Bob

It was great when they denied that vile George Galloway. Hopefully Jason Kenney is serious about what he says he wants to do, which is get more serious about immigration overhaul. Still, I wish he's be more bold - why not have a basic questionnaire for all potential new immigrants that asks serious questions? Reject all immigrants who are openly anti-democratic, reject all immigrants that have poor English and poor education, reject all seriously diseased immigrants, reject all immigrants that have more children than they can afford, etc, etc. All I remember from Jason Kenney was the new immigration-pamphlet. Sadly, such a small move was met with heated opposition from Canada's strong leftist establishment.

The only thing I really like about him and his government is that they are unapologetically supportive of the Jewish people's basic rights in Israel. They don't play the moral relativity game and draw false moral equivalencies. They do, however, give money and aid the the PA and other Palestinian associations, which necessarily funds terror. Although less important, I am not entirely convinced that the Harper government's pro-Israel stance is rooted in principle and morality, and suspect that part of it is aimed at appealing to the Jewish vote in Canada which is traditionally and overwhelmingly supportive of the Liberal Party. Still, I don't see Harper as a strong or charismatic PM with the ability to lead. We need a leader who can draw support when needed. I don't see Harper as more of a leader than he is a follows. He also hasn't made serious changes in areas that need serious changes - most notably Health Care. Perhaps this is inevitable, but we have many wasteful social programs ongoing that he isn't halting - reinforcing my perspective that he is at least as much a prisoner of politics (don't upset the leftists) as he is a leader. At the same time, we know that Canada is a left-leaning country and it tends to be difficult for a Conservative leader to do well in a country like this. On the other hand, I cling to hope that a charismatic, legitimately conservative leader will rise up and LEAD this country.

You're completely ignoring and deflecting from the truth of Bonam's statements. Just because the criteria of "who is a Jew?" isn't universally agreed upon by all people doesn't mean it isn't an interesting an legitimate question with legitimate answers. You say it's a "social construct" in order to disparage Jewish identity, as if it's some sort of temporary trend and not thousands of years old. You mention that Judaism has changed over time in order to disparage it. Beyond the fact that you know nothing about Judaism or how it has changed over time, why is it a problem or undesirable that it has evolved over time? Would you be less of an anti-Semite if we had stayed absolutely uniform since our earliest origins? The stupidest part of your comment was this: No one tradition they have is unique - as if you know anything about Jewish traditions. So let's review what you've said and determine why you said these things. The classification of the Jewish people is somewhat arbitrary, so what? There is an element of social construction to the Jewish people, so what? Our traditions are "slightly different" than other groups, which isn't true at all, by why did you bring this up? Clearly you're trying to undermine the distinct nature of Jewish identity, heritage, culture, and faith. You're trying to shape a lie that we're just like everyone else, and therefore aren't entitled to independence and self-determination. Thank you for denying the very reasons of our nation's existence. Your anti-Semitism is so fucking transparent and pathetic. Lastly, you speak as if you're somehow in a position to be telling us about how Jewish traditions compare to other traditions. You think anybody in here believes that you even have the most basic familiarity with Jewish traditions? Considering that you obviously don't know the first thing about the Jewish people and our culture, where do you get off speaking on matters about Jewish identity? You are way out of your league. I'll connect this to something a few of us have been talking about for quite awhile in this forum - the strong correlation between the anti-Israel crowd, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism. As I said before, dig a little deeper than the surface, as we've done here with TrueMetis, and the anti-Semitism is instantly revealed. There was a clear purpose behind his post, which was to deny the distinction of the Jewish people. Although he didn't explicitly state it, the intent is clear - deny Jewish identity's legitimacy in order to deny the legitimacy of Jewish independence self-determination via Israel.

Why can't you answer the two simple questions? Please define "internationally recognized borders", and then tell me why this is moral choice to select. These are simple questions, please answer them. Instead of answering the questions, you just type false rhetoric. Arabs do not have their homes demolished because of their "religious backgrounds" in order to Jewish people to move in. That simply doesn't happen, saying it over and over and over doesn't make it true. I asked you to expand on this lie a few days ago and am still awaiting a response. Please show me an example of someone having their legally-owned and constructed home demolished because of their ethnicity in order to allow a Jewish person to move in. If it is happening all the time and is a common practice in Israel, certainly you can provide examples with explanations?

