Harper blames Israeli stance for UN snub

[Jack Weber]

Your buddies better get moving and kill more Jews so that settlement building stops altogether, eh?

dre logic: WW2 would have been at lot less violent had we let the Germans keep Europe.

That sounds almost "Lictoresque"...Remember his "We should have acquiesced to Adolph Hitler because we would have stopped the bloodthirsty Communists better if we had done that",pretzel logic?

Edited November 13, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Bob]

Harper has taken a principled stand and he is willing to take the hits for it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/08/excerpt-harpers-speech-on-israel-anti-semitism/

Harper's position is unambiguous, unequivocal and nuance-free. His speech is in the public domain domestically and internationally. He knows his comments will draw compliments and condemnations but obviously that did not stand in his way to be clear about where he stands. It took a lot of guts to speak as he did about what's happening in our universities and at the UN.

Here is a Prime Minister that has laid out in frank terms how he sees it, the consequences to his administration be damned. I hope everyone will read his speech. Seldom do we hear a leader speak so candidly.

Have I told you lately that you're one of my favorite posters on here? Because you are.

[dre]

I really don't want to go off on this tangent, but very often words evolve beyond their simplistic literal understandings. Why do I need to explain to this to you? It's the natural evolution of language. So although the terms "Semites/Semitic" refer to a group of people much broader than just the Jewish people, "anti-Semitism" as is now a synonym with anti-Jewish, and has been for quite some time now. Any dictionary will confirm this. There is something very strange about people who bring this subject up and try to attack the meanings of commonly used terminology. Without fail, these types of irrelevant tangents are always brought up by the anti-Israel crowd. Surprise, surprise.

The problem is you take offense and accuse other people of "re-defining words", when their definition doesnt suit you, but then when its pointed out youve done the same thing suddenly is just the "natural evolution of words".

He can use the literal definition and you can use todays pop culture definition. But its no more accurate for you to accuse him of redefinition than vice versa.

[bloodyminded]

all-the-while knowing that the Jewish community of Canada traditionally supports the Liberal party overwhelmingly (unfortunately, just as the Jewish community of the USA traditionally supports the Democratic party overwhelmingly)

Yes, North American Jewish people are disproportionately liberal in their outlook. By a long shot. It's an interesting phenomenon, generating much bland, second-rate theorizing and hand-wringing (which would be deemed "self-hating" were they wondering aloud about right-wing Jewry) from Norman Podhoretz and David Horowitz.

It bothered me to think that Israel might be being used as a political football simply to garner votes. After speaking with some close Jewish friends who have had direct communications with high-level officials in both the Conservative and Liberal parties, I was told (and I believe this) that the Conservative party's support for Israel, primarily Harper's as PM, is genuine and rooted in principle, and not in politics.

Yes, just as Christopher Hitchens "knew" that the neocon international policies were based soley on moral considerations, thanks to "conversations I've had in Washington" and his acquaintanceship with the affable Paul Wolfowitz.

This kind of thinking is a profound misunderstanding of the institutional paradigm in matters of State...and also a miscomprehension of human nature generally.

People rarely sit about in closed meetings, chortling over their embrace of evil and the way they've duped the public. Just as, when I worked for WalMart, lower management could (sloppily) confide in me one day about the unjust and rotten policies of the corporation, while extolling its Great Virtues the next.

"Doublethink" was only Orwell's coinage; he didn't invent the concept, but rather was reporting on it.

[dre]

That sounds almost "Lictoresque"...Remember his "We should have acquiesced to Adolph Hitler because we would have stopped the bloodthirsty Communists better if we had done that",pretzel logic?

You gotta cut him some slack though... remember... hes talking me here... a holocaust denying, jew hating, nazi racist, confirmed terrorist and national socialist.

Little lapses in logic can be forgiven when dealing monsters like me.

[Bob]

The problem is you take offense and accuse other people of "re-defining words", when their definition doesnt suit you, but then when its pointed out youve done the same thing suddenly is just the "natural evolution of words".

