Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

myata · August 18, 2009

That's exactly how it is. The thing is that one side is largely content to live inside its borders (aside from tiny settlements here and there)

Reality check: 500,000+ illegal settlers, counting on daily, "here and there". How exactly does that line up with "living inside its borders"? Are you making the first step on the path of fitting the reality to a prefabricated, foregone conclusion?

Think about it. If you have outlying settlements they can basically act as security outposts for you. It pushes friendly territory outwards and makes certain that any rocket attacks on big Jewish population centres have to be conducted further away than if the settlements were not there. The settlements themselves are not really in danger of rocket attacks. It would be a waste of rockets to fire salvos at villages and hamlets. It's not a human shield at all.

Setting aside the questionnable issue of putting civilians in the security buffer ways, you justified the practice of illegal settlements based on the threats of attacks. Somebody on the other side justifies the need to fight on, even with rocket attacks, because of contnuing encrachement of their land. What exactly has been proven? Other than the fight goes on, and you just taken a side in it. Without, remember, yet providing any logical rationale for doing so.

The whole point, however, is that one side is not interested in an end to hostilities by their OWN ADMISSION until the other side no longer exists.

The other side has hardly proven it with their act of continuing illegal settlement of occupied land.

Easy. Of the two sides, Israel seems largely content to be left alone in peace within its own borders. Israel's aggression has been highly reactive rather than proactive (it has the means to vastly expand its territories but doesn't)

That statement is demonstratedly false. There's massive number of settlers in the occupied territories and this policy does not abate, even in this thread there's been a documented confirmation of a massive current expansion project of 2,500 family units, plus number of smaller ones. So as a matter of fact, no, judging by its act, Isreal has not been content to "live in its borders" from Day 1 of the conflict.

and of the two sides it is the one NOT calling for the overall death and destruction of the other side.

You want to equate an agressive word ("calling") with agressive act (stealing of land)? Or excuse the latter by the former?

It is NOT advocating the murder of innocents

Another highly questionnable statement. Simpy examine casualties accounts of Isreal's recent operations. Yet again, "calling" may come about drastically different from acting.

and it is NOT refusing to acknowledge the other side's right to exist.

Another verbal argument.

Finally, Israel, being the area/country in question, is a very real entity with a very real interest in the peace process. It's Israel's territory and people that get killed during attacks.

Right, and Palestinians never get killed in Israels invasions and retaliations, do they? What an argument. I'm right because I'm real entity for peace and so I have to be right.

Let's round it up though. So we have militant attacks and a load of hostile polemics on one side vs massive, by many accounts of independent observers, unjustified and disproportionate, military invasions, continuing illegal settlement of occupied land in massive numbers, human rights violations in the occupied territories. I don't really see any one side coming out on top of the moral scale here, so could you perhaps elaborate on your choice of criteria? Why e.g. ceasing militant attacks should take a priority over stopping the illegal settlement practice? Why recognition of Isreal should come before its apology for the initial act that created the conflict? Please.

Iran and the frothing clerics calling for the death of Israel have ZERO interest in the peace process. It's their overall GOAL to foment violence and instability in the area.

OK, and now our inaction can be written off to the influence of Iran. Without offering any evidence that they have any level of influence in the conflict.

I've already eplained why the side engaging at least in the dialogue of peace and the side restraining its aggression is on the better side of the conflict.

No, "dialogue of peace" is hardly credible while trading behind your partner's back, and that's exactly what happened so far. Each time there's been attempt at negotiations, Israel has massively increased its settlements in the territories. So no, you haven't proven that any one side has attempted a genuine dialogue, yet. Just as any one side has acted in any way "better" than its opponents. So far it appears that your advocacy for one side is based on some individual factors and I urge you to either attempt to understand which ones (idelogical; historical proximity; sense of guilt for ancestors, etc), or find some better argumentation.

I'm ridiculing how moronically naive your suggestion is. The world 60 years ago was very different than today. Palestine was divied up and handed to the Jews in the same sort of way conquerors and imperialists had been doing for thousands of years. That SPECICIC area has been conquered and reconquered more than anywhere in the world since the beginning of civilization. Back then, that sort of thing was commonplace. Today however, with a vastly more educated and engaged world at large, it would not be permitted.

Yet this act was very specific and it certainly played a major role in escalation of the conflict. I'm not sure burying it in the ground actualy helps to heal the conflict. Let's remember the recent apologies for residential schools here, in this country, or for treatment of aboriginals in Australia that transpired in similar, or even earlier timelines. So, admitting and owning the sins of the past is actually possible.

