Jump to content

Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election


Recommended Posts

It's common knowledge, thank you.

Unfortunately your "common knowledge" is inconsistent with voting patterns. Just look at Canadian ridings with the highest percentage

of Jews. How many Conservative MPs were elected in those Montreal and Toronto ridings?

What is common knowledge to anti-Semites does not appear to have much in the way of supporting statistical evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're in a far more complex age than to allow simplistic "pro" and "anti" perceptions, strategies and policies to rule. Our approach should be based on principle, fairness and reality. This has yet to sink in both to individuals with atavistic tribal instincts, and certain party leaders alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes because they had all the good farm land in Gaza. It cost about 1.5 billion to move those people now there are about 50-60 times that amount in the West Bank and they are planted firmer then Gaza. You are looking at 50-100 billion dollars to move them.

And even more to secure the peace. That is why land is traded for peace. Or do you think Israel will do this if they think that they will be attacked militarily regardless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now try to say something that will change the facts, the actual state reality. Till then, I don't think there would be mch point in this discussion, as it's been proven to you with facts that your strategy is bankrupt, and you simply choose to ignore reality and refuse to admit it.

And the reality is that the focus is now on the West Bank whereas your focus is disengagement and sanctions.

Sanctions don't work so that strategy us more or less bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately your "common knowledge" is inconsistent with voting patterns. Just look at Canadian ridings with the highest percentage

of Jews. How many Conservative MPs were elected in those Montreal and Toronto ridings?

What is common knowledge to anti-Semites does not appear to have much in the way of supporting statistical evidence.

You mean like Thornhill, for example? How is this an example of anti-Semitism. Harper has been openly pandering to the "Jewish vote". Feel free to google "Jewish vote Canada" and read the articles relating to this topic that have appeared in the mainstream media over the last few years. It's clear that the "Jewish vote" is largely determined by the party's stance on Israel, not internal Canadian issues. That's what this is all about. If you want to be one of those fruits who have to label everything as anti-Semitism then why don't you go take a swim to Israel and leave Canada for the true Canadians. But whatever the case, this isn't just about Jews, rather numerous groups that vie to influence our government based solely on specific external issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the reality is that the focus

No, your focus is not the reality, it's your own private mental thing. The reality is that the settlements grew by 10%. That is the reality and also the result of your strategy. I'll have to repeat it as many times as necessary until one of the two happens, 1) you admit the obvious fact that your strategy has failed to stop the expansion of settlements; or 2) you say something that could instantly change the facts.

Other than the two, we're stuck with the factual situation and your focus is nothing more than a distraction, pointless talk, "dog ate my homework but".

Sanctions don't work so that strategy us more or less bankrupt.

We have one strategy that is already demonstratably bankrupt, so we can't really go any worse than that.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

It's in Canada's interest to support a fellow democracy which ensures human rights and freedoms and is an outpost of our culture in an otherwise hostile region of the world. Canadians of all races, genders, and religions can travel freely to Israel and not fear for their safety. It is not in Canada's interest to support a terrorist state where any Canadian that travels there is likely to get abducted or killed.

Israel is the front line in our war with fundamentalist Islam, and has been for 60 years. It's really as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in Canada's interest to support a fellow democracy which ensures human rights and freedoms and is an outpost of our culture in an otherwise hostile region of the world. Canadians of all races, genders, and religions can travel freely to Israel and not fear for their safety. It is not in Canada's interest to support a terrorist state where any Canadian that travels there is likely to get abducted or killed.

Israel is the front line in our war with fundamentalist Islam, and has been for 60 years. It's really as simple as that.

This is just bs painting a very grey issue black and white. It is us vs. them right at all costs? Lesser of evils and all that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in Canada's interest to support a fellow democracy which ensures human rights and freedoms and is an outpost of our culture in an otherwise hostile region of the world. Canadians of all races, genders, and religions can travel freely to Israel and not fear for their safety. It is not in Canada's interest to support a terrorist state where any Canadian that travels there is likely to get abducted or killed.

Our ability to travel should justify human right abuses, illegal practices and military operations conducted by one "democracy" against another?

"Outpost of culture" sounds much more convincing, and I'd quite agree, thanks for openness. It's hardly about democracy (Hamas is also a democratically elected government, after all, only with a very different result), but much more about setting up our outpost in the region (hostile or not, remains to be seen, but acts like establishing and keeping "outposts" by force certainly won't make it any friendlier). I.e. gang mentality, "us" against "them", the "democracy" thing is only a token, coin phrase for the feeble of mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just bs painting a very grey issue black and white. It is us vs. them right at all costs? Lesser of evils and all that?

