets to the Greek and Roman orators on down to Winston Churchill, have been one long rant, and they've changed the world. Not that there is anyone of such calibre today. We are so straitjacketed by political correctness and hate laws that the only thing Canadians can talk about is the weather. We no longer enjoy freedom of speech. I applaud the G&M for allowing free comments and, in most cases, just "lettin' 'er rip." Usually the crazies are simply ignored. In contrast, fully-moderated discussions are predictable and boring, although I'll probably hang in here to see if this is posted.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: To our readers, I'm turning over the moderating duties for a bit to Stan Oziewicz, our online foreign editor. As I said earlier, globeandmail.com communities editor Mathew Ingram will be moderating later and can take your questions on broader commenting issues and forums. I'll be back later to take any final questions that you may have for me personally.
Mr. Oziewicz: Thanks, Jim. The comments continue to flow in unabated. So, in the interests of allowing as many readers as possible to submit their views, I won't delay.
Snow Star, from Vancouver: I would like to commend The Globe and Mail for opening up a moderated conversation on this topic. Although many of us may like to see freedom of speech in its fullest form, sometimes this is completely counter productive to having reasoned discussions, especially when it comes to this topic.
Recently at my university, a group of Palestinians tried to hold a forum explaining their position to students. It was my understanding that several 'heckling' and abusive comments were made by other students (many of them on Israel's side) in the audience during this forum. I'm guessing these comments were similar to ones that would have been made on this site were it not moderated. I was quite shocked by this, because to me the younger generation, thousands of kilometres away, was acting in the same heated way that their elders had done before them. Although it might feel satisfactory to act like this, it has only resulted in more fighting so far.
Sometimes the heat has to come down, so actual discussion can come up, especially when it comes to politics. Even our own national government can take a cue from this, and I hope that younger generations will be able to as well.
Peter Fulton, from Vancouver: I am really bothered by the way this conflict is covered by the media in North America. That is not a point just about personal preference. The international community, particularly the United States and UN, in large part deal the cards that give Israel and the Palestinians their various options and room for manoeuvre on the ground.
As an exercise, readers may want to turn briefly to European online news sources to get a flavour of the different ways in which this conflict can be portrayed. Not just of opinion, but of which certifiable facts are reported.
In short, I find it hard not to find the coverage in Canada is far more pro-Israel than in Europe, and at the very minimum understates the Palestinian position. It is great that Globe and Mail editors have allowed readers to reflect some of the greater variety of opinion out in the public, but it seems a bit disingenuous just to leave it to us. How about doing some of that yourselves, and lending different viewpoints some of the legitimacy that comes with professional journalism?
Righteous Indignation from Canada: So the 1.5-million Palestinians in Gaza are simply to accept being shut off from the rest of the world by a wall that grows higher and higher, living without even the basic necessities such as potable water, having to go through innumerable humiliating checkpoints at every turn, giving birth at these checkpoints if they are so unfortunate to be mothers-to-be enroute to hospital. The list of degradations goes on and on.
What the desperate Palestinians are lobbing into are mostly empty fields - which, by the way, once happened to belong to them - are mere Chinese firecrackers compared to the weapons of terror (F16s, tanks and indiscriminate artillery fire) being directed against them in this latest onslaught.
Peace will never return to the Middle East until the basic human rights of the Palestinians are recognized, and until they are allowed the right of return to their homeland.
Anthony Flint, from Manchester, England: The odd thing is that Israel, with access to state-of-the-art defence systems, is incapable of neutralizing unsophisticated rocketry fired over its territory. This suggests that this is not simply about local security issues but a much more deadly proxy war that the posturing Western and Middle Eastern nations should be truly ashamed of.
Jeffrey Swain, from Canada: Whether one supports Palestine or Israel one cannot argue the facts of the modern history of Israel: Threatened with war from much powerful aggressors since birth; the Six Day War; Yassar the terrorist; Intifada; Constant rocket barrages.
