Bob

I can see that I'm dealing with someone who has a misplaced sense of Canadian superiority over America with respect to the nature of our political discourse. Do you really think it would take me more than two seconds to give you ten examples off the top of my head illustrating how stupid we are in Canada? Moreover, I was specifically talking about our media and our politicians as they compare to our neighbours down south. As far as the "birthers", who cares? I'm sure a majority of NDPers would describe Harper as "fascistic" or "ultra-right-wing". The political discourse in Canada is more often than not depressing, juvenile, and simplistic. You and I clearly don't live on the same planet. Again, you've got a misplaced sense of Canadian superiority on this issue. If you want to talk about media and politicians, go for it, but if you're going to suggest that the "birthers" are some sort of evidence of a higher level of Canadian sophistication with respect to our political discourse (any examination of the vitriol in the HoC should be enough to silence that claim), then there's not much point continuing this discussion.

They are a socialist party. As socialist as can be in the Canadian context, anyways. They clearly advocate for a greater role for the government in the economy. They use anti-corporate rhetoric and manipulate class-warfare ideology to appeal to losers. They want more regulation over everything (social and economic spheres), more deference to the "international community", more taxation, and more spending.

You're suggesting that the NDP can't be described as a socialist party?

I'm sure you're right about this double-standard in the anti-conservative Canadian media landscape. Still, does that mean that we should participate in this smear campaign against Layton? Maybe I'm wrong, but this story just reeks of sensationalism and politics. And as I've already said, even if it is true, I really don't care because I already despise Layton's politics. His personal life is of no interest to me.

So you're suggesting that Canadian media is more sophisticated, objective, or respectful than our American counterparts? I suspect you subscribe to the an exaggerated sense of Canadian distinction from America.

I suspect that some people's ideas of what the best days should look like differ from those of others. Some people, many Americans includes, loathe American influence and power. They openly wish for and work towards diluting American influence and power. I don't know, it's an interesting question but it is very broad in scope. I'm not really sure where to begin addressing it. It's been the subject of many books and lectures and articles over the past few years, though. This question also connects to issues of "internationalism", as I think the movement to lessen American power and influence (i.e. Obama) will continue the progression of American decline - unemployment, a non-adaptive economy, growing government redundancy, poor educational performance, growing debts and deficits, overextended military engagements with poor planning, weak foreign policy, high rates of divorce, high rates of crime, obesity, etc. As has already been said, Americans will decide for themselves their own destiny. Let's just hope for the best.

The title of this thread is so ridiculous. This is literally smearing in forum-mode. Seriously, Layton can be much more easily and relevantly smeared with his own words, policies, and rhetoric. He's a socialist. All that needs to be done is to attack him for his ridiculous and destructive ideas. But of course the Canadian political consciousness isn't mature enough to do such a thing.

I consume a lot of American media on politics. And that's putting it lightly. You could almost say it's part of my job. And I've been doing it for many years. If you think Canadian politics, whether it be statements from politicians or the discourse in our media, is somehow on a higher level than our American counterparts, you're just ignorant or delusional. Or perhaps biased.

Don't even think for a SECOND that politics in Canada are any better than in the USA. The same type of stupid focus we see from CNN and Fox News on non-issues is similar to what we see in Canadian media. Canadian politics are very inflammatory and infantile. I would say that the one advantage America has over Canada politically is its stronger conservative base which is rooted in principles of American national identity. Canada's more ambiguous national identity ("multiculturalism"), in my view, allows many ignorant Canadians to be seduced by utopian rhetoric from the left.

I wonder if there's even one person in here whose vote would depend on the truth or falsehood of these allegations. If people's votes aren't affected by this story, then it is indeed an irrelevant story. I would never vote for Layton regardless of such a scandal. My intuition tells me this is just a baseless smear attack. Either way, I really don't care what Layton does in his free time, I dislike his politics so much that I have no interest in learning about the man himself. So as far as I'm concerned, and I'm only one person, this story is completely irrelevant.

Where's the outrage from Ujjal Dosanjh and calls for an independent inquiry? After all, with terrorists spilling back out onto the battlefield, it isn't too much of a stretch to state that this places Canadian soldiers at increased risk. It's probably fair to assume that this prison was holding terrorists captured on the battlefield by Canadian forces. I guess the Liberals are only incensed when they suspect a terrorist may have been roughed up and not fed meals three times a day in line with Health Canada's food guide. The article also states that Canada was involved in the reconstruction of this prison after a 2008 attack that released about 900 terrorists. Pathetic. I don't even understanding why there's a policy to take prisoners from terrorists captured in combat. Take-no-prisoners would make a lot more sense to me.