At all costs? What costs are those? Do you see Canadians suffering and dying by the millions so we can perpetuate our support for Israel? No? Way too exaggerate. There is literally no cost associated with our prime minister stating his support for a nation that should indeed have our support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, your focus is not the reality, it's your own private mental thing. The reality is that the settlements grew by 10%. That is the reality and also the result of your strategy. I'll have to repeat it as many times as necessary until one of the two happens, 1) you admit the obvious fact that your strategy has failed to stop the expansion of settlements; or 2) you say something that could instantly change the facts.

I tell you facts but you don't hear them. I say it as many times back but you always says "but..."

Other than the two, we're stuck with the factual situation and your focus is nothing more than a distraction, pointless talk, "dog ate my homework but".

And you ignore the process that way set up before that did success and think that a new unproven one will work.

We have one strategy that is already demonstratably bankrupt, so we can't really go any worse than that.

Think not? I'd say your process could easily be worse since it concludes changes will happen from not being involved. We have both sides of that conflict telling us it won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tell you facts but you don't hear them. I say it as many times back but you always says "but..."

You must be meaning that factual proof that the expansion of settlements in ALL territories has finally ceased? Very unfortunately, that great news has missed me (and I think not only me), so can you kindly repost your sources?

If not though, I'll have to repeat my question again, so 1) your strategy failed (to halt the expansion of settlements, in more than two decades); or 2) you still going to say something that will change the reality around us; which one it's going to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jdobbin, I'm curious, do you actually support Israel, or are you just making these arguments because that is the stance that currently benefits the political party you are affiliated with?

I have supported Israel all my life. It isn't an uncritical support but it follows some basic principles: Israel is a Jewish state and Israel has the right to defend itself from attack.

My support comes from the fact that Israel is a democracy and as such has the best chance of achieving peace.

We have seen some remarkable ground in Israel's relationship with Egypt and Jordan and I think similar things can be achieved with Lebanon and Syria with some effort.

Having said that, their actions in the West Bank are provocative and illegal.

My support for the Palestinians comes from the fact that they too are a state. Their last elections were remarkably democratic but the outcome was literally a state of civil war of violent competing causes. The security of the areas they presently hold allows for attacks to happen on Israel which is unacceptable.

If more land is to come, it has to come with the prospect of peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be meaning that factual proof that the expansion of settlements in ALL territories has finally ceased? Very unfortunately, that great news has missed me (and I think not only me), so can you kindly repost your sources?

The factual proof is that Gaza was the first step and the next step was West Bank.

If not though, I'll have to repeat my question again, so 1) your strategy failed (to halt the expansion of settlements, in more than two decades); or 2) you still going to say something that will change the reality around us; which one it's going to be?

It halted the expansion of settlements in Gaza and ended them. That is success. Now the focus can be on the West Bank.

I suspect if we had followed your methods in Northern Ireland, we'd not have been in place to help usher in the present condition we see now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have supported Israel all my life. It isn't an uncritical support but it follows some basic principles: Israel is a Jewish state and Israel has the right to defend itself from attack.

My support comes from the fact that Israel is a democracy and as such has the best chance of achieving peace.

We have seen some remarkable ground in Israel's relationship with Egypt and Jordan and I think similar things can be achieved with Lebanon and Syria with some effort.

Having said that, their actions in the West Bank are provocative and illegal.

My support for the Palestinians comes from the fact that they too are a state. Their last elections were remarkably democratic but the outcome was literally a state of civil war of violent competing causes. The security of the areas they presently hold allows for attacks to happen on Israel which is unacceptable.

If more land is to come, it has to come with the prospect of peace.

Cool, good to know your stance. I too think peace can be achieved with Lebanon, though I'm not certain about Syria. They seem unlikely to abandon their claims to the Golan Heights any time soon, and giving up that area would be a grave mistake that I would hope Israel would be wise enough not to make.

The settlements in the West Bank are a tough issue. They do certainly aggravate the Palestinians, and ceasing expansion would likely be helpful the next time there is a serious peace negotiation, but removing them and asking Israel to forcibly transfer thousands of residents is also wrong. Imagine the outrage if Israel wanted to forcibly move some of its Arab citizens.

I too support a Palestinian state as I think it's the only realistic way forward, though a much better solution back in the aftermath of 67 would have been if Egypt would have taken back Gaza and Jordan taken back the West Bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, good to know your stance. I too think peace can be achieved with Lebanon, though I'm not certain about Syria. They seem unlikely to abandon their claims to the Golan Heights any time soon, and giving up that area would be a grave mistake that I would hope Israel would be wise enough not to make.