And why does nobody seem to mention that Gaza borders Egypt, and that the Egyptians bar Palestinians. Many in the Middle East desire nothing more than the destruction of Israel. Anyone who can't see that (or lack the ability to Google it) is living in a dream world.
Michael Dudley, from Winnipeg: I am absolutely disgusted and saddened by the Harper government's steadfast refusal to offer even the slightest criticism of Israel for the present bloodshed. Taking so partisan a position in what was already a complex situation is unjustifiably simplistic. Doing so when the violence being perpetrated is so disproportionate makes Canada seem callous. And blaming Hamas for the deaths of dozens of civilians at the UN school - when the IDF had been provided exact coordinates by the UN so the school wouldn't accidentally be targeted - to me borders on extremism.
The Harper government's position puts Canada far out the mainstream of world opinion in this matter, and certainly does not reflect the feelings of the majority of Canadians, if the input on this forum is any gauge. While I join other writers on this forum in my condemnation of Hamas for their rocket attacks, and wish fervently for them to stop. I also condemn the government of Israel - and by extension its enablers in Washington and Ottawa - for waging war with reckless disregard for international law and the well-being of civilians.
J. Kenneth Yurchuk: One of the most frustrating things about debating issues involving Israel and Palestine is the almost total lack of Historical context. Few understand how Israel came to be a state in the first place, or why the Palestinians left for refugee camps like those in Gaza and Lebanon.
While such a history could fill a book, it would be instructive if readers could have a series of articles produced in The Globe and Mail on this topic. It would have to start with the beginning of the Zionist movement, and the relocation of the first Jewish settlements in the mid 1800s. It would probably surprise a lot of Globe readers how these settlers were welcomed and aided by the Palestinians who lived there at the time, and also the negative role played by the Brits in their mismanagement of the Palestine Mandate.
John Smith, from Canada: One thing is clear to me: Many innocent civilians (mostly Palestinians) suffer in this conflict. I never wish even for my worst enemies to be forced to spend all their lives in apartheid conditions like this, where your place is determined by your nationality/religion. Also, it is quite interesting that you never mention a very important underlying aspect: access to water.
Sam Detroit, from Vancouver: The fact is, Israel needs a constant security threat or they won't get the weapons and billions of dollars in aid from Western countries every year. After all, it's much easier than trying to forge an actual functioning economy.
So, they oppress their captives and relish in the inevitable 'destroy Israel' rants of their Arab neighbours because every time they hear it, it's like money in the bank.
Honestly, to even have a 'discussion' on this matter seems like a slap in the face to one of the parties involved. Imagine if the population of Montreal was held captive in an area the size of the West End of Vancouver, facing border terrorism, checkpoint terrorism, economic terrorism, health-care terrorism, weaponized terrorism every day. Doesn't it all of a sudden seem misguided to try and figure out who's to blame?
James Benson, from Oakville, Ontario: The rockets will only stop firing from Gaza when the people of Gaza have something to lose by fighting. The long-held oppression and economic strangulation by the Israelis is unacceptable. What I can't understand is how the Israeli people can rationalize this action in light of the fact that they themselves have been the victim of oppression and targeted hate in their past.
I, and many others that have commented in this space, am disappointed in our government for their pro-Israeli position as they are looking at this incident in isolation. Yes, it is wrong for Hamas to fire rockets into Israel. However, this is their only means to fight back against oppression and it will not stop by this disproportionate offensive. It will only flame further hate and a new generation of anger while reducing the power of moderate thinking Palestinians.
Sadly, I believe the Israelis know this to be true but are acting with anger and short-term thinking. This is not a step toward peaceful co-existence. If the blockade were lifted and the people of Gaza had a chance to build an economy and live with freedom, they would think twice about provoking Israel with rocket fire or other. They would have too much to lose.
Robert Dussault, from Canada: I try to stay unbiased and balanced in this complex debate but here are the facts as I see them:
1) A two-state solution was proposed by the UN in 1948. The proposed Israeli territory was smaller than the current one. Jerusalem was to be a divided international city. The Arab world rejected the UN resolution and went to war against the newly created state of Israel and lost.