It was an injustice in today's (and my own) moral sense. Having said that, it is not an injustice that can now be reversed. The bottom line is that there are 5-6 million Jews living in Israel right now that are simply not going anywhere. Most of these were born in Israel and have lived there all their lives.
With this in mind, your suggestion that Israel makes apologies and concessions for the land it currently occupies is brainless. All it does is weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies. You're saying that it would be a good idea for Israel to further endanger itself in 'gestures of good faith' with the knowledge that they'd be receiving nothing good in return. It's like dropping your gun to offer a candy bar to a starving lion in the hopes that it will leave you alone.

Well, this is simply a position counter productive to peace because in the eyes of opposition it ferments the image of agresssor not only committing act of inustice, but also refusing to recognise and atone for it. There's less chance to achieve peace with that stance, because peace would have to involve two sides, the descendants of those who took the lands, and of those who lost it.

As far as we in the West are concerned, it's not like we're condoning Israeli aggression. Things like the Lebanese war and the Gaza offensive were criticized HEAVILY.

Yet again, you want to equate words with act. Recall real practical isolation and blockade even for the fact of election of Hamas in the government. There's been not a single act from the West in response to these events. None at all to respond to ongoing expansion of settlements. That's a clean plate, as far as act goes in the matter of "not condoning Israel's agression". It speaks far more, and better, than any words yet.

benny · August 19, 2009

Yet this act was very specific and it certainly played a major role in escalation of the conflict. I'm not sure burying it in the ground actualy helps to heal the conflict. Let's remember the recent apologies for residential schools here, in this country, or for treatment of aboriginals in Australia that transpired in similar, or even earlier timelines. So, admitting and owning the sins of the past is actually possible.

To me, this apology will have to be made by the nations behind the United Nations' resolution creating the state of Israel, not by Israel all by itself.

jbg · August 19, 2009

My arguments here are based on about 3000 years of world history and a firm grip on reality, which is clearly evading you.

They certainly are.

Your arguments are a breathe of fresh air compared to Myata, Benny and Oleg.

myata · August 19, 2009

To me, this apology will have to be made by the nations behind the United Nations' resolution creating the state of Israel, not by Israel all by itself.

They could certainly improve credibility of their peaceful intents by contributing to Israel's apology (for taking of lands without agreement of people who were already settled there).

benny · August 19, 2009

They could certainly improve credibility of their peaceful intents by contributing to Israel's apology (for taking of lands without agreement of people who were already settled there).

Because a state is an exclusive security agency and that national security is non-negotiable, the creation of the state of Israel should be the sole object of apology.

punked · August 19, 2009

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/...on_s/?ref=fpblg

benny · August 19, 2009

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/...on_s/?ref=fpblg

Rumors?

Charles Anthony · August 19, 2009

Everybody,

Stop the off-topic banter. Discuss "Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election" or stay out of this thread.

If you want to talk about Israel, do so in the International section.

Ch. A.

Oleg Bach · August 19, 2009

Tony has a sharp eye. I almost hear his voice when he makes an annoucement...kind of British - authoritarian...kind of like the dad you always wanted -

Back on topic - Can someone explain why they "battle" for "Jewish support" ? Are there that many Jews in Canada that they could effect the out come of an election? Does the Jewish community vote in blocks? Or is this still the perpetuation of the myth that they are the great eye in the sky?

Bonam · August 19, 2009

Tony has a sharp eye. I almost hear his voice when he makes an annoucement...kind of British - authoritarian...kind of like the dad you always wanted -
Back on topic - Can someone explain why they "battle" for "Jewish support" ? Are there that many Jews in Canada that they could effect the out come of an election? Does the Jewish community vote in blocks? Or is this still the perpetuation of the myth that they are the great eye in the sky?

There are a few individual ridings in which the amount of Jews is significant enough for them to worry about.

benny · August 20, 2009

There are a few individual ridings in which the amount of Jews is significant enough for them to worry about.

Jews, and Christians after them, can in no way be considered as "amount"; through Judaism, each Jew has become a singular universal.

Edited August 20, 2009 by benny

myata · August 20, 2009

Shift to the right led by the current Liberal leadership has been noted already. Policy on Israel may be just one more indication of this shift. Another reason, as already pointed out by somebody, could be attracting donations from some business interests.

Interestingly, before this recent shift, Liberals were sometimes branded centre-left, while Tories - centre-right. Given that pure ideal "centre" may not exist (other than as indication of accomplished political apathy), where would this recent change of direction take the party? Correct, and that would certainly explain virtually non-existent differences in essential policies (as opposed to worthless polemics) between the two parties.

I found this official statement of Liberal policy on Middle East (Liberal - questionnaire Oct 2008) It dates to the times of Dion though. I could find surprisingly little on Ignatieff current position on the issue. Perhaps he's deliberately avoiding specific comments.

Edited August 20, 2009 by myata

benny · August 20, 2009

where would this recent change of direction take the party?

