Bob

I'm quite certain you're in no position to be teaching jbg about Holocaust facts. He's quite aware that many homosexuals were also sent to labour and death camps. The difference, however, is the degree of persecution and the almost singular focus of Nazi Germany and its collaborators towards the extermination of my people. I know I shouldn't expect this to be common knowledge, as I think non-Jews are, generally speaking, much more detached from the history of the Holocaust than Jewish people. The propaganda and focus and plans for extermination, however, were intensely focused on my people. I am not saying this to marginalize the suffering of many millions of other non-Jews in the events of the Holocaust and WWII, but what you seem to be trying to do is to marginalize the special attention put towards the eradication of the Jewish people. Moreover, there is a much deeper connection between the Jewish people than between homosexuals. Homosexuals have one thing in common: their homosexuality. The connection between the Jewish people is quite a bit deeper than that. Shouldn't this be obvious?

Here are links to the EU's own anti-Western and pro-barbarian version of this UN resolution, although these were written and passed in '98. Working Document of the Commission of May 1998 COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 30 NOVEMBER 1998

The UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples is just leftist garbage. We already have the CCRF, guaranteeing the freedoms and liberties of all Canadians. We don't need some document which adds some sort of special status to an ambiguously defined concept known as "indigenous people". This document only serves to increase legitimacy, albeit symbolically via a non-binding agreement, to requests from certain groups of people for an elevated status and special treatment. In the Canadian context, this document contains many subjective, unnecessary, and open-ended tenets that seek only to be vehicles through which certain Aboriginals can continue to try to milk taxpayer money. On a tangent, I see this declaration being used at rhetorical ammunition by anti-Israel groups to proclaim Palestinians as "indigenous" people who were displaced by the Jewish people when many of us returned to our homeland. This document also feels like a leftist method to romanticize primitive and backward cultures, simply because they are "indigenous". It also will certainly be used as a vehicle to take more money from prosperous states and funnel and give it to primitive, and/or poor, and/or enemy countries who don't share our values.

I like to think that I am intelligent guy, but most of what your wrote above is either above my head or just wishy-washy unintelligible mumbo-jumbo. You're speaking too broadly about these things. If there are strong, solid, specific supports for the maintenance (or even expansion) of Canadian diplomatic operations in the African countries you mentioned in the form of embassies, please make them. If you're familiar with these issues and are willing to tell us why it's a mistake for Canada to close these embassies, then please, elaborate. Have you got some specifics to share? An interesting observation, the Canadian ambassador to Tunisia is Jewish. I noticed that as soon as I read his name: Ariel DeLouya. Thankfully, he also married a Jewish woman.

Thanks for the links. After looking over them, I still feel that this line of argumentation in support of continual maintenance of Canadian embassies abroad is very broad and unspecific. The three African countries mentioned in the OP are Tunisia, Cameroon, and Zambia. The first link you provided does, however, mention that 10% of Canada's foreign business in Africa takes place in Zambia. That seems interesting. How exactly that connects to the maintenance of one (or more?) Canadian embassies, though, I am unsure. Your second link also doesn't make any mention of those three African countries. I'm quite sure that the expenditures on embassies in Africa aren't much in the big scheme of things, and I bet the proposals to close some of these embassies are are least partly motivated by the belief of the Harper government that the eliminations these types of expenditures are easy to sell to the Canadian public. I am quite sure there are much more significant savings to be had in other spheres of public spending, although with much more controversy and much greater headaches (i.e. union resistance). Still, I'm just not confident (I admit I am highly ignorant of these matters) that closing a few African embassies in obscure African countries is a big deal.

I'd like to read some strong and detailed argument in support of maintaining the operations of embassies in obscure African countries before I judge these closings as a bad idea. What exactly is it that justifies the maintenance, politically or economically, of embassies in Cameroon, Zambia, and Tunisia? The only reason I can think of, and I admit I am largely ignorant of African issues as they pertain to Canadian interests, is to provide jobs to Canadians who speak the languages of these countries. Seems like a make-work project worth closing, to me. Feel free to convince us otherwise, though, and preferably with stronger arguments than ambiguous references to "resources".

What are you implying?

