Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

benny · July 30, 2009

Think that is pretty clear: violence or the threat of violence.

Nothing is clear when one cannot accept, in advance, referendum results.

jdobbin · July 30, 2009

Nothing is clear when one cannot accept, in advance, referendum results.

I can see clearly now the sun has come.

Moonbox · July 30, 2009

Exactly! That is the nature of the problem, the undefined and underlying base emotions and responses in the absence of the rule of law. The use of violence to achieve an end has its own political problems associated with it. In this case the problem is being attempted to be farmed out to international interests to present a local solution. In other words a resolution that is destined to fail. Until the two parties agree to stop killing each other, the killing will continue. One side or the other has to take the first step in peace. Israel has made several first steps at peace, their reward for their efforts has been more violence.

This is a perfect explanation on how I feel about the situation.

How many gestures has Israel made in the peace efforts? How much territory has it returned and how many settlements have been dismantled as concessions towards a peace effort? Did the people hiding amongst civilians who were also murdering civilians acknowledge these gestures and come to the table? Absolutely NOT!

The main problem with the whole situation is that the people attacking Israel and murdering its citizens are operating in the shadows and are refusing to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a state. They have no vested interest in the area or its people/prosperity and their mission is altogether to destroy a sovereign nation and its people. They couldn't care less about peace because their goal is not one accomplished through peace.

benny · July 30, 2009

I can see clearly now the sun has come.

"You can step aside a little so as not to keep the sunshine from me."

http://www.de.dau.lv/angluvaloda/ang1/node21.html

jdobbin · July 30, 2009

"You can step aside a little so as not to keep the sunshine from me."

I am your sunshine.

benny · July 30, 2009

I am your sunshine.

Sun gods are tyrannical.

jdobbin · July 30, 2009

Sun gods are tyrannical.

I am the moon and the earth as well.

benny · July 30, 2009

I am the moon and the earth as well.

What else!?

jdobbin · July 30, 2009

What else!?

I am your huckleberry.

benny · July 30, 2009

I am your huckleberry.

Anything else!?

Edited July 30, 2009 by benny

jdobbin · July 30, 2009

Anything else!?

I'm afraid I'm already involved so there can't be anything else.

benny · July 30, 2009

I'm afraid I'm already involved so there can't be anything else.

So easily afraid!

Charles Anthony · July 30, 2009

Guys,

Stop the banter. Please stay focussed on discussing the topic.

Ch. A.

myata · July 30, 2009

It has been defined. I said the exact day has not been named...

OK so you do understand the language, so now you either will post a quote from the reference that is defining the schedule mentioned by you, or admit that your using that reference as a confirmation that schedule exists has been a fraud.

Till one or the other happens, I'm not accepting any more references on your part, Dobbin.

I reported what credible newspapers reported. They said 8000 people in outposts slated for evacuation.

No Dobbin, they only reported that certain Mr W., the leader of the settlers, said that there were that there were that many people in the settlements. So you are trying to deceive and deliberately mislead here. Why do need to resort to that to support your point? Perhaps because you have no other, real arguments left?

I have not seen any countering reports to say the number was exaggerated or wrong.

That does not make the number quoted by the leader of settlers true. They reported what they did, but you are trying to sell it for something else. The real question is about you, why do you need these constant confusions, deceptions and ploys, rather than admitting plain obvous fact that your process has done nothing about the massive growth of settlements so far, and may be try to change that to make your claim that it has anything to do with genuine peace at least less outrageous.

If you have a problem with what the Washington Post reported, take it up with them.

An obvious charade, so I'll start another countdown, 999.

You got the number from the person who is in the best position to know the number.

And also has most to gain from exaggerating it. And no independent confirmation. You must be so trusting, in your investment also. Perhaps you're making 20% now as we speak (according to your advisor, could his name be something like "Earl" by any chance?)

As for the schedule, it won't be announced till it is actually happening.

OK so you admit that your reference as a proof of schedule has been a fraud? BTW how do you happen to know that it exists if it had not been announced? Because of your trusting nature? Because you can read minds? Or have a direct line into Israeli cabinet?

And the Washington Post fact checks statements. Go to their website if you want to see the standard they set.

Of course they checked that Mr W said what he said. That is what they reported, and what you're trying desperately to sell for something they never said (that there's been an independent confirmation of that number). But your very emotional and impatient desire to jump to every word of the leader of settlers (whose activity you in other times and other places ostensibly find a grave obstacle to peace) speaks volumes about your real affiliations.

And I will continue to point out that you can't even admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Would that change the fact that your process did nothing (and is doing nothing, in real and practical terms) about ongoing massive expansion of illegal settlements as we speak? You are not interested in a serious discussion of the meaning of "terrorism", only branding the side which you don't happen to support, to excuse the acts that otherwise would have to be found inexcusable and would require to act against, something you obviously have no intention of doing here.

The reason is that Israel is prepared to come to the table and Hamas has not.

Coming to the table while keeping on with massive expansion of illegal settlements? I don't know what kind of "table" it would be, certainly not a genuine peace negotiations table.

Hamas is not part of any peace agenda.

And it has and is being sanctioned for that, while the other side only gets as much as a shrug (once in a very rare while), and you still have to explain that "peaceful" paradox on your part.

benny · July 30, 2009

I think there is a tradeoff Grits and Tories have to envision in Canadian elections between obtaining Jewish support and Quebecers support.

jdobbin · July 30, 2009

OK so you do understand the language, so now you either will post a quote from the reference that is defining the schedule mentioned by you, or admit that your using that reference as a confirmation that schedule exists has been a fraud.
Till one or the other happens, I'm not accepting any more references on your part, Dobbin.

It is obvious that you want the exact date and hour. It is why I showed a few links to indicate that why you won't get one other than the government was determined to get it done and soon.