He can use the literal definition and you can use todays pop culture definition. But its no more accurate for you to accuse him of redefinition than vice versa.

It isn't the pop-culture definition, it's the widely-accepted definition. It is you who is trying to redefine this word, for suspicious reasons. The term "anti-Semitism", interestingly, was coined by an anti-Semite describing his prejudice. Check the dictionary. There are many other examples of terms that do not exactly fit their literal meanings, it's called the evolution of language.

[bloodyminded]

You gotta cut him some slack though... remember... hes talking me here... a holocaust denying, jew hating, nazi racist, confirmed terrorist and national socialist.

Little lapses in logic can be forgiven when dealing monsters like me.

Good point. How are we expected to discuss anything rationally when we're dealing with your baleful influence?

[Bob]

Yes, North American Jewish people are disproportionately liberal in their outlook. By a long shot. It's an interesting phenomenon, generating much bland, second-rate theorizing and hand-wringing (which would be deemed "self-hating" were they wondering aloud about right-wing Jewry) from Norman Podhoretz and David Horowitz.

Yes, just as Christopher Hitchens "knew" that the neocon international policies were based soley on moral considerations, thanks to "conversations I've had in Washington" and his acquaintanceship with the affable Paul Wolfowitz.

This kind of thinking is a profound misunderstanding of the institutional paradigm in matters of State...and also a miscomprehension of human nature generally.

People rarely sit about in closed meetings, chortling over their embrace of evil and the way they've duped the public. Just as, when I worked for WalMart, lower management could (sloppily) confide in me one day about the unjust and rotten policies of the corporation, while extolling its Great Virtues the next.

"Doublethink" was only Orwell's coinage; he didn't invent the concept, but rather was reporting on it.

I'm not really sure how to reply to this completely irrelevant tangent. I'm telling you, as an intelligent and honest person, that I have good reasons to believe that the Conservative party's support for Israel, primarily Harper's as a man, is rooted in principle and not in politics. Of course I may be wrong, but this is my judgement based on personal conversations I've had with important people who have had personal dealings with Harpers and other prominent Conservative party personalities. Take it or leave it.

Simplistically, there's more support to be had among the anti-Israel crowd. I don't think that's much of a surprise to anyone with any grasp of the Canadian political environment.

[dre]

It isn't the pop-culture definition, it's the widely-accepted definition. It is you who is trying to redefine this word, for suspicious reasons. The term "anti-Semitism", interestingly, was coined by an anti-Semite describing his prejudice. Check the dictionary. There are many other examples of terms that do not exactly fit their literal meanings, it's called the evolution of language.

It isn't the pop-culture definition, it's the widely-accepted definition

Yes thats exactly what pop culture means.

•Popular culture (commonly known as pop culture) is the totality of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, memes, images and other phenomena that are deemed preferred per an informal consensus within the mainstream of a given culture, specifically Western culture of the early to mid 20th century and the.

Your definition is the one accepted by most people today, and is the definition most commonly used.

It is you who is trying to redefine this word, for suspicious reasons.

Ahh yes... suspicious reasons. Glad to see my nefarious use of the DICTIONARY didnt ellude you. I didnt attempt to redefine ANYTHING. I personally use the term the same way that you do, i just pointed out his definition is also accurate and no more of a redefinition than yours.

[Bob]

Since you mention Iggy, here goes. He too spoke at the same conference as Harper. In his usual "not white, not black, but gray" approach, Iggy appears to pander to all sides in one fell swoop.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/08/david-frum-ignatieffs-confused-pointless-thoughts-on-why-anti-semitism-is-bad/

Sounds like a speech loaded with nuance from the King of Nuances.

I looked for Ignatieff's speech but I can't find it anywhere, not even on Liberal.ca. I'd like to read the whole thing. Anyone have a link?