2) Three more Mideast wars were waged ( 1956, 1967 and 1973), all were initiated by a combination of Arab countries. The Arab coalition was defeated in all of these wars and that resulted in the current Occupied Territories.
3) There have since been numerous attempts by the West to broker a peaceful resolution to the conflict including president Carter's Nobel Peace Prize winning peace accord between Egypt and Israel that resulted in a return of a large piece of land by Israel back to Egypt in 1977/78. A more recent attempt by president Clinton in early 2001 called for a two-state proposal and the creation of international status for Jerusalem. The deal was rejected by Yasser Arafat and provoked the second intifada.
4) Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza two years ago effectively transferring power to the Palestinians. However, Hamas seized power and destroyed the moderate Fatah. Hamas has since used Gaza as a launch pad for rockets against villages in southern Israel. Much as their Lebanese counterparts (Hezbollah) have done against villages in Northern Israel.
Yes, the West must force the opponents back to the negotiation table. But let's be honest here: who exactly should represent the Palestinians? Who are the voices of moderation that can be relied upon to broker a long-lasting deal and sell it to the greater Muslim world? It appears to me that the only groups who have effective influence are bent on the destruction of Israel all together. How do you build a peace coalition in such conditions?
Bill Brownridge, from Calgary: It is tiresome to hear these age-old , tit-for-tat discussions. The fact remains the only solution to stop the killing on both sides is for the UN to get between them. The only party preventing this is Israel.
This talk of either side ''winning'' is nonsense. Even with a UN police force the hostility would go on for decades. Let's just end the killing on both sides.
Diane Schweik, from Edmonton: Those of us who support Israel do so for a variety of reasons. I believe that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself against external aggression. I believe that the settlements are wrong and that they must be removed before there is any lasting peace, and Jerusalem must come under some form of shared government.
In supporting Israel, I do not hate the Palestinians but wonder why they do not see that 60 years of trying to eliminate Israel has not worked, and there must be recognition of Israel's right to exist before they achieve their own state, which is what they want.
There are people who support the Palestinians for their own thought-out reasons, which I may disagree with or think naive. However, there are no doubt quite a few who recurrently post using the same old cliches: Israel practices apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide etc. They are rarely interested in any other topic than the Middle East, and some will also bring up Jews and repeat the myths about them controlling and manipulating the media in a sinister way.
I don't think there is much doubt that these people are anti-Semitic and are merely using the Middle East conflict to propagate their hatred of Jews.
Mr. Oziewicz, Foreign Editor, globeandmail.com: Readers, you have certainly seized this opportunity to express your views, which continue to flood in. I am now turning over moderation of this discussion to globeandmail.com Communities Editor Mathew Ingram. Welcome, Mathew.
Thanks, Stan. I've been reading some of the comments so far, and there have been some excellent points made about what is a complex and multi-faceted issue -- and one with quite a bit of emotion on all sides. Incidentally, if you (like me) get tired of clicking through all the individual pages of comments, there is a "view all" button that puts them all on one page.
Ryan Fillmore from Sackville: Hello Moderator, I submitted a post earlier, which I do not feel is racist, ignorant or inflammatory. I feel that just because I do not support Israel in my comments, that my opinion or comment is being overlooked. I strongly feel that too many people are blindly siding with Israel, because of historical atrocities, and not actually looking at the current situation and seeing how Israel has caused their own problems, and will continue to, until the whole border/land issue between Palestine and Israel is addressed at an international/UN level.
Mathew Ingram, communities editor: Thanks, Ryan -- I'm not sure why your original comment didn't appear, but we have been getting a fairly large volume of them, so it's possible it got missed somehow. I assure you it wasn't because of any views you might have about Israel.
Deika Mohamed from Ottawa: Israel's incapacity to negotiate, until they receive recognition as a legitimate state from Hamas, is highly counterproductive. Let us revert back on the history of the peace process.
SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 is a significant date. On this day, the PLO under Yasser Arafat sent a message to Israeli representatives stating they recognized Israel as a legitimate state. Israeli representatives under Rabin replied in a single-lined message that they recognized the PLO as a legitimate representative entity of the Palestinian people. Both parties then singed the 'Declaration of Principles on interim Palestinian self-government'.