I was going to say something similar, but I didn't have the patience last night to get into it. KeyStone's MO seems pretty transparent at this point. I reserved judgement when I initially read the OP, but as I read his or her subsequent posts, the intention of this thread and this poster became quite clear to me. Clearly this is yet another attempt to marginalize the history of my people, as well as to denigrate and to demonize Israel. From the obscure references to the "Jewish lobby" in Canada and their (our?) imagined power and influence (we're the most powerful lobby group in Canada!), to the making light of the threats against the Jewish people and our homeland, to actually questioning the guilt of Samir Kuntar. It's just ignorant statements followed by deceitful statements, all with a clear intention. As a side note, can I just say that I am really surprised as well as thankful for the seemingly large volume of Canadians in here who are clearly on the right side of the issues regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the posters in here who appreciate Israel's immense challenges (both material and existential threats as well as the delegitimization campaigns carried out against Israel by people like KeyStone) represent only a minority of Canadians. From my experience, I have the sense that the majority of Canadians have a very poor grasp of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and give almost-automatic sympathy to the Palestinians, who they view as the underdog in a knee-jerk and simplistic way. It's really nice to see honest and sincere recognition for and support of Israel from intelligent Canadians.

This post, among others, illustrates your flawed approach to understanding this conflict. Fundamentally, you sincerely believe that anti-Semitism isn't a very serious problem and that threats to Israel, the eternal Jewish homeland, aren't significant. All we must do is look at contemporary history. Without even going into the trials and tribulations my people endured in many parts of the world, we can examine Israel's history. Aside from wars of aggression waged against Israel by its enemies which sought Israel's destruction (or at least severe damage and casualties) in '48, '54, '67, '73, '82, as well as lower-intensity conflicts such as the War of Attrition as terrorism over the past many decades which have targeted Jews not only in Israel but abroad, there are still many legitimate reasons why the perception of threats against Israel and the Jewish people are that they are serious. Jews are still being murdered and injured because they are Jewish. Ahmedinejad is supplying weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah, and a myriad of other lesser-known terrorist organizations that are used to kill Jews. We have had many smaller wars and skirmishes within our territory as well as along our borders for many decades, as well as pre-dating Israel by several decades. Saddam launched scud missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War. Jewish centres and interests have been attacked around the world in terrorist attacks killing hundreds, Jewish people have been kidnapped and murdered because they were Jewish, murdering hundreds, threats are levied against us and acted upon by prominent political, terrorist, and social leaders. We are not merely imagining these threats. We are not exaggerating these threats. On the other hand, people like yourself are telling us that Ahmedinejad isn't anti-Semitic although he openly engages in Holocaust-denial and supports virulently anti-Semitic terrorist groups publicly and secretly. Although I think you sincerely believe that Israel really isn't under any serious threat, many people who are much more knowledgeable than yourself say the same garbage as you although with the deliberate and malicious intentions to deceive others. Your worst crime is ignorance, I believe. Lastly, you have no idea how much sacrifice the Jewish people and Israel have made towards protecting against these threats. From the necessary draft of Jewish (and some other) citizens of Israel to the army to the massive costs associate with defense and security needs. These are costs, material as well as human and emotional, that most Canadians don't understand and aren't aware of. You didn't need to go to the army for three years (or two years for young women) in order to serve your country. You don't have to make major materialistic sacrifices in order to support the Israeli military which is the backbone of this country (without it our enemies would've destroyed us long ago). If it wasn't for these constant threats and attacks and wars, the standard of living would be much higher here. We'd all have bigger apartments and houses and drive newer and fancier cars and have nicer electronics and appliances and more expensive clothes. You don't get that. Hopefully, after my response, you can appreciate this a bit more. The threats against Israel and the Jewish people aren't imagined or overexaggerated. If anything, these threats and attacks and associated costs are underappreciated by people such as yourself, thousands of kilometres away from the scene, with barely any knowledge about this conflict, with no stake whatsoever in it, telling us we're overreacting and that we need to calm down.

I agree with you, but as a Canadian Jew who is now living in Israel, I can tell you that the Israeli-Arab conflict is an issue very close to the hearts of many Jews. I have no idea how to quantify this, however, as I have met so many different Jews with varying degrees of connection to the issue as well as various opinions towards the issue. I can tell you, a very warped approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict is certainly a red-line for me. I could not bring myself to vote for someone like Ignatieff who cannot take the moral position of supporting Israel's purpose as the eternal Jewish homeland and its legitimate rights to security. Ironically, however, as you've already stated, the majority of Jewish Canadians vote for the Liberal party, which at least in recent years is much weaker in its support for Israel and much more deferential to anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sentiment coming from certain parts of the Arab/Muslim and leftist communities. Perhaps Harper's stronger support for Israel will garner him more votes from Jewish Canadians as this new contrast between the former and current Liberal party (and other leftist parties) becomes more well-known. Personally, I hope Harper's decidedly more pro-Israel positions will resonate with Canadian Jews who feel connected to Israel, and increase support for his party among the Canadian Jewish communities.

Would you care to elaborate on who exactly composes this Jewish lobby, and then please demonstrate to us this "power" that is wielded by this lobby. Please and thank you.