I don't think there can be a peace agreement with Syria without addressing the Golan Heights.

If the land is turned over, I think it will have to be secured by an outside force and Israeli and Syrian military would have to be excluded from entering it. To have any credibility that force probably have to be something other than the U.N.

The settlements in the West Bank are a tough issue. They do certainly aggravate the Palestinians, and ceasing expansion would likely be helpful the next time there is a serious peace negotiation, but removing them and asking Israel to forcibly transfer thousands of residents is also wrong. Imagine the outrage if Israel wanted to forcibly move some of its Arab citizens.

Israel knows expansion is illegal and even many Israelis believe the policy is provocative.

Land for peace is the only way this going to work. If settlements continue, the Israelis will find themselves stretched too thin and their security will continue to be threatened.

I too support a Palestinian state as I think it's the only realistic way forward, though a much better solution back in the aftermath of 67 would have been if Egypt would have taken back Gaza and Jordan taken back the West Bank.

Don't think they ever wanted the territory. It certainly might have been better for security since both those countries are fairly enlightened in regards to their relations with Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there can be a peace agreement with Syria without addressing the Golan Heights.

If the land is turned over, I think it will have to be secured by an outside force and Israeli and Syrian military would have to be excluded from entering it. To have any credibility that force probably have to be something other than the U.N.

My view on that is that Israel should normalize relations with the other countries around it, facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state, and let Syria rot. Syria isn't gonna attack Israel all by itself, and after a few centuries of Israeli ownership of the Golan, it will be a forgotten issue. Honestly, I don't think anyone cares if Syria is nominally "at war" with Israel.

Although you're definitely right about the UN, they have lost all credibility in the region.

Land for peace is the only way this going to work.

I think the land for peace strategy has lost a lot of credibility in Israel, after the Israelis observed first hand the effects of pulling out of Gaza and out of Lebanon. More bloodshed ensued, not peace.

Anyway, even if Israelis gave away the land, why does everyone just accept that that also means dismantling the settlements? Perhaps the Jewish settlers could live in peace in the new Palestinian state the same way that millions of Arabs live as citizens in Israel. And the international community would get oh so outraged every time there is even the slightest hint of discrimination in the Palestinian state against its Jewish citizens...

The fact that such a possibility is hopelessly far from reality, and indeed sounds ludicrous to consider, should show how one-sided the international expectations of Israel are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view on that is that Israel should normalize relations with the other countries around it, facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state, and let Syria rot. Syria isn't gonna attack Israel all by itself, and after a few centuries of Israeli ownership of the Golan, it will be a forgotten issue. Honestly, I don't think anyone cares if Syria is nominally "at war" with Israel.

Syria has been making overtures to the U.S. It might be about the best time to see if a lasting peace agreement is possible.

There may be a major shift in Iran and Syrian relations.

If settlements from Golan an be removed, land turned back to Syria, a peace agreement signed and a security force left in place, we can say another step has been made to security in the area.

Although you're definitely right about the UN, they have lost all credibility in the region.

A force in place in Syria can't be merely an observation force. It has to be able to stop insurgent attacks from the heights and it has to be able to turn away Syrian and Israeli forces from entering.

I think the land for peace strategy has lost a lot of credibility in Israel, after the Israelis observed first hand the effects of pulling out of Gaza and out of Lebanon. More bloodshed ensued, not peace.

Sadly, this had a lot to do with the aftermath of the Palestinian elections and Hamas trying to assert themselves by lashing out because they felt there were no consequences.

Land for peace is still the strategy that has to be tried. if Israel continues to expand, they will find it harder and harder to protect their people.

Anyway, even if Israelis gave away the land, why does everyone just accept that that also means dismantling the settlements? Perhaps the Jewish settlers could live in peace in the new Palestinian state the same way that millions of Arabs live as citizens in Israel. And the international community would get oh so outraged every time there is even the slightest hint of discrimination in the Palestinian state against its Jewish citizens...

That is certainly a possibility. However, if the land ownership is disputed, it will be difficult. In other words, if a settlement was built on land once owned by a Palestinian, it will be the source of friction.

The fact that such a possibility is hopelessly far from reality, and indeed sounds ludicrous to consider, should show how one-sided the international expectations of Israel are.

You take your opportunities where you can find them.