Why is this significant? Because this mutual recognition took place in the MIDST of a peace process, NOT BEFORE. (The Oslo peace process of the 1990s.) Prior to that, the PLO (much like Hamas) was deemed a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States. Instead, both the PLO and Israel came together (even though both parties did not formerly recognize each other) in Oslo, Norway to initiate what would be the closest both parties would ever come in brokering a deal.
Israel must follow precedent and initiate a peace process whilst ignoring the preconditions they have set, which evidently are counterproductive towards a peace process that we have not seen in almost a decade.
Michael Hall from Toronto: It is easy to understand the grievances of both sides of this messy issue. I have been following it for more than 30 years and nothing has changed. The more violence once side throws at the other, the more violence and even crueler type of violence, is returned. I have seen footage of how both groups have tragically killed and maimed each others families and children. The hatred runs so deep that literally, dozens of years if not at least 100 years, are necessary before some of the anger, hatred and need for revenge is completely eradicated.
In my view, there is a solution, perhaps the only one. Both Palestinians and Jews must voluntarily begin a process to remove themselves from both areas they currently occupy. All states will work together to find new similar-sized homes, independent nations with defined geographical areas, for both groups. Any human-made landmarks belonging exclusively to either side can be meticulously removed and placed in the new homeland. The two territories that remain will become sanctuaries administered by a world body but ownership will remain with both Jews and Palestinians, in the event, a plan for peaceful existence can be found, although since the creation of the Israeli state, this has not happened.
As to the empty lands, no one whatsoever will have any right to live in these two territories, although limited hospitality services will be set up to allow researchers and academics to continue to visit the site. No pilgrimages of any sort for any reason, religious or otherwise, will be allowed to occur. To ensure balance in the area, a UN-US-European military based will be established and will exist only to ensure that no nation or group attempts to move into or take over the uninhabited territory.
As a Canadian, I would be happy to parcel out a piece of Canada, on either coast, and allow Israel or the Palestinians to build a new home, free from terror.
Bill Lennips from Canada: Much of the Gaza tragedy is due to political leaders and UN officials consistently under-estimating the dramatic and sometimes life-long post-war trauma of the children on both sides.
Sixty five years ago I was a five year old boy growing up in occupied Holland. Not until this Gaza conflict started did my buried memories of exploding bombs and burning planes and frightened parents come roaring into consciousness. For the first time ever I now understand that these unresolved subconscious memories have at a minimum shaped my social behavior patterns in sometimes less than useful ways.
I am moreover convinced that the Jewish people and their soldiers are still acting out of that same unresolved trauma that I have unknowingly lived under all these years. That explains their absolute conviction of being 'justified' even when they bomb schools filled with refugees. I have no doubt that it is the same for the Hamas when they fire their rockets into Israeli cities.
The current trauma now being imprinted in these children is the seed of an inevitable next conflict. I pray that military training everywhere will someday include understanding the unseen damage to the souls of innocent children every time a rocket explodes or bullet is fired, and becomes part of the criteria to fire or not to fire. Hurting the children at such deep emotional levels is easily the most tragic damage of doing battle.
I pray that civil medics and psychiatrists will research these dynamics and bring their findings to the attention of all UN members so that the persistent 20- 30 year cycle of wars may eventually be broken.
Erik Poole from White Rock: Mr. Sheppard, the current Gaza conflict is yet another symptom in a nasty zero-sum game that not only threatens the welfare of Palestinians and Israelis but western security -- witness Black Swan blow-back events like the Sept. 11 2001 box-cutter attacks.
I would like to congratulate you for holding this forum and engaging readers. I believe that the Globe and Mail has failed readers on this issue in the past by limiting most news and editorial content to that favourable to the cause of a Greater Israel.
However, in recent years, even in recent months, I am much heartened by appears to be significantly broader coverage and more penetrating analysis.