No Dobbin, they only reported that certain Mr W., the leader of the settlers, said that there were that there were that many people in the settlements. So you are trying to deceive and deliberately mislead here. Why do need to resort to that to support your point? Perhaps because you have no other, real arguments left?

You have seen the link a few times now. Washington Post = 8000 people.

Show me your numbers for the settlements in question. Not numbers that you guess at but a specific reference to the numbers now.

That does not make the number quoted by the leader of settlers true. They reported what they did, but you are trying to sell it for something else. The real question is about you, why do you need these constant confusions, deceptions and ploys, rather than admitting plain obvous fact that your process has done nothing about the massive growth of settlements so far, and may be try to change that to make your claim that it has anything to do with genuine peace at least less outrageous.

The Washington Post does what most newspapers do: they fact check. You don't like the numbers you are hearing so you attack me.

Show me your numbers of settlers.

An obvious charade, so I'll start another countdown, 999.

Show me contrary numbers for the settlements. Don't guesstimate based on a report in a newspaper on one settlement that may or may not be slated for closure.

And also has most to gain from exaggerating it. And no independent confirmation. You must be so trusting, in your investment also. Perhaps you're making 20% now as we speak (according to your advisor, could his name be something like "Earl" by any chance?)

I happen to believe in the Washington Post. They independently check numbers given to them. If their were contrary numbers, they would have mentioned them.

As far as I can see, you are the only one saying that there is only 100 people involved.

OK so you admit that your reference as a proof of schedule has been a fraud? BTW how do you happen to know that it exists if it had not been announced? Because of your trusting nature? Because you can read minds? Or have a direct line into Israeli cabinet?

Not at all. I gave you the link from the beginning that the exact day and hour would not be announced.

I happen to know that in the London talks, it was mentioned that the schedule was listed as

in the coming weeks or months

Of course they checked that Mr W said what he said. That is what they reported, and what you're trying desperately to sell for something they never said (that there's been an independent confirmation of that number). But your very emotional and impatient desire to jump to every word of the leader of settlers (whose activity you in other times and other places ostensibly find a grave obstacle to peace) speaks volumes about your real affiliations.

Sorry if you don't trust the Washington Post and their ability to verify numbers.

Would that change the fact that your process did nothing (and is doing nothing, in real and practical terms) about ongoing massive expansion of illegal settlements as we speak? You are not interested in a serious discussion of the meaning of "terrorism", only branding the side which you don't happen to support, to excuse the acts that otherwise would have to be found inexcusable and would require to act against, something you obviously have no intention of doing here.

If Hamas was prepared to come to the terms of the Oslo agreement which you said was a success, it would mean big difference. Or do you disagree?

Coming to the table while keeping on with massive expansion of illegal settlements? I don't know what kind of "table" it would be, certainly not a genuine peace negotiations table.

Illegal settlements isn't their main problem. Israel existing is.

And it has and is being sanctioned for that, while the other side only gets as much as a shrug (once in a very rare while), and you still have to explain that "peaceful" paradox on your part.

If they don't agree to Israel's existence at all and are prepared to send children out as bombs, they will be identified as a terrorist organization.

You seem to think that settlements is the only thing that motivates them. It isn't. If Israel was to exist, they would still be under attack because the goal is to take all Israel.

Edited July 30, 2009 by jdobbin

Jerry J. Fortin · July 30, 2009

I think many folks here are barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest, at the wrong time. Look folks all the Jewish votes in the nation won't swing a single seat in any constituency. This discussion has nothing to do with that reality, it is merely another attempt to have western nations engage in a middle eastern debate that has no vital consequence to this nation in real terms.

The entire issue is one of religious conflict. The entire battle is between a national military and a group terrorists that are zealots. What on earth does this have to do with Canada? What side should Canada back, the terrorists or the legitimate government of a sovereign nation who is not an enemy of this nation and has no ties to any terroristic actions in this nation? Really now, is there any real choice for our government to make?

benny · July 30, 2009

Look folks all the Jewish votes in the nation won't swing a single seat in any constituency.

A case supporting your point is the Quebec ridding of Outremont: you find there the biggest concentration of religious Jews in the province and it is also the only NDP ridding of the province.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 30, 2009

A case supporting your point is the Quebec ridding of Outremont: you find there the biggest concentration of religious Jews in the province and it is also the only NDP ridding of the province.

Exactly! Its a non-issue.

benny · July 30, 2009

Exactly! Its a non-issue.

Fundamentally, it is a non-issue because democracy, in the end, chooses terror over any ideologically-driven peace.

Moonbox · July 30, 2009

This thread should be moved.

jdobbin · July 30, 2009

A case supporting your point is the Quebec ridding of Outremont: you find there the biggest concentration of religious Jews in the province and it is also the only NDP ridding of the province.

The Liberals came up in that riding in the last election despite a very slow start. The NDP vote was down nearly 8%

It will be interesting to see the results will be with a more popular Ignatieff as leader of the party. Dion was a non-starter for many in the riding.

The Jewish community there appeared to come back to the Liberals from the time of the byelection.

benny · July 30, 2009

It will be interesting to see the results will be with a more popular Ignatieff as leader of the party. Dion was a non-starter for many in the riding.

The more populist Ignatieff rather.

Edited July 30, 2009 by benny

jdobbin · July 30, 2009

The more populist Ignatieff rather.

I said from the very beginning that Dion would always be associated with the Clarity Act and he was deeply unpopular in Quebec the day he became leader.

benny · July 30, 2009

I said from the very beginning that Dion would always be associated with the Clarity Act and he was deeply unpopular in Quebec the day he became leader.

I doubt Ignatieff would have done better than Dion to cope with the 1995 referendum.

Edited July 30, 2009 by benny