Like I said, if you don't get it by now, you never will. It's quite sad that you can't see the difference between smallpox killing 95% of Natives in the Americas after the arrival of the Europeans and gas chambers (that's to say nothing of the endless list of persecution we've dealt with pre-Nazi Germany). Either way, no amount of dead Jews will satisfy you with respect to justifying our independence and self-determination. You'll just reject it endlessly. Thankfully, what you think means nothing - we're here, and we're not going anywhere. We don't need to justify our cultural preservation to you or anyone else, let along our survival. Which leads me to ask myself, why am I wasting time speaking to you about this? You're an anti-Zionist and wish to condemn us to the rule of others. Been there, tried that - no thanks.

Although I feel there's no way to say this without offending you, you can't compare the Metis to the Jewish people for so many reasons. Age, breadth, richness of culture, impact on humanity... there's no comparison. Most people don't even know what the Metis are. The Metis, if anything, are a temporary phenomenon. Like many other culture, the Metis will more than likely disappear. For your and your people's sake, hopefully I'm wrong. My guess is, though, that you'll all assimilate and disappear and end up being a Wikipedia entry and not a living and breathing people. As far as the thousands of years in which we were homeless and in exile, those days are over. Gone are the days where we had not refuge and were subject to the oppression, expulsions, subjugation, and genocide of the Goyim. We're back, baby. That seems to bother you, for some reason. This is existential for us, whether or not you understand that. I'll be completely honest - I don't expect any more from people like you, how could you ever understand what we've gone though and continue to deal with? It's an integral part of Jewish identity and is shaped through a lifetime of simply being Jewish. You can't understand it by simply reading a few Wikipedia articles or watching Schindler's List. If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. You're also unable to differentiate between individual and collective rights, so why should I continue having this conversation with you if you can't even grasp the basics?

You act as if our independence and self-determination is some sort of temporary phenomenon. Independence and self-determination certainly do require statehood, and more importantly, an advanced army. We don't ignore moral considerations, but we do balance them against our basic national rights and survival if and when they come into conflict. We are certainly different than others in many ways, and that is why we choose to live among one another to continue the preservation of our heritage and way of life. Basically, we're not going back into the gas chambers while the entire world looks the other way. Get tired all you want, I'm just laying out reality for you.

In all seriousness, we don't need to draw parallels to any other historical examples to legitimize our national rights in our eternal homeland. We have our independence and self-determination via Israel, and that's that. To us, it is the highest moral imperative as it trumps all other moral considerations (if they cannot be balanced). We're not going back to the subjugation of the Goyim, end of story. We don't need to to justify that, anymore, as it should be quite clear and understood why this is the case.

I'm not saying that you're consistent or cohesive in your argumentation. I did clearly that you're hypocritical. This is one of those examples, where your anti-Canadian attitude had overridden your anti-market attitude. You'll advance any ideology that assists you in your anti-Canadian and/or partisan approach. Perhaps the foundation of your opinion with respect to this issue lies in a desire to smear the current government. Who knows? Perhaps in the next thread you participate in you'll advance another ideological approach if it is convenient.

I think there are many other aspects of the business you're overlooking. Consider that AC certainly bases its operations in Canada - meaning the majority of its business takes place here. That includes but is not limited to: most of its management and administration is in Canada, most of its contracts for service, repairs, and supplies are done in Canada, and its banking is done is Canada. AC's heavy focus on Canada delivers much more of a broad benefit to Canadians than Emirates airlines, without question. On the other hand, we have the Emirates, who will base most of their operations in the UAE, especially considering that it is a government-owned corporation. Of course you are right that consumer rights on the individual level must certainly be protected and taken into consideration when any policy decisions are made that can affect them. The same is also true for the national interest, and in this case it seems plain-as-day to me that the right decision was made to deny the UAE's attempts to encroach on AC's business in an underhanded manner. As an aside, and this is meant for Smallc and others arguing with wyly and nicky, why bang your head against a brick? There is something very disturbing the hypocritical about the rhetoric and nonsensical arguments both of them are advancing. When taking into consideration their records of anti-Canadian and anti-corporate sentiment, and their general virulent leftism, their perspectives are unsurprising. I'll stop there, I'm sure many of you understand me. I believe there has to be a balance between looking out for Canadian companies and looking out for the consumers. If the government only acts on what's best financially for companies, ie: what's to the advantage of Canadian companies, it's not fair to the consumers because what's best for companies isn't necessarily what's to the advantage of consumers. I said initially that I don't have any criticism for the government looking out for Canada, but the strong reactions have left me baffled. I'll tell you this, intra-Canada flying is overpriced and expensive, and I wish we had more domestic competition. I think the primary reason for the high costs of flying in Canada are due to the relatively smaller sizes of our Canadian airlines when compared to, for example, American airlines. Airlines in America are larger and probably have economies of scale working in their favour: a larger consumer base, translating to larger companies who can buy things for slightly cheaper (parts, gas, etc).