Do the comment sections make money, directly or indirectly for the newspaper? I would guess not by the paper's reluctance to assign person-hours to editing.
Mathew Ingram, communities editor: Thanks for the comment, Erik. I'm glad you feel that we are engaging readers more, and also that our coverage has improved -- although I would disagree that our coverage until now has been unreasonably favourable to Israel. As for our comments, they are an integral part of our online effort, and I know that our publisher is committed to them. The issue of staffing is one that I don't really feel comfortable addressing at this point :-)
S J from Toronto: It seems that a consensus has emerged in Western media (mostly the U.S.) as to what the starting frame of reference for this military conflict should be, and that is rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza. However, one could go a bit further back and say the rocket attacks were in response to Israel's blockade of Gaza. Instead of asking 'what would Canada/the U.S. do if Cuba or some other country were launching rockets at it', one could instead ask what the former would do if the later had blockaded it.
The blockade of Gaza prohibits the inhabitants and the government there from attracting investment and developing their economy; such development could lead to improved education, moderation, demands for better government and better institutions. Add to this the ban on journalists entering Gaza, and the result is a lack of options for Hamas to bring attention to issues important to their constituency - food, jobs, medicine, etc. I say give them peaceful alternatives. There is a risk that they will become stronger militarily if they have a stronger economy and healthy population, but since does one achieve peace without risk?
I'm all for condemning violence, belligerence, intransigence, and extremism, regardless of which side of the conflict this occurs on. However I think the media has shown contempt for their audience in the way they have been reporting on this issue by picking references that favour the one side and not reporting the information necessary to inform healthy discussion. However, I think the G&M does a better job than most.
Tom Leckman from Montreal: The excessive use of violence by the Israelis has defined their unsuccessful approach to living with their neighbors.
Just 2 years ago, we witnessed the killing of 1,000 and the displacement of 1 million people in Lebanon because the Israelis had 2 soldiers kidnapped. Now we have the killing of 500 including the bombing of schools because of the death of 4 people. Who can believe that this is a route to peace?
It is time that Canada takes an unequivocal position and condemns these immoral attacks against civilian populations.
The Israelis have lost any moral justification for their position.
R. Carriere from the Maritimes: So terribly sad! While it is simple to point fingers at one another as to the causes of who is 'right' and who is 'wrong,' this feud did not start last week, or 60 years ago with the contentious beginnings of the State of Israel in May 1948 -- but perhaps this is a 4000 year old 'family feud' dating back to the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael.
So much blood has been spilled -- so much hate abound rooted in generations of this de facto war, that it is an impossible task to foresee a true 'peace' any time in the future. It would take a complete cease fire and at least three generations to wipe away the memories of hell concerning both sides.
The only question I have is concerning the US position. While it always publically claims the will for a fair peace in the ME and two states, its actions of non-stop UN vetoes, superior arming of Israel, and its unequivocal support of Israel through several US administrations, lends itself to more questions than answers. Why?
Alex V. from Toronto: It all started with Great Britain giving away a country it did not own, without consulting the population it did not represent. Having initiating the establishment of Israel the Brits should be compensating the Palestinian population for loss of land and livelihood. Great Britain should be taking responsibility for its actions as colonizing power and should offer to resettle on its territory the Palestinians (and their descendants) displaced by the establishment of Israel or subsequent wars, as well as compensate financially the ones that refuse the resettlement. It may costs less than buying insolvent banks. But then .... this would only be morally responsible, not financially profitable.
Darren X3 from Toronto: I've always felt (as a person with no religious or cultural ties to either side) is that the core question is: 'Does Israel have the right to exist, or not?' Once that question is settled, the discussion is largely over since the 'right to exist' is also 'the right to defend yourself'. If Israel is seen as a nation with the right to defend itself, its actions are perfectly reasonable, it seems to me. (ask yourself what you would expect the Canadian government to do if militants were lobbing rockets into Canada from Afghanistan and the Afghan government was unable/unwilling to do anything about it).