This is a great illustration of the wishy-washiness that seems to personify Ignatieff. His lack of a position and clear understanding of the issues is illustrated by his all-over-the-place speeches and positions. Of course I am not trying to pretend the world and all its problems and issues are black and white, but Ignatieff speaks in broad generalities without ever getting into the nitty-gritty. A true politician devoid of principle.

[dre]

Good point. How are we expected to discuss anything rationally when we're dealing with your baleful influence?

Yeah, maybe I should leave. To be honest I have lots to do... Im WAY behind on my jew gassing, and I have about 1/2 a dozen partially finished suicide vests. Also my national socialist world domination agenda has really been neglected of late. Its weeks behind where it should be.

Its tough to be a maniacle evil mastermind and still keep with the threads here!.

[Bob]

Ahh, the common tactic of decrying any recognition of the power of the Jewish lobby as anti-semitic conspiracy theories.

How insightful and unexpected.

Would you care to elaborate on who exactly composes this Jewish lobby, and then please demonstrate to us this "power" that is wielded by this lobby. Please and thank you.

[Bob]

The suggestion that the Tories stance on Israel is based on the Jewish vote is entirely ignorant of the demographics and voting pattern in Canada. It's also borderline anti-Semitic itself. It implies all Jews in Canada have only one issue; the support of Israel. It suggest that, in fact Jews are not true Canadians, but care more about Israel than Canada. And it then justifies the attacks on Jews made by those who hate Israel. It's stupid. It's ignorant. It's moronic. I am not interested in pandering to Jewish votes, and sometimes what Israel does really ticks me off, but they're still far, far, far and away more enlightened, democratic and open minded than the herd of religious nut jobs who surround them.

I agree with you, but as a Canadian Jew who is now living in Israel, I can tell you that the Israeli-Arab conflict is an issue very close to the hearts of many Jews. I have no idea how to quantify this, however, as I have met so many different Jews with varying degrees of connection to the issue as well as various opinions towards the issue. I can tell you, a very warped approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict is certainly a red-line for me. I could not bring myself to vote for someone like Ignatieff who cannot take the moral position of supporting Israel's purpose as the eternal Jewish homeland and its legitimate rights to security. Ironically, however, as you've already stated, the majority of Jewish Canadians vote for the Liberal party, which at least in recent years is much weaker in its support for Israel and much more deferential to anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sentiment coming from certain parts of the Arab/Muslim and leftist communities. Perhaps Harper's stronger support for Israel will garner him more votes from Jewish Canadians as this new contrast between the former and current Liberal party (and other leftist parties) becomes more well-known. Personally, I hope Harper's decidedly more pro-Israel positions will resonate with Canadian Jews who feel connected to Israel, and increase support for his party among the Canadian Jewish communities.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not really sure how to reply to this completely irrelevant tangent. I'm telling you, as an intelligent and honest person, that I have good reasons to believe that the Conservative party's support for Israel, primarily Harper's as a man, is rooted in principle and not in politics. Of course I may be wrong, but this is my judgement based on personal conversations I've had with important people who have had personal dealings with Harpers and other prominent Conservative party personalities. Take it or leave it.

I'm leaving it, and I explained why...in my direct response to your uselessly anecdotal information...which you deem an "irrelevant tangent."

That is, your unverifiable, at-second-hand personal anecdotes about the unfettered moral principle of the PM presumably constitute sober political discourse; whereas my brief response, citing institutional factors that are not even controversial assertions, are simply inappropriate.

Simplistically, there's more support to be had among the anti-Israel crowd. I don't think that's much of a surprise to anyone with any grasp of the Canadian political environment.

No, that's a simplification. Every political party--without exceptions, to my knowledge--navigates various minefields of contentious issues, and sometimes embraces some that do not unequivocally align with some (real or perceived) sense of the majority public will.

Every party.

Their constitutents are varied and frequently contradictory, and it's often not a matter of very simple vote-getting....which is never close to a guarantee anyway.

For example...my prediction is that, in the next election, the majority of Canadian Jews will continue to not vote CPC.

However, this does not clearly delineate that it's a "principled" stance; but it does delineate that getting votes is not a simple, zero-sum game.

