the purpose of the united nations shelter is that it is a place of refuge, of sanctity. for that reason, it cannot be made a target under any circumstance and the united states must uphold this under the strongest threat of consequence, including threatening to withdraw funding.

for israel to attack the shelters under the argument that there are rockets in them is to take a racist position that the lives of their civilians are more valuable. there is not another way to interpret this; it is the slaughter of palestinian civilians under the logic that they are less valuable than israeli citizens. and, this logic cannot be accepted, rationalized or tolerated. the state department should be ashamed of itself for parroting it.

for these reasons, hamas must also respect the neutrality. and, should they refuse to do so, it is the responsibility of the united nations to take action. for example, they could bring in an armed "peacekeeping" force to patrol the facilities and expel militants.

it is not israel's responsibility to police these facilities. however, it is their obligation to respect the sanctity of their shelter.

the thing about unorganized collective action like this is that it doesn't control for what people's perspectives actually are, and it consequently doesn't really present a coherent argument. everybody is there for a different reason, has a different end, etc. this has sometimes been presented as an asset, in terms of getting people together. and that's a debate if you're looking to start a revolution, but a little less of one if you're protesting a war.

norman finkelstein knows what he's talking about; we all know that. but, the statements coming from the other activists merely demonstrate ignorance. the palestinian side may be morally more correct, but it's essentially by accident if you're not actually aware of the facts on the ground.

the idea that israel would stop the bombing if hamas would stop the rockets is just absurd israeli propaganda, and quickly disassembled; i won't bother. but, it's really no less ignorant to argue that hamas is a democratic party. they're a brutal, authoritarian regime. you ask around gaza, and they'll tell you they fear hamas as much as they fear israel. they routinely carry out public executions in the streets.

so, how do you expect the career bureaucrats in the civil service to react, when all they hear from the streets is various different types of ignorance? you expect them to just say "they don't know what they're talking about".

individual martyrdom is clearly pointless. but collective action isn't much more than that if there's nothing tying it together; in that case, it's not really collective action - it's a lot of individual martyrs sacrificing themselves together.

they do this all of the time: they start clutching their pearls the moment somebody makes any kind of common sense statement or basic fact that intrudes into their warped concept of non-reality, then they pretend they're expressing some kind of majority opinion that is beyond any kind of debate in order to distract from the fact that the opinion they're expressing is insane. the media eats it up because it's often aligned. but, the truth is that most people see it for what it is.

i mean, imagine the exchange if the topic were evolution. it's no less likely - depending on the circumstance. but it clarifies the absurdity of it.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spin-cycle-will-all-of-the-oilsands-be-developed-1.3185553

i'd obviously like to see more details, but the liberals are right on this one - if we abolish the senate, we set up an elected dictatorship. we should be trying to create more checks and balances, not less.

i'd just add a caveat: if we're going to give an unelected body of academics and policy wonks the teeth to overturn an elected body, it should automatically invoke a referendum on the legislation. the idea is a chamber of sober second thought. that means we ought get a chance to think it over after listening to what the experts have to say, rather than just having them kibbosh it outright.

i also agree that we need to really take a step back and find ways to reassert the autonomy of individual mps.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-trudeau-senate-duffy-1.3186954 

Caliburn
Upper House defenders who claim that “sober second thought” is valid only perpetuate a myth. Sober second thinking – in effect a check on the democratic impulses of the Commons – is only theory, it’s not the practice, never has been and instances of failing to provide such thought are legion.

The regional representation idea failed right from the start because seats have NEVER been appointed by "region", ie "the Maritimes" or "The Atlantic Provinces" or "Central Canada". The seats are allocated according to provincial boundaries.

Think about Duffy - whatever he said about representing PEI was pure rhetoric - the reality is he represented the Conservative Party. What region did Brazeau represent? None - he looked out for Aboriginal peoples and, of course, the Conservative party. And Wallin - well she waded in on trade, military matters, women's rights and the Conservative Party - can you think of a single Saskatchewan initiative?

Provincial premiers speak for the regions, as do lobby groups and face it - the House of Commons effectively expresses regional differences through MPs who are more in direct contact with the places and people across Canada!

So;
• “sober second thought” – nice idea, but that’s all it is, and
• “regional representation” – there’s no such role to play!

Therefore let's scrap this pointless, unelected, Upper House and make Canada a true democracy.

Jessica Murray
i really don't think that harper's appointments are very useful in determining the value of the senate. rather, they are useful in determining the value of the prime minister, which we all know is very low. and, see, that's the point - there needs to be some kind of a check, there.

i don't think it should be based on regional representation, either. i think it's value is that it is an unelected body, and that that is an aspect that should be retained. i'm not really that keen on majority-rules democracy. we've largely avoided that in canada through our reliance on minority governments, which has often given the ndp the balance of power, and we're really better off for it.

in terms of a checks and balances approach, i'm looking more at the united states senate/house system as something to draw on. in theory, it's a good idea to have these duelling houses. but, in practice it's created a lot of gridlock. so, how can we take that good idea and modify it so it slows the process down a little but doesn't grind it to a halt?

so, we don't want this elected system - it's going to slow things down too much. and, we don't to get rid of it - it would give the prime minister unlimited power in both practice and theory. we need to find a middle point that allows the body to function as it was meant to.

and, i do think a merit-based appointment process is the right approach. it's just a question of finding the right procedures. perhaps it's something the civil service could take a lead in. and, it's also a question of finding the right balance between a body that can provide suggestions and oversight from a position of knowledge and a body that is going to suppress democracy.

the liberals aren't who they used to be, but they have a pretty good track record at this. working it out may be a slow and difficult process, but it strikes me as the best option, nonetheless.

to put it another way: we've seen the results of a system that allows any idiot that can get a mandate to run the country into the ground. and, we need to adjust to prevent that from happening again.

i don't really deny that the senate has never been the body it was intended to be. but, that's a reason to reform it to fulfil it's function, not a reason to jettison it.