Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[benny]

Isreal should never be even the slightest defining factor in a Canadian election - If it does - then there will be a backlash of anti-semitism - this is not the nice Christian Judiac culture of the 60s - we have people from all over the world the live and vote in Canada - sucking up to the "jewish" vote is a non-starter and a dated version of Canadian back room power politics - it's over - Our politicians had better kiss all the asses - not just a select few.

Yes but ultimately Canadians may have to admit that Canadian Jews capture Canadian politicians' attention because they are more intelligent than all of us.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes but ultimately Canadians may have to admit that Canadian Jews capture Canadian politicians' attention because they are more intelligent than all of us.

It was very much the same mind set that the American congress had a couple of years ago when they were being addressed by Allan Greenspan the classic Jewish economic figure - They all stood up when he entered as if he was the high priest of Mammon - that he had all the answers - that he was the perfect Jewsish genius that was going to save their over extended asses - they worshipped him - it was pitiful....and did the messiah Greenspan save them --- apparently not - nor was he capable - no matter how clever with numbers - to continue to run a nation strickly on fiat currency and the endless printing of new money...no - the Jews are just like us or anyone else - no more intelligent and sometimes perhaps even less intelligent at times ...If the Jews were so intelligent - Israell would be at peace and content and stable - apparently it is not. So apparently the Jewish lobby in Canada and America - is human after all - but they are arrogant---You can not make things right untill you admit to being in error - and they can do no wrong - it's dellusionary on all parts -- and those that suck up to the jewish community are just plain stupid and potential anti-semites - once the jews let them down while being falible.

[benny]

Allan Greenspan the classic Jewish economic figure

Just try to understand now that Allan Greenspan is the classic Jewish economic figure precisely because he looks very much like the classic figure of Uncle Sam.

Edited August 10, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

Just try to understand now that Allan Greenspan is the classic Jewish economic figure precisely because he looks very much like the classic figure of Uncle Sam.

You mean Uncle Samuel? I did notice that - remember also that the establishers of America were old testimonial nerds that loved that crimminal plundering murdering thing all in the name of God... I really finally got disgusted in old Jewish biblical history...looking at it - all I saw was the glorification of war - murder - conspiracy - adultery - seduction and so forth...Finally I said f*** this shit - I don't care if you call it Tora or Old Testiment..it's just plain bad - and that's why we suffer - because we excepted bad as acceptable...this is a very old problem - time to look at this crap and say - religion is evil - historic accounts using religion as a justification for crimminality is bad -- just because it's a 6000 year old concept does not mean it was ever good - we might have been wrong all that time?

[benny]

we might have been wrong all that time?

Because old and "sacred" texts make keen readers, Jews may be the only ones laughing in their beards today.

[Oleg Bach]

Because old and "sacred" texts make keen readers, Jews may be the only ones laughing in their beards today.

There is nothing sacred about "king" David...arranging for the killing of Bathsheba's husband - and the forced marriage that followed..what kind of king is that? Why do they admire such a historic figure? I don't get it.

[benny]

There is nothing sacred about "king" David...arranging for the killing of Bathsheba's husband - and the forced marriage that followed..what kind of king is that? Why do they admire such a historic figure? I don't get it.

Again, nothing can be sacred without human sacrifices.

[jbg]

This is all very amusing. And your responses get ever so more angry and childish.

It is obvious you won't be happy with the issue no matter what is said or done.

Take your anger and activism to someone in office if you dare. I doubt it will go far but by all means rant at them if it makes you feel better.

Why don't you add it (Myata) to your prolific "ignore" list?

[jbg]

...sucking up to the "jewish" vote is a non-starter and a dated version of Canadian back room power politics - it's over - Our politicians had better kiss all the asses - not just a select few.

How about if "Jewish" interests coincide with those of the civilized world? Face it, no one would care what the Arabs think if it weren't for the threat of violence and/or to withhold oil. Israel is more like Canada than any Arab country is like Canada.

[benny]

How about if "Jewish" interests coincide with those of the civilized world? Face it, no one would care what the Arabs think if it weren't for the threat of violence and/or to withhold oil. Israel is more like Canada than any Arab country is like Canada.