We could discuss the reasons for the CPC's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and no doubt summon many reasons for it...even conceivably including principle (as one, lesser, of many), though this seems dubious at best.

I also agree that the fabled lobby might not be of terribly profound significance; less so than in the US, and I believe that lobby's influence to be often overstated as well.

But to lay it at the hallowed feet of "principle" is not only the same argument in kind as laying it at the feet of an all-powerful lobby...it's even more unlikely.

Edited November 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

Would you care to elaborate on who exactly composes this Jewish lobby, and then please demonstrate to us this "power" that is wielded by this lobby. Please and thank you.

Heres an article that might help.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:srEUCLOxH60J:web2.concordia.ca/canadianjewishjournal/pdf/adam_cutler.pdf+canadian+jewish+lobby&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjI9jPi-frFIvDslvL5wA-FvgD1EijV_4AOEZCQzC4BFyRXxuhC9_7h7I48l7NoGamzK-yp60iHHKo9Rgl-A1vhq8vlUF4fprkOwOuW17fO0VWClUhs3fbZQ6wRVgFjVVlVyMzt&sig=AHIEtbTKlphjrtnorEBCjpJNpiyqBT7VWA

It takes a look at the whole concept of ethnic lobbies, and the power they wield.

My personally take on it is that its a GOOD thing in a democracy that Canadian citizens can have an impact on foreign policy. I dont find the idea of a "jewish" lobby to be nefarious in nature at all.

Theres some argument however that the "jewish lobby" might have disproportiate influence when compare to other special interest groups... That would be a problem, but Iv never seen any direct evidence that the claim is true.

My guess is that Canada more pro-Israel position of late is driven a lot more by traditional ideological factors than Canadas jewish citizens. Harper is hamming it up for CONSERVATIVES who tend to be more sympathetic to Israel than liberals.

I dont believe that the assertion that Canadas jewish population plays such a roll is backed up by evidence, and I also dont believe its helpfull as it paints Canadian jews as being this monolithic group when they just flat out are not. In fact jews world wide are also NOT. Not even in Israel does such a consensus exist.

[Bob]

Harper has said that Jews are the only people who are under threat.

Yes, there are nutbars that would like to kill all the Jews, but no one with any power.

There are also Israeli nutbars who would like to kill all the Palestinians.

There are also Christian nutbars who would like to kill all the Gays.

There are also KKK nutbars who would like to kill all of the above.

This post, among others, illustrates your flawed approach to understanding this conflict. Fundamentally, you sincerely believe that anti-Semitism isn't a very serious problem and that threats to Israel, the eternal Jewish homeland, aren't significant.

All we must do is look at contemporary history. Without even going into the trials and tribulations my people endured in many parts of the world, we can examine Israel's history. Aside from wars of aggression waged against Israel by its enemies which sought Israel's destruction (or at least severe damage and casualties) in '48, '54, '67, '73, '82, as well as lower-intensity conflicts such as the War of Attrition as terrorism over the past many decades which have targeted Jews not only in Israel but abroad, there are still many legitimate reasons why the perception of threats against Israel and the Jewish people are that they are serious.

Jews are still being murdered and injured because they are Jewish. Ahmedinejad is supplying weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah, and a myriad of other lesser-known terrorist organizations that are used to kill Jews. We have had many smaller wars and skirmishes within our territory as well as along our borders for many decades, as well as pre-dating Israel by several decades. Saddam launched scud missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War. Jewish centres and interests have been attacked around the world in terrorist attacks killing hundreds, Jewish people have been kidnapped and murdered because they were Jewish, murdering hundreds, threats are levied against us and acted upon by prominent political, terrorist, and social leaders. We are not merely imagining these threats. We are not exaggerating these threats. On the other hand, people like yourself are telling us that Ahmedinejad isn't anti-Semitic although he openly engages in Holocaust-denial and supports virulently anti-Semitic terrorist groups publicly and secretly. Although I think you sincerely believe that Israel really isn't under any serious threat, many people who are much more knowledgeable than yourself say the same garbage as you although with the deliberate and malicious intentions to deceive others. Your worst crime is ignorance, I believe.