Are you seriously suggesting that Israel has the ability to dramatically change the course of events in Syria through some type of James Bond conspiracy? I don't even know how to address your statement that there are people that we've all never heard of, but that you somehow seem to know exist, that are "lynchpins of change", upon whom the future of the uprising in Syria is hinged. You have a fantastic imagination!

Killing civilians can certainly be justified in many contexts of conflict. Targeting civilians for the purpose of harming or killing them, on the other hand, is entirely something else.

If you think about it for a moment, the economic viability of a hypothetical Palestinian state is irrelevant when discussing the legitimacy of such a hypothetical state. A Palestinian state does not need to be in the red, so to speak, in order to be legitimate. This connects to recent smokescreens we've seen in the media over the past few years, with the World Bank talking about the PA being fiscally prepared to be independent (which is a complete lie, but anyways...), the donor conference to acquire the hundreds of millions of dollars needed by the PA, to the UN's recent the UN's recent statement of confidence in the PA's ability to govern. All of these are irrelevant, as the legitimacy of the Palestinian people to independence isn't dependent on their future economic success or failure, or on the abilities of their leadership to govern. Can we deny Palestinian independence because they have poor economic prospects? Can we deny them independence because of poor leadership and institutions? No. We can deny them independence if that independence threatens us, though. And that's exactly what most "two-state solutions" that are circulated around will do. Even more fundamentally, is there legitimacy to Palestinian national claims for statehood? Are they really distinguishable from neighbouring Arabs in any meaningful way? If not, from where do they derive legitimacy to their nationalist claims? If you're indistinguishable from others, why do they need a separate state? Palestinian nationalism is a recent political development rooted entirely in opposition to Israel as the Jewish state. It is entirely defined by what is opposes. There are already more than enough countries for Arabs and/or Muslims. We don't need another, and certainly not at Israel's expense.

If you actually read Black Dog's posts, you'll see that I am accurately characterizing his position. He is opposed to what he describes as the Israeli state being predicated on an ethno-religious identity. He was very honest about this opposition to Jewish statehood. You're playing the same old trick of crying out that all criticisms of Israel are decried as "anti-Semitism", despite the fact that Black Dog's position is clearly in opposition to Jewish nationalism.

double post.

