Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

benny · August 11, 2009

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

Don't wait after him!

Oleg Bach · August 11, 2009

Don't wait after him!

Let him encourage him...not prod him. If the encouragement has no positive effect - then go back to prodding.

benny · August 11, 2009

Let him encourage him...not prod him. If the encouragement has no positive effect - then go back to prodding.

Together they are responsible for this topic's perdition.

Oleg Bach · August 11, 2009

Together they are responsible for this topic's perdition.

Your the new judge on the block - convict...remember there are the convicted and those yet to be convicted. Pay no heed to me - I just like the drama.. :rolleyes:

benny · August 11, 2009

Your the new judge on the block - convict...remember there are the convicted and those yet to be convicted. Pay no heed to me - I just like the drama..

Just remember what you were writing yesterday.

Edited August 11, 2009 by benny

Oleg Bach · August 11, 2009

Just remember what you were writting yesterday.

Remember to cross the Ts If you did not notice - you have one too many in the word writing....no I don't remember yesterday..nor will I consider tomorrow. To quote Rodney King ---- "can't we all just get along?" Benny....politics does not have to be advesarial - nor do the courts -----------time to make statements - time to bring back statesmen and woman...instead of weasils who watch every word and calculate the effect of the utterance. If you have something useful to say - say it - debate is for highschool.

jdobbin · August 11, 2009

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

I was going to say that you have nothing to add except to personalize every post and get angry. I'm sorry if if no one really believes your idea is workable in the least or even desireable. But best of luck trying to sell it.

Oleg Bach · August 11, 2009

I was going to say that you have nothing to add except to personalize every post and get angry. I'm sorry if if no one really believes your idea is workable in the least or even desireable. But best of luck trying to sell it.

You curse him with luck - be honest - send the spirit of failure.

jdobbin · August 11, 2009

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.

This is where you continue to trip up. Prior to 1967, there was no recognition of Israel but Arab countries were not content with letting things be and the result was a war. Now, you expect everyone to think that a continuation of a policy to end Israel's existence and not coming to the table is anyhow different than before 1967.

benny · August 11, 2009

Benny....politics does not have to be advesarial

Agony and agora (political forum) have the same etymology.

myata · August 12, 2009

This is where you continue to trip up.

The "trip up" is only in your mind. Israel was established by agression (massive immigration of foreign nationals and unilateral taking of land), it was responded with agression, and both sides are actively involved in various form of agression against each other as we speak. That you only want to see a half of that picture, the one that suits your idea of reality, is a trait of your mind and it certainly isn't "conductive" to anything to do with peace in real, genuine sense. To even begin approaching it, sides should abandon agression in all forms, and certainly your process that simply filters out one form of agression has very little to do with genuine mediation for peace.

I was going to say that you have nothing to add except to personalize every post and get angry. I'm sorry if if no one really believes your idea is workable in the least or even desireable. But best of luck trying to sell it.

No, unlike yourself, I'm not selling, or rather, peddling anything here. Only exchanging ideas with other intelligent beings.

Edited August 12, 2009 by myata

jdobbin · August 12, 2009

No, unlike yourself, I'm not selling, or rather, peddling anything here. Only exchanging ideas with other intelligent beings.

You personally attack. You tend to do it all the time and you react angrily. It is not a very intelligent way of doing thing and I don't see it getting your view across here or outside of these forums.

jdobbin · August 12, 2009

The "trip up" is only in your mind. Israel was established by agression (massive immigration of foreign nationals and unilateral taking of land), it was responded with agression, and both sides are actively involved in various form of agression against each other as we speak. That you only want to see a half of that picture, the one that suits your idea of reality, is a trait of your mind and it certainly isn't "conductive" to anything to do with peace in real, genuine sense. To even begin approaching it, sides should abandon agression in all forms, and certainly your process that simply filters out one form of agression has very little to do with genuine mediation for peace.

Ah, here is the crux of the matter for you. Israel is to blame merely for existing. If peace is to be had, they have to end the state of Israel. Is that it?

myata · August 12, 2009

You personally attack. You tend to do it all the time and you react angrily.