Define "internationally recognized borders", and then tell me why that definition represents the moral choice with respect to this conflict.

There are other organizations, as well. Certainly someone as informed as yourself is familiar with them, right? Anyways, why stop there? Who wrote two lines... please feel free to share with all of us your knowledge of the process through which people can apply for building permits, and how you can illustrate that Israel practises a policy of ethnic cleansing in certain areas. Come on, impress us all with the details you're surely very knowledgeable about. Share your expertise with us! Or, you can stop the facade - stop pretending to know the first thing about how Israeli building permits are issued with your parroted statement suggesting that Arabs can't get permission to build anywhere in Israel. I wonder how the more than one and a half million Arabs in Israel get by day-to-day without getting building permits to deal with their growth...

Give me one example of a Muslim and/or Arab being evicted from their legally-owned homes because of their ethnicity/religion in order to allow Jews to seize their property and move in.

That is certainly not what's happening. We're not going around kicking out Arabs or Muslims simply because of who they are to make room for Jews. That is a complete misrepresentation of reality. What belongs to the Arabs is disputable, and subject to our security concerns.

Yes, as usual you are punching way above your weight class. Do you have any idea how broad "human error" is? This isn't an episode of The Simpsons where there's a glowing red-button labelled 'self-destruct'. Stop pretending to know the first thing about nuclear reactor safety or the relevant software systems. Do you really think your amateur-hour analysis is fooling anyone? Get real.

You're creating a false reality. The list of examples of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism among Israel's most prominent and well-known critics is endless. Whether they be prominent politicians, intellectuals, activists, governments, or other institutions - anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are the most common denominator uniting Israel's critics. Why I am about to waste my time trying to prove an obvious point, I'm not sure. Here is the tip of the iceberg, off the top of my head. Consider the infamous Durban Conference in 2001 which equated Zionism with racism - this is an indisputably anti-Semitic perspective to hold. Remember that this was a big deal, considering that this statement was widely supported by UN member states. There was also Durban II in 2009, as well as a recent GA motion which "commemorated" this racist event in a positive light. Other prominent trends include the way Arab media rejects Jewish independence in Israel. The most accessible example for English-speaking people who don't do serious research is Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera regularly denies the legitimacy of Jewish independence in Israel and is openly anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic. This trend permeates virtually all of its coverage of Israel, from "factual" stories to op-eds. Look at the statements of Arab leaders, starting with Abu Mazen. He cannot bring himself to acknowledge Jewish independence in Israel, which is the very foundation of the fabric of the country. Israel *is* Jewish independence and self-determination. Jewish independence and self-determination isn't just some footnote in the story of Israel. No Arab politician can bring himself to acknowledge this. Yes, I know, after many decades they could acknowledge what they saw before them: the existence of Israel. That "acknowledgement" or "recognition" means nothing without the fundamental purpose behind Israel's existence, which is Jewish statehood. They might as well be acknowledging Israel as just another Arab/Muslim country. Even you yourself can't bring yourself to say it. To suggest that Israelis will define Israel as they wish washes over the sole purpose of Israel, which is to be a vehicle through which the Jewish people actualize independence in our own homeland. This isn't malleable or time-sensitive. It doesn't depend on Israeli popular opinion. This purpose transcends everything. You chose your words carefully in order not to acknowledge Jewish self-determination, but rather to pass it off as some sort sort of temporary status dependent on what "Israelis" want, knowing full well the large Arab-Israeli minority almost exclusively opposed Jewish independence. Furthermore, you think we'll ever allow Israeli popular opinion to oppose this fundamental component of our country? The only way that could ever happen is if the Jewish proportion of the population was diminished - another thing we will never allow to happen. You knew that before you made that statement. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, the need for Israel to remain Jewish overrides every other concern. We will do our best to balance all needs, but if push comes to shove, the Jewish character or Israel isn't up for negotiation. After writing this post, I've realized yet again, that having a conversation with you about these issues is a total waste of time - you bring nothing to the conversation except simplistic perspectives and dishonest politicization.