Lastly, you have no idea how much sacrifice the Jewish people and Israel have made towards protecting against these threats. From the necessary draft of Jewish (and some other) citizens of Israel to the army to the massive costs associate with defense and security needs. These are costs, material as well as human and emotional, that most Canadians don't understand and aren't aware of. You didn't need to go to the army for three years (or two years for young women) in order to serve your country. You don't have to make major materialistic sacrifices in order to support the Israeli military which is the backbone of this country (without it our enemies would've destroyed us long ago). If it wasn't for these constant threats and attacks and wars, the standard of living would be much higher here. We'd all have bigger apartments and houses and drive newer and fancier cars and have nicer electronics and appliances and more expensive clothes. You don't get that. Hopefully, after my response, you can appreciate this a bit more.

The threats against Israel and the Jewish people aren't imagined or overexaggerated. If anything, these threats and attacks and associated costs are underappreciated by people such as yourself, thousands of kilometres away from the scene, with barely any knowledge about this conflict, with no stake whatsoever in it, telling us we're overreacting and that we need to calm down.

[Argus]

Good point. There was a period of relatively little violence. And what happened? Oh yeah... SETTLEMENT BUILDING INCREASED, and Sharon (a very divisive figure, considered a war criminal by one side) showed up at a sensitive religious site shared by jews and pals, with a shitload of armed police sparking a new round of violence. Think that was an accident?

So you're saying Palestinians are no smarter than bulls. If you wave a red flag in front of them they'll charge? And Sharon knew this. Possibly. Sharon was a mean SOB.

That does not excuse the Palestinians for being idiots, however.

You can look at the current situation in the west bank for more proof of this. You have a period of relative peace, the most moderate palestinian authority ever probably and Israels reaction? An increase in settlement activity and thousands of new building permits.

I don't pretend to understand the thinking of the Israeli government. I do know that things are quite screwed up there because of the relative importance of what would otherwise be insignificant right-wing religious parties due to their PR style parliament. In fact, Israel is among the best arguments I know of against PR government. But I think a lot of Israelis have basically given up on a negotiated settlement in the face of the continued hostility of all of their neighbours. And frankly, I see no prospect of one with the Palestinians until they give up on the "right of return". That's an absolute non-starter.

And frankly, there isn't enough of Palestine to make a country anyway. The place has no real infrastructure and no resources. An independent Palestine would be another miserable Arab shit hole like Yemen, only not so well-organized, prosperous and peaceful.

The only logical, sensible way to resolve the mess there is to split the territories between Jordan and Egypt. I realize the west would have to provide a lot of bribe money to get the Egyptians and Jordanians to agree, but it would work, in the end, where an independent Palestine can't.

[dre]

So you're saying Palestinians are no smarter than bulls. If you wave a red flag in front of them they'll charge? And Sharon knew this. Possibly. Sharon was a mean SOB.

That does not excuse the Palestinians for being idiots, however.

I don't pretend to understand the thinking of the Israeli government. I do know that things are quite screwed up there because of the relative importance of what would otherwise be insignificant right-wing religious parties due to their PR style parliament. In fact, Israel is among the best arguments I know of against PR government. But I think a lot of Israelis have basically given up on a negotiated settlement in the face of the continued hostility of all of their neighbours. And frankly, I see no prospect of one with the Palestinians until they give up on the "right of return". That's an absolute non-starter.

And frankly, there isn't enough of Palestine to make a country anyway. The place has no real infrastructure and no resources. An independent Palestine would be another miserable Arab shit hole like Yemen, only not so well-organized, prosperous and peaceful.

The only logical, sensible way to resolve the mess there is to split the territories between Jordan and Egypt. I realize the west would have to provide a lot of bribe money to get the Egyptians and Jordanians to agree, but it would work, in the end, where an independent Palestine can't.