If you want to call my exposing your dubious discussion practices "personal attacks" I'm really sorry you see it that way, but it has to be done simpy for the sake of integrity of the discussion, and the forums. There's little point in wasting time on discussing imaginary facts and interpretations that have nothing to do with the facts that were reported.

It is not a very intelligent way of doing thing and I don't see it getting your view across here or outside of these forums.

And it wouldn't be the only thing that you don't or wouldn't see. 70% increase in illegal settlements would be just one obvious example.

jdobbin · August 12, 2009

If you want to call my exposing your dubious discussion practices "personal attacks" I'm really sorry you see it that way, but it has to be done simpy for the sake of integrity of the discussion, and the forums. There's little point in wasting time on discussing imaginary facts and interpretations that have nothing to do with the facts that were reported.

Actually, I was referring to your personalizing in posting. Feel free to disagree. Stop the useless countdowns and angry outbursts.

And it wouldn't be the only thing that you don't or wouldn't see. 70% increase in illegal settlements would be just one obvious example.

Not recognizing that Israel has negotiated for land and evacuation of settlements is yours.

However, we now see where you are headed. Israel's mere existence is a form of aggression.

myata · August 12, 2009

Ah, here is the crux of the matter for you. Israel is to blame merely for existing. If peace is to be had, they have to end the state of Israel. Is that it?

Obviously not, and of course I said it so many times that I'm really at loss what causes you to not understand it. Any approaches to peace could begin once there's certain level of trust between the sides. Trust cannot be built while sides are involved in agression against each other. Illegal appropriation of land is a form of agression, and it should stop before any approaches to genine peace could begin. Your "peace" process ignores this particular form of agression and therefre it's not a genuine peace plan and it's bound to fail as long as it pretends to not understand this.

This is not to say that historical injustice associated with the original events does not exist or should be ignored or forgotten. Admitting it and offering some form of even moral restitution would also advance the agenda of genuine peace. Undestanding this would require genuine commitment to peace and courage, that your pseudo process is obviously lacking at this time.

jdobbin · August 12, 2009

Obviously not, and of course I said it so many times that I'm really at loss what causes you to not understand it. Any approaches to peace could begin once there's certain level of trust between the sides. Trust cannot be built while sides are involved in agression against each other. Illegal appropriation of land is a form of agression, and it should stop before any approaches to genine peace could begin. Your "peace" process ignores this particular form of agression and therefre it's not a genuine peace plan and it's bound to fail as long as it pretends to not understand this.

You have already said that Israel was an act of aggression and they were to blame for the attacks by Arab countries for merely existing.

This is not to say that historical injustice associated with the original events does not exist or should be ignored or forgotten. Admitting it and offering some form of even moral restitution would also advance the agenda of genuine peace. Undestanding this would require genuine commitment to peace and courage, that your pseudo process is obviously lacking at this time.

You are dancing on the head of a pin. You are saying Israel is a historical injustice? You have even suggested they are to blame fof the 1967 war.

myata · August 12, 2009

You have already said that Israel was an act of aggression and they were to blame for the attacks by Arab countries for merely existing.
You are dancing on the head of a pin. You are saying Israel is a historical injustice? You have even suggested they are to blame fof the 1967 war.

Back to your twisting self, Dobbin? Making facts, quotes and sayings out of thin air?

I said what I said and it's there for everybody to see without your twisful creative interpretations.

You however have run out of all meaningful arguments in this discussion long while back, so the real

question is, do you have anything else, of real, meaningful value, to contribute here? If not, why you won't just admit it and give up these useless attempts to brand your opponent an enemy of state simply because you don't have any meaningful arguments to question their position? It's obvious as a clear day and you're wasting everybody's time.