I'm not conceding anything, because I never even implied that all criticisms of Israel were anti-Semitic. I don't need to retract statements I never made. Moreover, the vast majority of Israel's critics, when pressed to get to the fundamentals, will reveal that they are opposed to Jewish independence in Israel. Either they'll say something implying that a Jewish state is inherently racist, make claims suggesting that we're a bunch of foreign colonialists stealing land from the noble indigenous population, or something towards that effect. So I stand by my original suggestion that most critics of Israel, whether or not they realize it, are anti-Semitic. What I never said, however, was that all criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic. I've consumed enough information and have enough discussions to feel more than confident in my position. "How big the box is" isn't really relevant. We can usually reveal anti-Semitism on a case-by-case basis. I agree with you - each case must be judged on its own merits (generally speaking, of course). You're either misunderstanding me or deliberately misrepresenting my position. I have never stated that one must support the official government line. I approach these issues, like virtually all informed Zionist Jews, with preset values and expectations. The government position doesn't determine what is right or wrong. Indeed, had the Israeli government NOT done anything serious about the rockets and other forms of terrorism from Gaza (as they were doing for many months), we would be calling for military intervention. In other words, a military response was necessary to defend Israel from terrorism, and had the Israeli government continued to ignore this threat because of anti-Semitic international pressure, the Israel government would be criticized by us, as was being done in the months leading up to Cast Lead. There is right and there is wrong, and they exist independently of the government's position. I'll add one more thing about Cast Lead - if anything, it wasn't prosecuted aggressively enough. That doesn't mean we wish to see more casualties, but it does mean we're opposed to absurdly restrictive rules of engagement placed on our soldiers which only benefit the terrorists and place our soldiers at increased risk. Moreover, many of us are opposed to continued life-support we provide to Gaza - electricity, natural gas, water, gasoline, access to our hospitals, and aid deliveries. We don't tow the government line, we tow the moral line, which often conflicts with the government's position. Again, not relevant and inaccurate. I'm not AIPAC, I don't tow the government line for the hell of it. I recognize right and wrong independently from the statements of politicians. If I support or oppose a position, it has little or nothing to do with the statements from our politicians.

Gosthacked, as usual, is WAY out of his league. To make the suggestion that a virus could lead to a nuclear meltdown like in Chernobyl is quite silly. You're just reaching for the sake of reaching. Why not spend some time learning about what actually lead to the Chernobyl disaster before making such silly threads.

I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my time talking to you, but you're being broad and vague for a specific reason - you don't really know what you're talking about. What was the 80% you were talking about? Which aquifers? To whom do the aquifers belong? You actually expect Israel to not take water from disputed territory because people like you think it doesn't belong to us? You think we will severely damage ourselves to appease the anti-Israel crowd of which you are a card-carrying member? Get real. I also never played down the importance of water, especially in Israel. It is vital given our climate. In the absence of a final resolution with the Palestinians, why would you expect Israel to make compromises on water for the hell of it? My original point stands, you stated "resources" in the plural in order to create a dramatic effect, when in fact your were solely talking about water. Again, that's not playing down the importance of water in this region, but it's obvious what you're trying to do every time you use hyperbolic rhetoric such suggestions that Israel is "plundering resources" from the Arabs. More importantly, and obviously omitted by you, is that Israeli infrastructure provides the Arabs with virtually all of their water (and energy).

It depends on what you mean. A large majority of the settlers live in large settlement-blocks that will never become part of Palestinian territory. Out of just over three hundred thousand total Jewish settlers living across the 1949 armistice lines, there are two hundred thousand Jews living in "East Jerusalem" and over sixty thousand Jews living in Gush Etzion. As I've already said, these areas will never become part of a possible future Palestinian state. The bottom line - the vast majority of Jewish residents in "illegal" settlements will never be removed, and the land upon which they live will never leave Israeli sovereignty. Of course there are many other smaller settlement which perhaps account for about less than ten percent of the total settler population, which have been discussed in negotiations in the past which eventually collapsed. No, it isn't. What does "taking more than 80 of the water" mean? You mean we consume 80% of the water pulled from the Kinneret? The Dead Sea? Or somewhere else? I have a strong feeling you don't have a strong grasp of what you are talking about. Who do these waters belong to, anyways? Go back to Wikipedia and come back with here with more details to clarify. So it's just water, then? If it's just water, why did you earlier say that Israel is "plundering the resources" of Judea and Samaria? You have a flair for hyperbole and the dramatic, it seems.