For those who do NOT think that Israel has the right to exist (and there are many, many, many people out there who feel this way), I would ask in all honesty: 'why not'? They occupy stolen land? Well, so does Canada. Every country on earth occupies land that was stolen from somebody else. Why is Israel singled out? If you do think Israel has the right to exist, but also think they are acting wrongly, then what would you have them do instead?
John Gzowski from Canada: Here's a very interesting article by a researcher at MIT ( link). Using stats from the Israeli consulate she shows that Israel has been the initiator of violence 79% of the time since 2000, meaning that Israel has attacked first in times of peace most of the time. That's an article worthy of publishing and discussing.
Gogh Forit from Canada: Without getting into the 'who started it' mess, it's clear to me that Israel is the underdog, being picked on by its neighbours some of you would like to see the extermination of the Jewish state and its people. Yes, Palestinian civilians have been killed but it is Hamas who puts them at risk of in jury and death by putting their bases of action in neighbourhoods, school yards and it is they who are firing, have been firing rockets for years.
If wars had to be conducted under a Marquis of Queensbury set of rules then Hamas and like organizations would have to engage their enemy face to face and settle the issue on the battlefront. I'm disappointed by many Canadians attitude where they support the terrorist faction rather than those who are subjected to hostile action every day of their lives.
We in Canada cannot possibly imagine the carnage of the spirit that is ravaged with every rocket attack, every suicide bomber who steps on an Israeli bus (let's face it Israelis don't suicide bomb). I appreciate that the editors of this forum are concerned with the rancour that we posters are capable of and many times debates tend to degenerate into name calling, the one thing that Canadians are experts in, labelling.
In 1948 two states were struck, one for the Jews and one for the Palestinians. These terms were not good enough for the Palestinians as they wanted annihilation for the Jews and nothing else. So what can Israel do but defend itself.
Edwin Longueville from Cavan: Gaza is populated by people just as Israel is populated by people. It is very wrong to refer to the Israeli government is ' Jews ' and it is just as wrong to refer to the Hamas leaders as 'Palestinian' The leadership of a country may represent their people but their action cannot be held against the people. I explain, I do not hate Americans, because I don't like Bush. So please , if I criticize the Israeli government, do not call me racist.
Gaza is a prison surrounded by barbed wire and walls. The people there DO NOT deserve this. It not so much as to Hamas launching rockets, but rather why do they feel they must launch them. They have popular support because of the way the people have been treated. We should not forget that 'terrorism is the shout of the voiceless'.
I suspect that history will unfortunately prove me right in the long run, Israel cannot survive if it doesn't learn how to live in peace with its neighbours, force will not do it ,compromise will. I feel sorry for the Israeli people who must live in fear from rockets and bombs, so I urge them, elect a different government when you get a chance. Good luck to all of you on both sides of the divide.
Kenneth Feiler from Dayton, Montana: Mark Twain once said something when he was accused of being a bigot (or a racist) He denied it by saying 'I am a human being...I can say no worse.' The problem in the Middle East is a situation that brings out the worst of humanity -- deep grievances of past wrong doings and a justification of view based upon religious belief. That means 'they' stand for God and identify with him to the point of excluding the opposition from entitlement to grievances addressed.
All sides have hopes for peaceful resolution & hopes for victory. These are seemingly irreconcilable objectives in the present state of affairs. The answer lies not in accusations of religious bias & prejudice. It is the character of humanity worldwide that is reflected here. Every human has within them potential for violence given the right circumstances. None are any better than another. No race superior, no religion God's perfect reflection.
Ryan Ginger from Canada: Like most Canadians, I hope the Palestinians and Israelis can find an equitable solution and peace in my lifetime. But my comment is really to say that I support the Globe and Mail's editorial position to close all comments on the Middle East. People must have a somewhat diminished view of democracy when they believe it's their democratic right to post racist, inaccurate diatribes on a private media's webpage. Thank you for taking the initiative to stamp this out. It's sad, in a sense, because it shows how incendiary this part of the world has become -- even for people living here in Canada, let alone in the Middle East itself.