Well, the Jewish people don't define our identity on the colour of our skin. Some nationalities are artificial and superficial, such as "white identity" or "Palestinian identity". There's nothing to preserve or endure. More importantly, there is no apartheid here, nor am I advocating for apartheid. So, one is left wondering why you would try to draw such a ridiculous parallel between my statements and the "apologist for South African apartheid during the 1980s". Well, we're not a privileged class in our own state. All peoples have the same freedoms. So, I'm not sure what you're going on about. If democratic principles come into conflict with the Jewish character of the state, however, they must be overridden. It's a balancing act, but it's done quite well in Israel. As I've said, the fundamentals of Israel are that it is the vehicle through which we actualize our national rights. Our national rights cease to exist when we become minorities in a country whose destiny is determined by our majority masters. One more thing, being Jewish in Israel in many ways is harder than being non-Jewish. Primarily, Jews have much higher rates of military services than do non-Jews. That's three years for men, and two years for women, while the Arabs (and some other groups) don't fulfill this duty. Are you concerned about that "discrimination"? You talk about the "coercive and discriminatory power of the state". What exactly are you referring to? Are you opposed to national holidays being Jewish holidays and infringing on the freedoms of non-Jews? Are you opposed to the national anthem referring to the "Jewish soul" and excluding non-Jews from mention? Are you opposed to public funds, drawn from Jews and Gentiles alike, that fund Jewish interests like Yad Vashem? And no, I certainly have no faith in non-Jews to control our destiny. As do many Jews. The track record of the world towards us isn't good. We're unique and distinct, and we have a right to determine our future independently from others. We do no need to accept having our destinies determined by others as we live as minorities among them. We refuse to be victimized again. I guess you have a problem with that. As far as "intermarriage", that applies to all religions in Israel. It is not a specifically Jewish law. Different denominations of Christianity, for example, are entrusted with setting their own respective marriage laws. In other words, various religious authorities are charged with managing marriage in Israel. If two people want to get married outside of the regulations of these institutions, there are ways they can do so. If a Jew wants to marry a Gentile, they will do so. And why should Israel be like all other liberal democracies? We define pluralism in our own way. We have a large non-Jewish minority in Israel (who are mostly Arabs with little pluralism), and a great deal of pluralism within ourselves. Israel is healthy and functioning, thank you very much. This is the Jewish state, if we were going to be like other liberal democracies, we wouldn't be Israel, now would we? Did you ever consider the fact that we don't want to be like you, or that we're different enough to have a different country with a different culture and different way of life? Certainly this is true in some contexts, but it's also been horrible in other contexts. You're ignoring everything what I've said. As minorities in countries we are always at risk of being oppressed again. Our rights, as minorities, will always be subject to the acceptance of the majority. The context in which we live our lives are still defined by a majority of people who are non-Jewish, which runs contrary to us carving out or own collective future. I'll assume you're ignorant of Jewish history and have only learned superficially about the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition, and think these are the only two examples of mass persecution against Jews in history. There are many, many, many more examples. Each one of them yet another reason why we need independence - because "the other" simply cannot be trusted to treat us as equals. Although anti-Semitism isn't the only reason for Israel's existence as the Jewish state, it is one of the most resilient. Still, even if all the Gentiles in the world with Judeophilic, Israel would still be needed, just for one less reason. In Israel, these values are balanced. As I said, however, Jewish national needs will trump democratic processes if they come into conflict with one another. Jewish statehood will not allow itself to be destroyed, as you wish, because of a democratic value system. They'll be balanced as much as is reasonably possible. I never claimed to be. With respect to Israel as the Jewish homeland, however, I can assure you that my views are widely held. If my views were fringe, then Israel wouldn't be the Jewish state. I may have some uncommon perspectives, but the majority of what I'm saying in here is mainstream Jewish opinion. You're a perfect example of why Israel is needed, by the way. Your complete obliviousness to Jewish history and Jewishness is evident in every sentence you make. You don't know anything about Judaism or the Jewish people or what it's like to be Jewish, that's why it's so easy for you to talk about us as just another "ethno-religious" group. Like any other culture, we depend on one another to persist and thrive. You can't really be Jewish and be isolated, it takes a community to really have a fulfilling Jewish life. And as we take that to the next level, it evolves to statehood. And unfortunately, history has given us the need to also be armed for self-defense from those that wish us harm - which is another component of statehood. Anyways, at least we've gotten the basics out of the way. You're openly opposed to Jewish statehood, which you are unwilling to admit puts the Jewish people at risk of harm (including destruction) through genocide or assimilation. Why should we continue talking about anything else? You're opposed to the very foundation and fabric of Israel. There's no need for us to discuss smaller issues (for instance, the Law of Return) when you are opposed to the core values held by the majority of Jewish people.

You're being evasive, again. You're trying to make a point here, you're trying to portray Israel as a state that practises discrimination. You're doing this specifically to portray Israel in a negative light, which is the reason for your existence on this forum. Now, if the Law of Return is discriminatory, then it should be abolished in the interests of morality and justice, correct? Because if one doesn't oppose the Law of Return, according to your logic, then one isn't opposing discrimination? Considering that you like to portray yourself as an advocate for justice and morality and fairness, don't you necessarily have to oppose the Law of Return based on your own self-stated principles? Answer the question clearly. Then we can proceed clearly.

There was no distortion at all. GostHacked clearly desires a more independent Palestinian entity in order to facilitate a strengthening of their capabilities to wage violence for their "resistance". He clearly laments the military superiority of Israel and the advantages this provides. He also didn't answer my question, and deflected.