Simple, to a position with which they can form the government!

myata · August 20, 2009

And, with the shift in mind, in what way would that government differ from the one that's in place now?

benny · August 20, 2009

And, with the shift in mind, in what way would that government differ from the one that's in place now?

In name only!

jdobbin · August 20, 2009

Shift to the right led by the current Liberal leadership has been noted already. Policy on Israel may be just one more indication of this shift. Another reason, as already pointed out by somebody, could be attracting donations from some business interests.

All donors are small donors. I suppose there could be business people among them. The Elections Canada report certainly doesn't indicate large chunks of captains of industry donating individually.

Jewish voters who care about Israeli issues who feared that a pro-Hamas tilt in the Liberals now know that this isn't the case in the party with new leadership. Many who have voted for the Liberals for social liberal policies in the past will feel more comfortable returning to their roots.

As for the NDP, their sponsorship of Israel Apartheid Week will no likely be noted in the next election. Even some of their own MPs were outraged.

benny · August 20, 2009

Jewish voters who care about Israeli issues who feared that a pro-Hamas tilt in the Liberals now know that this isn't the case in the party with new leadership.

What we know is only that Ignatieff is able to contradict himself to please the crowd where he happens to speak.

myata · August 20, 2009

Jewish voters who care about Israeli issues who feared that a pro-Hamas tilt in the Liberals now know that this isn't the case in the party with new leadership.

And why would they have to fear that "tilt", would there be any ground for that statement? The policy in place under Dion has been posted, there's certainly very little about love for Hamas in there.

Unless, of course, any attempt to maintain a balanced and principled position will be branded and "feared", by some, as that diabolical "tilt". A great justification, no doubt, for abandoning it (principles and balance that is), and joining the ranks of the cheering band for one side in the conflict. Just like their purported arch rivals.

jdobbin · August 20, 2009

And why would they have to fear that "tilt", would there be any ground for that statement? The policy in place under Dion has been posted, there's certainly very little about love for Hamas in there.

There were a few MPs who seemed to tilt in that direction. As noted last week in the media, the Liberals are steering well clear of Hamas.

Unless, of course, any attempt to maintain a balanced and principled position will be branded and "feared", by some, as that diabolical "tilt". A great justification, no doubt, for abandoning it (principles and balance that is), and joining the ranks of the cheering band for one side in the conflict. Just like their purported arch rivals.

Your balanced and principled approach sounds like Antisemitism to many Jewish voters since it seems to focus on them more than anyone else.

benny · August 20, 2009

There were a few MPs who seemed to tilt in that direction. As noted last week in the media, the Liberals are steering well clear of Hamas.

I think you invent this tilting power of this few MPs to look good.

myata · August 20, 2009

I see, nameless MPs, vague and unexplained "fears" and all too familiar standard coined labels on anything that wouldn't fit party line (no less false and groundless for that matter, but who cares really) as justification of New Liberals abandonment of principles and rejoining the cheering pack led by New Conservatives.

What a harmony!

But guess what. Between two identical devils many may just choose the more familiar one. There will be a cost for abandoning core principles, and it appears that New Libs are just about to discover that. Good sailing.

benny · August 20, 2009

I see, nameless MPs, vague and unexplained "fears" and all too familiar standard coined labels on anything that wouldn't fit party line (no less false and groundless for that matter, but who cares really) as justification of New Liberals abandonment of principles and rejoining the cheering pack led by New Conservatives.
What a harmony!

But guess what. Between two identical devils many may just choose the more familiar one. There will be a cost for abandoning core principles, and it appears that New Libs are just about to discover that. Good sailing.

I agree. Dobbin seems eager to create the belief that Liberal's leadership is more authoritarian than ever.

jdobbin · August 20, 2009

I see, nameless MPs, vague and unexplained "fears" and all too familiar standard coined labels on anything that wouldn't fit party line (no less false and groundless for that matter, but who cares really) as justification of New Liberals abandonment of principles and rejoining the cheering pack led by New Conservatives.
What a harmony!

They aren't nameless. Borys Wrzesnewsky was one in particular and last week, he didn't visit Gaza so as not to lend support to Hamas.

But guess what. Between two identical devils many may just choose the more familiar one. There will be a cost for abandoning core principles, and it appears that New Libs are just about to discover that. Good sailing.

By all means vote NDP and support their Israel Apartheid campaign.

punked · August 20, 2009

By all means vote NDP and support their Israel Apartheid campaign.

Yah like this.

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com...0&Itemid=86

All the NDP wants if for Israel to recognize the UN's ruling on the occupied land, and a two state solution. It might interest you the Dartmouth-Cole harbour NDP Candidate last election had actually live in Isreal and worked with the Palestinian people but never mind listening to those who have been there right?

Edited August 20, 2009 by punked