Topaz · August 12, 2009

After reading Harper's bio. I don't think there is a battle going on between the two parties because the Jewish community has already in Harper pocket after giving him two awards for the good thing he's said and done for that community.

myata · August 12, 2009

I wonder if some party in a distant future and far far away country could actually attemt to win the votes of both communities with an honest, courageous and principled position that could actually have real impact on promoting peace in the region, and thus benefit both communities in a real, practical way, although maybe in longer terms than an instant it takes for a talking head to say something, then forget and ignore it?

benny · August 12, 2009

I wonder if some party in a distant future and far far away country could actually attemt to win the votes of both communities with an honest, courageous and principled position that could actually have real impact on promoting peace in the region, and thus benefit both communities in a real, practical way, although maybe in longer terms than an instant it takes for a talking head to say something, then forget and ignore it?

Communist parties may well be what you wish for since they are more and more influenced by Slavoj Zizek.

myata · August 12, 2009

I sincerely hope that the chances of Canada once again adopting a genuine principled position for peace are not linked to the prospect of having a communist party form the government. I'd first bet on Harper reforming as a global champion of justice and peace.

jdobbin · August 12, 2009

Back to your twisting self, Dobbin? Making facts, quotes and sayings out of thin air?
I said what I said and it's there for everybody to see without your twisful creative interpretations.

You however have run out of all meaningful arguments in this discussion long while back, so the real

question is, do you have anything else, of real, meaningful value, to contribute here? If not, why you won't just admit it and give up these useless attempts to brand your opponent an enemy of state simply because you don't have any meaningful arguments to question their position? It's obvious as a clear day and you're wasting everybody's time.

Yes, everyone can see what you wrote. You said Israel was an act of aggresion. You suggested that the Arab response was to that agression.

Do you believe that Israel as a state is illegal? Do you believe they appropriated the land illegally?

You are really being too vague. This isn't just about settlements for you. You said it is about historical injustice.

benny · August 12, 2009

I sincerely hope that the chances of Canada once again adopting a genuine principled position for peace are not linked to the prospect of having a communist party form the government. I'd first bet on Harper reforming as a global champion of justice and peace.

With Harper, Ignatieff and Layton alike, the only peace you can hope for is the peace that may inhabit well guarded and aided refugee camps. Only communist politicians are not biopoliticians.

Edited August 12, 2009 by benny

Moonbox · August 12, 2009

This is not to say that historical injustice associated with the original events does not exist or should be ignored or forgotten. Admitting it and offering some form of even moral restitution would also advance the agenda of genuine peace.

What sort of moral restitution is Israel supposed to offer? I can just see it now,

"Hey ummm...sorry that after thousands of years we are returning to our natural native homeland that was taken away from us in the first place. Umm...we feel really bad for being here." ??????

If that's the case then Turkey should be apologizing to the Greeks for Byzantium and offering 'moral restitution', as well as Spain, France, England and Portugal to all of North and South America. Let's not stop there though. Let's go over every single foreign conquest of the last 1000 years and demand apologies from the descendants of people who had nothing to do with the original annexation.

I mean, seriously. It's pretty apparent these days that the world of 60 years ago was completely different than the world of today. Today the massed immigration of an entire nation of people displacing a native population would anger and inflame the whole world. Back then it was business as usual. We live in a more civilized world now but we can't help what our ancestors did nor should we be expected to feel guilty and apologize for being born and growing up on a peace of land.

Israel is there and it's not leaving. To put it bluntly, the angry Arab populations are going to have to get over it.

Your whole idea of a cessation of all aggression by both sides is incredibly naive and the world at large acknowledges it as such. For peace to be possible there has to be a legitimate desire for peace. Israel wants peace. Palestinians I'm sure want peace (mostly). Iran and militant organizations in the area have no desire for peace, have nothing to GAIN from peace and actually prosper at Israel's expense. Israel and Palestine can bargain and make concessions to each other all they want but until the area at large acknowledges at LEAST Israel's right to exist then Israel has no hope for peace.

With no hope for peace on one side and no desire for it from the other side, it's nothing short of remarkable how restrained Israel's aggression has been.

Israel has made VERY meaningful concessions in the past and it did nothing to appease its enemies. The Gaza strip withdrawl did nothing.