So you're saying Palestinians are no smarter than bulls. If you wave a red flag in front of them they'll charge? And Sharon knew this. Possibly. Sharon was a mean SOB.

No smarter than HUMANS who in general are easily provoked.

The only logical, sensible way to resolve the mess there is to split the territories between Jordan and Egypt.

Isreal wouldnt allow THAT either. 30% of their drinking water comes from the west bank. Isreal will keep most of it permanently. The only reason they havent formally annexed it already is because world opinion is against such things in this day and age.

THERE IS no sensible, logical way to resolve the "mess". It wont EVER go away. If the people living over there in that piece of crap dirt- farm ever make peace with each other, Ill sign you over the deed to my home.

A good bookie wouldnt give you better than 1000-1 odds on any kind of resolution.

Edited November 13, 2010 by dre

[Argus]

THERE IS no sensible, logical way to resolve the "mess". It wont EVER go away. If the people living over there in that piece of crap dirt- farm ever make peace with each other, Ill sign you over the deed to my home.

Then perhaps everyone ought to get working on that big water pipeline to turkey which has been talked about for at least a decade.

[jbg]

Arguably, one can say that the state of Israel is under threat, but to suggest that Jews worldwide are the only people under threat is absurd? Roma are constantly under threat around the world, as are homosexuals.

Let's get one thing clear. No one, except some very sick individuals, have made a career out of killing gays. No one ties gays into groups of three, shoots one and pushes the other two into a freezing river.

Nothing aimed at gays has equalled the savagery of the persecution of Jews culminating in the Holocaust. This reasoning which creates a phony equivalence is nauseating.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ahh yes... suspicious reasons. Glad to see my nefarious use of the DICTIONARY didnt ellude you. I didnt attempt to redefine ANYTHING. I personally use the term the same way that you do, i just pointed out his definition is also accurate and no more of a redefinition than yours.

You know who else uses the dictionary? Nazis.

[Bob]

Let's get one thing clear. No one, except some very sick individuals, have made a career out of killing gays. No one ties gays into groups of three, shoots one and pushes the other two into a freezing river.

Nothing aimed at gays has equalled the savagery of the persecution of Jews culminating in the Holocaust. This reasoning which creates a phony equivalence is nauseating.

I was going to say something similar, but I didn't have the patience last night to get into it. KeyStone's MO seems pretty transparent at this point. I reserved judgement when I initially read the OP, but as I read his or her subsequent posts, the intention of this thread and this poster became quite clear to me.

Clearly this is yet another attempt to marginalize the history of my people, as well as to denigrate and to demonize Israel. From the obscure references to the "Jewish lobby" in Canada and their (our?) imagined power and influence (we're the most powerful lobby group in Canada!), to the making light of the threats against the Jewish people and our homeland, to actually questioning the guilt of Samir Kuntar. It's just ignorant statements followed by deceitful statements, all with a clear intention.

As a side note, can I just say that I am really surprised as well as thankful for the seemingly large volume of Canadians in here who are clearly on the right side of the issues regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the posters in here who appreciate Israel's immense challenges (both material and existential threats as well as the delegitimization campaigns carried out against Israel by people like KeyStone) represent only a minority of Canadians. From my experience, I have the sense that the majority of Canadians have a very poor grasp of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and give almost-automatic sympathy to the Palestinians, who they view as the underdog in a knee-jerk and simplistic way. It's really nice to see honest and sincere recognition for and support of Israel from intelligent Canadians.

[Bob]

You know who else uses the dictionary? Nazis.

What are you implying?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nothing aimed at gays has equalled the savagery of the persecution of Jews culminating in the Holocaust. This reasoning which creates a phony equivalence is nauseating.

Are you claiming gays weren't put in concentration camps? Because that's completely false. They went through the same thing in lesser numbers.

link

link 2 (more on Nazi persecution of homosexuals)

[dre]

You know who else uses the dictionary? Nazis.