The so-called "civilized world" is essentially an oil-dependent world.

[Bonam]

The so-called "civilized world" is essentially an oil-dependent world.

For now. Give it another several decades.

[benny]

For now. Give it another several decades.

A civilized world is a world that always remembers where it comes from.

[Bonam]

A civilized world is a world that always remembers where it comes from.

A drastically flawed and incorrect definition.

[benny]

A drastically flawed and incorrect definition.

no

[myata]

This is all very amusing. And your responses get ever so more angry and childish.

It is obvious you won't be happy with the issue no matter what is said or done.

Take your anger and activism to someone in office if you dare. I doubt it will go far but by all means rant at them if it makes you feel better.

Well this is certainly as void of any arguments of substance and on the matter as a post could be (absolute "success" - yet again!), so I'm not sure how to respnd except, maybe, to note that it concludes the discussion on your side in all meaningful sense or for all useful purposes.

Edited August 11, 2009 by myata

[benny]

Well this is certainly as void of any arguments of substance and on the matter as a post could be (absolute "success" - yet again!), so I'm not sure how to respnd except, maybe, to note that it concludes the discussion on your side in all meaningful sense or for all useful purposes.

In Dobbin's shoes, I would be shameful.

[myata]

The question is how far back do you go in claiming restitution? What do give in terms of restitution? Would Israel's enemies even accept reasonable restitution (they wouldn't)?

In my view, the first and foremost in this situation should be deescalation of hostilities. That should be a priortity of any honest broker of peace. In that sense, simply an admission of a historic injustice could go a (very) long way to calming the conflict on the Arab side.

If there is ANY hope of peace, the ball is entirely in Iran and the Arab leaders' court. They have to recognize Israel and its right to exist, OFFICIALLY.

I could not agree with that statement, not while Isreal continues with its expansion agenda, which is nothing short of an agression, by another name. All serious hostilities must stop before any meaningful negotitations can begin. Recognition, restitution, guarantees of security, borders, are all matters for detailed negotiations, once the sides have established sufficient trust in each other, and are able to negotiate in good faith.

If they don't do that, Israel has no reason to believe there is any intention for peace and therefore they are going to continue to act like there is no hope for peace.

The same cyclical argument that can be turned around anytime by either side. An honest mediator of peace would insist on cessation of all serious hostilities, no matter which side perpetrates them.

I don't mean Palestine. If Palestinians were the only people committing violence, then Israel could bargain with thenm in good faith because they have an ACTUAL vested interest in peace. The people of Palestine LIVE there and as such would conceivably not want to worry about getting killed. These are not even the real offenders though. Israel is contending with shadows financed by foreign governments who don't want to negotiate and only want to see Israel gone. They have no interest in peace because they have nothing to gain by it. They do, on the other hand, have a vested interest in destabilizing Israel.

I'd like to think that people would make their own, meaningful choices, given opportunity and the environment to do so. Many of Palestinians are ready to accept peace and start rebuilding their lives, as many Israelis would abandon settlements. At issue at this time is bringing the trust to the level where it may sparkle a meaningful, in good faith negotiations. For that, all serious hostilities, on all sides, should cease. Trust cannot emerge toward somebody who lops missiles at you daily anymore than it could toward somebody who steals your land behind a table with a big poster saying peace.

When I'm talking about Israel's enemies, let's start with the big ones like the leaders of Iran who finance anti-Israeli militias for billions and publicly and internationally call for Israel's downfall. I realize you can't get EVERYONE to give up violence but the above would be a good start

I would hope that people would be able to make their own choices, for something that would benefit them rather than somebody thousand miles away. Support for peace parties in Palestine and Israel would increase in proportion to deescalation of hositilities and build up of trust. A trusted principled mediator could facilitate that process, just as one with unclear, hidden agenda could undermine and delay it. Eventally, only sufficient level of trust between the side could result in peace. We cannot seriously pretend to be helping in building that trust by our selective visions, strange and unexplainable conditions, and absolute inability to act when our friendly party itself is clearly involved in hostile behavior.

The west does criticize Israeli settlement encroachment. They do get pissy when Israel starts launching campaigns into Lebanon and Gaza etc. The main difference here is that Israel's aggression is generally not deliberate acts of violence against innocent civilians and as such it's a lot more reasonable to sympathize and relate to their position.