I think Syria represents the best opportunity in decades. You should see the 4th of July message that Syria sent to the U.S. It certainly looks like something that might lead to fruitful talks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syria has been making overtures to the U.S. It might be about the best time to see if a lasting peace agreement is possible.

There may be a major shift in Iran and Syrian relations.

If settlements from Golan an be removed, land turned back to Syria, a peace agreement signed and a security force left in place, we can say another step has been made to security in the area.

A force in place in Syria can't be merely an observation force. It has to be able to stop insurgent attacks from the heights and it has to be able to turn away Syrian and Israeli forces from entering.

...

I think Syria represents the best opportunity in decades. You should see the 4th of July message that Syria sent to the U.S. It certainly looks like something that might lead to fruitful talks.

There are no insurgent attacks from the Golan Heights, now. There are no refugees or disenfranchised Arabs living in the Golan heights. If Syria wants peace with Israel, then they should accept such peace on the basis of the merits of peace. If what they want is land which they can use against Israel in the future, then what they want is not peace, and Israel has no reason to give it to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no insurgent attacks from the Golan Heights, now. There are no refugees or disenfranchised Arabs living in the Golan heights. If Syria wants peace with Israel, then they should accept such peace on the basis of the merits of peace. If what they want is land which they can use against Israel in the future, then what they want is not peace, and Israel has no reason to give it to them.

I was thinking of what could be gained by having Syria end it support of attacks they have supported on Lebanese soil against Israel.

There are landowners from Syria that lost their land when the Heights were taken. That should be the incentive for Syria plus sovereignty over that land again. A security force left in place and a peace agreement could see an end to tensions there.

Was it so different between Israel and Egypt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It halted the expansion of settlements in Gaza and ended them. That is success. Now the focus can be on the West Bank.

OK Dobbin, thank you, you finally did it. From the facts, we know that over two decades your strategy has been in place, the settlements grew by 70%. And now you're saying it was a success. I'm putting one and two together, and I can only conclude (as would anybody following the laws of logic and rationality) that for you, a substantial growth of settlements (70%) is a success. I can't care less, that you point to some distraction, some emptly field somewhere as an excuse or diversion. the fact remains, that for you,

70% increase in settlements = "success"

So whatever you said previously about burning to assist in peace, must be either a confusion of mental state, or even worse, a deliberate deception, because for any rational individual, trumpeting agressive acts of that magnitude as success would be about as contrary to the real, genuine objective of peace, as anything possibly could.

P.S I alrady said that your "focus" is your own, private, mental, thing (unless a useless excuse, distraction even a first grader would be able to see through) and I'll repeat it as many times as necessary for it to sink in. By insisting that your private visions, focuses and strategems have immediate bearing on reality, you only making a ridicule of yourself. A token of a rational person is to be able to admit the reality and change their ways if they don't agree with it. Your position in this discussion reflects neither, and if it's representing the position, or condition of your party, I would be even more reluctant than ever to support it, because to me general lacking of rationality is by far more serious problem than a disagreement on any particular issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't care less, that you point to some distraction, some emptly field somewhere as an excuse or diversion. the fact remains, that for you,

It isn't a distraction. It is a simple truth.

P.S I alrady said that your "focus" is your own, private, mental, thing (unless a useless excuse, distraction even a first grader would be able to see through) and I'll repeat it as many times as necessary for it to sink in. By insisting that your private visions, focuses and strategems have immediate bearing on reality, you only making a ridicule of yourself. A token of a rational person is to be able to admit the reality and change their ways if they don't agree with it. Your position in this discussion reflects neither, and if it's representing the position, or condition of your party, I would be even more reluctant than ever to support it, because to me general lacking of rationality is by far more serious problem than a disagreement on any particular issue.

And I'll repeat it is as many times as it needs to sink in. The focus was first on Gaza and now on the West Bank.

Feel free to support the NDP in thee next election if you feel it would help. Maybe they will take you up on your idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a distraction. It is a simple truth.

Simple truth is, Dobbin:

- twenty years (1989 - 2009)

- 70% increase in illegal settlements in ALL territories

- "success" (jdobbin)

That is the truth. However you try to squirt and look the other way, there's no denying obvious facts.

The focus was first on Gaza and now on the West Bank.

Your previous focuses brought massive increase in illegal settlements, and it would be irrational, if not insane, to expect a different result from applying the same failed approach over and over and again.

Feel free to support the NDP in thee next election if you feel it would help. Maybe they will take you up on your idea.

I'll support anybody with a grain of rational attitude to reality, of which your position obviously has none. If one fails to even admit plain simple obvious facts, it'd be pure insanity to let them govern a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...