Answer this question, please: Assuming that the Jewish proportion of Israel's population begins to decline over time and stays on that track, would the democratic character of Israel override the Jewish character? In this hypothetical scenario, if Israel eventually becomes a state with a Jewish minority, would the non-Jewish majority be entitled to remove the Jewish character of the state? For example, to change the flag, the change the national anthem, to abolish the Law of Return, to disassemble all Jewish special-interests sponsored by the state (education, arts centres, the Rabbinical Authority, Kosher certifications, national holidays, etc)? If you think it's moral to allow democratic mechanisms to destroy Jewish national rights, and I'm quite certain that that is your perspective, it is your views that are reprehensible, not mine. It's also quite typical, and pathetic, for you to make an underhanded accusation that I am somehow like a Nazi. Indeed, it is your position that invariably puts Jewish survival at risk. To advocate for the dissolution of Jewish statehood, which you clearly oppose, condemns us to live under the rule of others. We haven't had good experiences with that. We're not about to accept an about-face from the rest of the world, "Don't worry, Jews... you can trust us this time". No thanks. In essence, this is what your position boils down to. You've openly stated your opposition to statehood associated with ethnicity and religion, which necessarily means your opposed to Jewish statehood. Why debate the nuances when your basest suppositions and perspectives are abhorrent and rejected by the majority of the Jewish people, myself included? There's really no need for you and I to have any more dialogue on this matter. I clearly stated that I don't care what any other country does. The entire world could be one big atheist country, and it wouldn't matter to me. We don't derive legitimacy because of what other countries do or have done. We are a unique and distinct people, and we are entitled to independence and self-determination in our homeland. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I guess that's as close to a straight answer as we're gonna get from you on this subject. So now let's logically follow what your opposition to the Law of Return actually means - you're opposed to Jewish independence. Either the Jewish people are entitled to a homeland or we aren't. If we are, then we are obviously obligated to open our homeland to all of our nation )with some exceptions, of course). If you oppose the Law of Return, then you oppose Jewish national rights, self-determination, independence, and all other related concepts. I stated earlier that I support a Jewish state above all other interests, should they come into conflict. For instance, Israel's declaration of independence states that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state, which can seem contradictory in some instances. So, in the name of balancing Jewish needs and principles of democracy, there are some laws that people like you will refer to as discriminatory - such as the Law of Return. Regardless, opposition to the Law of Return, which you can barely bring yourself to state, is inseparable from an opposition to the Jewish character of Israel. This position of yours shouldn't surprise anyone, and it certainly doesn't surprise me. It's entirely compatible and expected given your posting history. I can read between the lines, and despite how you try to evade many questions that I've asked you, your animosity towards the very concept of Israel as the Jewish state is clear. As this exchange between us illustrates, when pressed on core issues for straight answers, you reveal yourself more clearly. You're a lot like GostHacked, by the way, in the sense that you're very afraid to state clearly your opinions. You dodge and evade, which is quite funny, because all of us know exactly what you think before you make your posts. Don't you get that? You don't need to hide, we know who you are and you're all about. One last thing, and this is a related subject to "discriminatory" laws in Israel, is that the Jewish people are an ultra-minority and at at particular risk of dying if left to the devices of the rest of the world. Whether is be genocide or assimilation, most of us think the best tool available to us for national survival is statehood. And since we are a democracy, we need special measures to ensure that the mechanisms of democracy do not destroy the Jewish character of this state. I gave a hypothetical future scenario just a few posts earlier where the Jewish character of the state could come into conflict with democratic principles. Do you think we will allow these mechanisms to destroy us and everything that's been built by those who came before us?

You said it was discriminatory. Not I. And you're not answering the question, as usual. Should the Law of Return be abolished in the interests of justice? After all, if it is a discriminatory law as you claim, then it is unjust. Correct? Answer the question.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. If the Law of Return is a discriminatory law, as you're saying it is, should it be abolished in the name of justice? After all, if it is discriminatory, then it is it immoral - correct? I don't need to deny anything, the Law of Return is an inextricable part of the fabric of this country. It is indispensable as it codifies the birthright of all Jewish people to our land. It's one of the most important laws of this country. It's a source of pride.

It depends on the details of such a proposal. Still, I'm sure I'm not the only one that can read between the lines in your posts - you want the Arabs to be better armed in order to be more effective in asserting their "resistance" through violence. You should be more honest in your posts, because most of us can feel out your views despite your attempts at being evasive. Don't bother answering the question, it was rhetorical.

There is no question that there is a balancing act between a pure democratic character and a pure Jewish character in Israel. I do not hide from this issue - if there is ever a risk to the Jewish character of Israel, all priorities become secondary. In my mind, and I can assure you that a strong majority of Jews worldwide agree with me, that the Jewish character of Israel is of the utmost importance. So far, it hasn't been a disaster. It could be a big problem, however, in the future. Let's assume that the Jewish proportion of the Israeli begins to diminish. Right now, Israel is about 80% Jewish. Imagine in twenty years that this decreases to 70%. Further along, it goes down to 50%, and so on... do you think the Jewish people will allow the function of democracy to destroy our independence and self-determination? So of course, I support a Jewish state over a democratic state if these two values come into direct conflict with one another. So far, Israel's done a good job balancing these issues. Furthermore, I'm not sure I would be opposed to Israel revoking political freedoms for non-Jews. I can easily see the arguments for such a move, and would support it if it was a necessary move towards preserving Jewish national rights in Israel. You're wrong on two things. First, you're wrong in assumption that Israel practises "material discrimination in favour of members of a certain group". Israel doesn't really do this. You're also wrong in assuming and that other states do not practise such discrimination. If you want to provide examples of this discrimination in Israel, please feel free to share.