This is a great illustration of the wishy-washiness that seems to personify Ignatieff. His lack of a position and clear understanding of the issues is illustrated by his all-over-the-place speeches and positions. Of course I am not trying to pretend the world and all its problems and issues are black and white, but Ignatieff speaks in broad generalities without ever getting into the nitty-gritty. A true politician devoid of principle.

I'm not really sure how to reply to this completely irrelevant tangent. I'm telling you, as an intelligent and honest person, that I have good reasons to believe that the Conservative party's support for Israel, primarily Harper's as a man, is rooted in principle and not in politics. Of course I may be wrong, but this is my judgement based on personal conversations I've had with important people who have had personal dealings with Harpers and other prominent Conservative party personalities. Take it or leave it. Simplistically, there's more support to be had among the anti-Israel crowd. I don't think that's much of a surprise to anyone with any grasp of the Canadian political environment.

It isn't the pop-culture definition, it's the widely-accepted definition. It is you who is trying to redefine this word, for suspicious reasons. The term "anti-Semitism", interestingly, was coined by an anti-Semite describing his prejudice. Check the dictionary. There are many other examples of terms that do not exactly fit their literal meanings, it's called the evolution of language.

Have I told you lately that you're one of my favorite posters on here? Because you are.

I really don't want to go off on this tangent, but very often words evolve beyond their simplistic literal understandings. Why do I need to explain to this to you? It's the natural evolution of language. So although the terms "Semites/Semitic" refer to a groups of people much broader than just the Jewish people, the term "anti-Semitism" as it is now understood is a synonym of "anti-Jewish", and has been for quite some time now. Any dictionary will confirm this. There is something very strange about people who bring this subject up and try to attack the meanings of commonly used terminology. Without fail, these types of irrelevant tangents are always brought up by the anti-Israel crowd. Surprise, surprise.

Keystone, you seem to speak quite a bit about the "Jewish lobby" in Canada. Who are you speaking about? Are you talking about me and my family, and my local Jewish community back in Ottawa? Are you speaking about specific Jewish organizations? Does the Jewish community in Canada primarily vote for the most "pro-Israel" party? What other lobbies might Harper be alienating as a result of his policies towards Israel? Would you speak so confidently about the "Muslim lobby" in Canada? Do you know that the Muslim population of Canada doubles the Jewish population of Canada? What about prominent Muslim organizations who have distinctly opposing opinions towards the Israeli-Arab conflict when compared to those of the Harper administration? I find it amusing as well as offensive (I know, a strange blend) to read statements from non-Jews like yourself who seem to know so much about this phantom "Jewish lobby" in Canada. I'll say one last thing on a personal level. I initially began to see a distinctive increase in support for Israel from the Conservative party a few years ago. I'll share an anecdote: I was at a Jewish community holiday festival in a small Ottawa neighborhood a couple of years ago, and I remember John Baird saying a few words that were very "pro-Israel", as well as very simplistic. I remember being sceptical about this new phenomenon, was the Conservative party simply trying to pander to the pro-Israeli leanings of the Jewish community, all-the-while knowing that the Jewish community of Canada traditionally supports the Liberal party overwhelmingly (unfortunately, just as the Jewish community of the USA traditionally supports the Democratic party overwhelmingly)? It bothered me to think that Israel might be being used as a political football simply to garner votes. After speaking with some close Jewish friends who have had direct communications with high-level officials in both the Conservative and Liberal parties, I was told (and I believe this) that the Conservative party's support for Israel, primarily Harper's as PM, is genuine and rooted in principle, and not in politics. Of course I cannot share the details of these direct contacts, but all I can say is that I trusted the judgement of those who personally told me that this is not a superficial political support, but a principled one. That being said, there are many more votes to be gained in Canada by being anti-Israel, unfortunately. Take a glance at the CBC talkback sections on articles dealing with the Israeli-Arab conflict, and it'll be instantly clear that anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-Semitic sentiment is very prevalent among Canadians.

Are you saying that Canada's failed bid for a seat on the UNSC was a justified and appropriate response to wrong-headed policies of the Harper government? Instead of infantile little jabs without substance, such as the post of your quoted above, why not actually say what's on your mind? Childish rhetoric such as the garbage displayed your post above only diminish the quality of this forum.

That was quite a tangent you just went on. The OP is about Harper making what I would consider quite obvious observations: that there is resistance out there against his government's morally-grounded support for Israel. How long have you been waiting for an opportunity to go on a brief rant in which you attempt to redefine anti-Semitism as not being synonymous with anti-Jewish? Although it's completely irrelevant, it's false to state that the vast majority of the Jewish people aren't Semitic. Most of us may have been exiled for many centuries, culturally, spiritually, and physically. Most of us never lost our roots, though.