Critising only may not be enough to stop hostile behaviour. West has acted against parties involved in militant attacks, and its accomplished failure to reign in the expansion of settlements, or even show one real and practical act to that extent speaks for a serious and obvious bias of its position. There's little hope that as it is, it can be of any real help in rebuilding of trust, and therefore to the success of peace process.

I would agree with that but BOTH sides have to come to the table and agree on that. Hamas is mostly foreign-funded and foreign-supported and one of its main objectives in its charter is the elimination of the state of Israel. If the major parties would agree to actually speak to one another, agree to recognize each other, and agree to end violence and stop any further aggressions, we might have something to work with. As I said before, there are a few things that people aren't willing to budge on, namely the acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

Yet I think at issue is the hope and trust in peace process from people on both sides. More hope means less support for militant, agressive groups like Hamas, or settlements agenda in Israel. We can facilitate trust by offering honest, clear position based on principles of peace. Or we can continue our current course, claiming to be inseparable and unconditional (in all practical sense) friends with one side, and brokers of peace all at the same time, believe it or not.

Specifically on "recognition" I cannot but think of it as just another ruse intended to take attention of public from the seriouos issues of deescalations. There's any number of states in the world that would not recognise each other at this time, and nobody's making any fuss about it, so why could it be so important to focus on it now, while actual serious hostilities are still going on daily, is beyond me. It's the same kind of deceptive, twisting and spinning policy that creates much work for those involved in it, and very little result on the ground. Any serious broker of peace would make deescalation of all hostilities on the ground their first priority because only that can foster trust that could lead to serious negotiations which would address formal and official issues. I'm afraid that it'll take us much more time to understand that simple calculation.

[benny]

In my view, the first and foremost in this situation should be deescalation of hostilities.

Canadian Jews, being far away from Israel, may on the contrary overact.

[Oleg Bach]

Canadian Jews, being far away from Israel, may on the contrary overact.

If they had to live in it - attitudes would be different - Canadian Jews live in a romantic state that does not adhere as well to reality of the issues as it should - benny has a good point - I am sure that funding and support for Israel in it's present state might be curbed IF - those sending cash off for the "cause" - would get over the emotional end of things and have a good logical look - Then and only then could they evaluate the situation....It's probably some war lord types who love conflict because it has become an industry - hard to give up easy money.

[benny]

If they had to live in it - attitudes would be different - Canadian Jews live in a romantic state that does not adhere as well to reality of the issues as it should - benny has a good point - I am sure that funding and support for Israel in it's present state might be curbed IF - those sending cash off for the "cause" - would get over the emotional end of things and have a good logical look - Then and only then could they evaluate the situation....It's probably some war lord types who love conflict because it has become an industry - hard to give up easy money.

Recall what Jewish-like Uncle Sam was saying while pointing angrily his finger at you.

[Oleg Bach]

Recall what Jewish-like Uncle Sam was saying while pointing angrily his finger at you.

"He needs YOU!" But do we need him? Is that what you wanted delivered?

[benny]

"He needs YOU!" But do we need him? Is that what you wanted delivered?

It is about war:

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Uncle-Sam-I-...rs_i995016_.htm

[jdobbin]

Well this is certainly as void of any arguments of substance and on the matter as a post could be (absolute "success" - yet again!), so I'm not sure how to respnd except, maybe, to note that it concludes the discussion on your side in all meaningful sense or for all useful purposes.

You just end up repeatng yourself angrily but no more convincingly.

Your unilateralism and isolationism is guaranteed to fail. Likewise, your advice is not going to be heeded by anyone save for those who are on the fringes politically. Welcome to the wilderness.

[benny]

You just end up repeatng yourself angrily but no more convincingly.

Your unilateralism and isolationism is guaranteed to fail.

Totally unjustified accusations.

[myata]

Your unilateralism and isolationism is guaranteed to fail. Likewise, your advice is not going to be heeded by anyone save for those who are on the fringes politically. Welcome to the wilderness.

Come on, Dobbin, you really have nothing else to add here. Try again, and (hopefully) better, next time.