Mathew Ingram, communities editor: Thanks for the support, Ryan. Closing comments is not something we take lightly, and as you can see we are experimenting with other ways of providing an intelligent debate on these important issues.
J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto: John Gzowski, your link is very informative, and since the data discussed in the article is primarily from Israeli sources (an Israeli human rights Group), it has a great deal of credibility. I was aware that Israel broke the most recent truce first, but was not aware of the pattern.
Erick Jackson from Kitchener: Yesterday's article by retired General MacKenzie, was the most intelligent piece I have read regarding the Middle East. I have long been a proponent of Israel defending its citizens, but must admit, that without third party intervention, peace apparently can not last.
Charles Benham from Hamilton: I believe that Israel was created by the International community after the Second World war to establish a safe homeland for the Jews. Why hasn't the International community ensured that safe haven through the auspices of the United Nations and its policing capacity? This is what is required to allow the Palestinians and the Israelis to live side by side in peace.
Jim from Canada: Israel must simply remove all settlements from the occupied territories. It must stop the blockades and restrictions on the free movement of Palestinians. The UN must be mobilized to guarantee the safety of both Israelis and Palestinians. Without Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, no Palestinian is going to feel either justice or security.
Ruth Abrams from United States: 1. Can any possible progress be made in starting a cease fire discussion if Hamas refuses to stop shooting rockets into Israel?
2. If Hamas, as a point of religious belief, is implacably committed to setting up movable rocket sites in hospitals, schools and mosques, and leaving civilian victims to reap a propaganda benefit, what dialogue can be initiated with Hamas, other than through religious injunctions from Muslim clerics?
3. Can Hamas be dealt with on any normal basis, since they are an acknowledged terrorist organization which like Al Qaeda does not pretend to be amenable to dialogue of any sort, but only in complete submission and acquiescence to their supremacy?
J.R. from Ottawa: For too many years we have let the Middle East situation fester without becoming more involved in coming up with a feasible solution. The result is that moderates within the Palestinian community, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, have become radicalized. How would we, in Canada, feel if we saw Canadian children being constantly exposed to dangerous military actions.
It is too easy to continue to blame the situation on Palestinian 'militants and terrorists'. The moderates have come to recognize that if they wait for help from the international community, nothing will happen; these moderates now champion the militants. We have to recognize that as long as there is injustice for Palestinians, there will be no security for Israel or for the rest of the world, as 9/11 illustrated.
It is time for the international community to recognize that we cannot continue to let Israel step in and impose their brand of justice on Palestine. A long-term solution, with equality for all peoples in the Middle East, is required.
Colin Carter from Calgary: A number of comments have been posted about the disproportionally of the response of Israel. I was just watching a documentary on the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait after their invasion, and the Iraqi casualties were about 100,000, to the coalition's 200. I don't recall hearing many complaints about disproportionally there.
Let's face it, the job of any military is to inflict maximum damage while taking minimum losses. Is proportionality an option? Would our troops in Afghanistan accept a principle of proportionality. 'Uh, guys, they got two of us yesterday, so we can go after two of them today.' What absolute nonsense.
With regard to targeting schools, mosques and hospitals from which attacks have been launched, what is Israel to do? If they did not respond to such attacks, then Hamas would launch exclusively from those types of places, knowing they have immunity. Hamas and most other terrorist organizations have no concept of or respect for legitimate tactics. They will purposefully use these locations to gain an advantage either through Israel's reluctance to respond against such locations or to gain sympathy when civilians are caught in the crossfire. A classic rock and a hard place for Israel.
Mathew Ingram, communities editor: Ladies and gentlemen, we have now gone past our appointed closing time. I appreciate the effort that everyone made in contributing their comments, and I apologize to those whose comments came in but were unable to be posted. These kinds of fully-moderated forums are a time-consuming and somewhat cumbersome thing to do, but we felt that it was the only way to avoid some of the usual hostilities and offensive remarks that characterize much of the open discussion on this topic. Thanks again for taking part.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: My thanks also to all of you who contributed comments and questions. If you have further thoughts about the value and nature of this discussion or further comments, please feel free to e-mail them to me.