The proposal for a Palestinian state would never be accepted should it not be demilitarized. Their improvised explosives and guns are bad enough, and already murdering and maiming Jews. You don't need a military to exert civil control. I get the impression that you think the PA and Hamas are impotent. They are most certainly not. Their ability to maintain order and stop terrorism isn't impacted by current circumstances, i.e. the closure of Gaza's borders or the IDF presence in Judea and Samaria.

The state I am considering wouldn't be impotent, though. The current Palestinian leadership isn't impotent, either. They have guns and training. When I talk about a hypothetical disarmed Palestinian state, I am talking about military disarmament. There is quite a difference between having sidearms for the police and military aircraft with ordnance. With respect to Syria, it is still a terrorist-state. It supplies weapons and training to Israel's enemies. You're making the mistake in thinking that the concept of autonomy allows Israel to defend itself appropriately, which simply isn't the case. Much of the world will always hate Israel and everything it stands for, and the double-standard between our actions and the those of our enemies will persist. We know how our enemies operate in terrorism, their strategy will not change if given sovereignty. Our ability to respond will also not change, as we are always hampered politically due to the double standard. Basically, we need to have confidence that a proposal for a Palestinian state, whatever its degree of autonomy/sovereignty, would not increase the risk posed to us - that this state would not become a launchpad form terrorism as is the case with Gaza.

You're wrong. Let's examine reality for moment. Palestinians are largely hostile towards Israel's existence as a Jewish state and largely anti-semitic. If their autonomy is increased, with them being armed and being permitted to decide for themselves what they can import (all sorts of weapons), the risk to Israel is increased one-hundred-fold. How can you sit in Seattle and tell us to take this risk? Are we going to allow an Iranian or Syrian proxy to occupy another stretch of our borders? The same problem that Israel always faces when it defends itself still applies to the hypothetical independent Palestinian state. If terrorism continues to occur in this hypothetical independent Palestinian State scenario, and it most certainly will, Israel will still have its hands tied when defending itself. We know that Palestinians and all their terrorist affiliated fight in the most sickening and cowardly ways imaginable. From denying responsibility and saying the terrorism came from a "lone wolf" (a PA favourite), to using civilian infrastructure as terrorist infrastructure (shooting from homes, mosques, schools, and training and concealing arms and ammunition in homes, power/water plants, government offices), to using children and women as human shields and kidnapping people and soldiers.... there's nothing they won't do and nothing they haven't done. The existence of a Palestinian state will not absolve Israel from the political pressure it always faces AGAINST doing what it must do to defend itself. If anything, the Israeli military presence in Judea and Samaria saves lives. Look, all things considered I hope and pray for peace. I know that we must achieve a peaceful reconciliation with the Palestinians and broader Arab-Muslim collective. I do not think that a short-term "two-state solution" is the answer, though. Palestinians must undergo slow steps towards some form of statehood that will not compromise our security. Let's not pretend that our security concerns are entirely grounded in a history of decades of wars, murders, and terrorism. To summarize, your position seems flawed in two fundamental ways. First, you are assuming that Palestinian statehood will liberalize Israel's permissions to respond to threats militarily - it most certainly WILL NOT given what we know about the international community's pandering to Palestinians and their allies as well as the MO of the terrorists. Second, you seem to think that a more autonomous Palestinian authority will have an easier time combating terrorism, which isn't true because they're already armed and trained by Israel and given significant security control over their areas. The reason Palestinian authorities don't do a very good job combating terrorism isn't because of some imagined Israeli interference, but rather the result of at a minimum - apathy towards terrorism, and at a maximum - complicity in terrorism. Cheers.

Haha! It's funny how the most fundamental bone-of-contention is deemed to be mere semantics by naomiglover - the right for Israel to be the homeland for the Jews. Apparently this is just a minor, insignificant detail. That and terrorism. The main problems are apartment buildings and offices in Jerusalem! Stay tuned for photos from "settlements" in the near future.

Nah, no other group really compares to our academic and entrepreneurial success. I'll be the first to admit it - we're special. You're entire position boils down to this: it's not the fault of the Arabs that they live the way they do. It's the natural result of colonialism. That's a carte-blance allowing them to do whatever they want, no matter how you slice it.

Of course it has to do with financial matters... but the enemies of Israel (i.e. naomiglover) are primarily concerned with shutting out the truth. Therefore, they mobilize to interpret the policy in a way favourable to their perspectives. Since he's Jewish and has a son in the IDF, he shouldn't be permitted to hold his position. They mask their true feelings with the claim that their is a "conflict of interest". Sickening and pathetic.