I think it's more complicated than that. Perhaps the Emirates airline can undercut Air Canada because it is a government-owned enterprise. Given the difficult financial challenges that most private airlines face, government-owned airlines like Emirates have certain advantages that might make it difficult for Air Canada to compete. Different but related, consider China's advantages over the USA with respect to much of the manufacturing industry. Can companies who run most of their operations in the USA compete with the low wages and low standards of China? Consider the costs of operations in the USA, such as higher real estate costs, higher energy costs, higher labour costs, higher standards and expectations, and everything else. It's just another similar example of the various playing fields we're all operation on when examining the international business scene. Lastly, considering that Air Canada does much more for Canada's well-bring than Emirates, why shouldn't Canada do some things to the advantage of Canadian companies? Should Canada look out for its own best interests, or abstain for the sake of "fairness"? See what I mean?

It depends how you define "colonization". Hebron, for example, won't be viewed by a majority of Jews, or Jewish-Israelis, as colonization. Same thing for Tiberias. Most of Israel's enemies and the left-wing will describe these cities as "occupied" and belonging to the Arabs. For obvious reasons, a majority of Jews reject that perspective as we will not accept a denial of our own history and heritage. As far as resources, which resources are we supposed to be stealing from the Palestinians?

Hang on a second, I didn't say that. I'm not going to rallies for Kach and plastering Kahane posters at the local markets. What I do recognize, however, is that Israel has a certain vulnerability given her democratic nature. Without question, the highest moral order is that this remain a Jewish country. This moral imperative overrides every single other issue. So although values such as equal rights for all is important, if push comes to shove, we will not allow our values to destroy our independence. It's a very difficult balancing act, but we've been doing it relatively successfully since day one. The story of Israel, with all of our trial and tribulations, is an amazing story. The irony here is that you seem to be the one here who is closest to supporting ethnic cleansing. You hate the idea that Jewish people are populating our holy land, especially our holiest cities: Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Tzfat. People like you go to racist protests calling for the removal of all Jews from, for example, Hebron. According to people like you, Hebron is a Palestinian city that is off-limits to Jews. You describe the Jewish people who wish to live in our holy city as "extremist right-wing religious settlers", completely rejecting the spiritual and historical connection between the Jewish people and our cities. I would wager that you should take a look in the mirror before suggesting that someone else supports ethnic cleansing. I will tell you one thing, though, if we ever are forced into a corner with two options: destruction of our country as the Jewish homeland and revoking the citizenship and/or expelling Arabs from our country - we will choose survival over suicide. I hope it never comes to that, but it is certainly on the minds of involved Jews. Moreover, the Arabs openly call for ethnic cleansing and have been doing so since decades before 1948. Even the most recent draft for a UNSC resolution condemning settlements in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem use clear language - opposing "demographic changes" (in other words, no Jews allowed) and infringements on the rights of "indigenous peoples" (rejecting Jewish connection to our own homeland and implying a greater legitimacy to the Arab and Muslim claim to these lands). I am quite certain a person like you sincerely supports this type of language and its intent.

No, I consider it necessary to preserve the Jewish character of the country. Being a democracy, our independence and self-determination would be instantly destroyed is the non-Jewish citizens of Israel outnumbered the Jewish residents. That's the most fundamental reason. There are many other valid reasons for desiring as high a percentage of the population as possible to be Jewish. It has nothing to do with revenge or oppression. The suggestion that somehow Israel's establishment is somehow reminiscent of the terrible crimes that were done to us is beyond absurd. That we are "turning into the entity we once tried to get away from" makes absolutely no sense. Either you don't know what we went through, don't know what's going on today, or you don't know either.

Listen, I was learning about the Balfour Declaration when I was in primary school. Please don't assume to be in a position where you think your Wikipedia-skills outperform me. I am well-aware of the Balfour Declaration and other political niceties extended to the Jewish people from the British at the time. What you need to understand, however, is that the Balfour Declaration was entirely the result of Jewish grassroots lobbying movement to get some recognition from others towards our struggle for emancipation from the domination of others. The Balfour Declaration was not some gift, which is what you seem to be impying. Besides that, there were many much more significant moves from the British that worked against the Zionist liberation movement - including but not limited to restrictions on immigration and proclamations contrary to the Balfour Declaration to appease the Muslims. Again, you're giving a simplistic view of history because all you've done is skim a few Wikipedia articles.