Should this Liberal Candidate Resign

[Figleaf]

Please don't resign Chak. Please.

Indeed!

So you can't provide a manner to define 'massacre' or 'savagery'?

I'll be happy to accept and work with the definition of either from any major English dictionary.

I'll say again, occassional massacres arising in IDF engagements are reported in regular Canadian and international news outlets. That's a fact.

Now, will you define what you meant by 'anti-Israel'?

Please explain why you feel it right for the Liberal Party of Canada to side with Palestine over Israel?

Having a candidate who expressed a factual view of a situation is not the same as the party siding with one side or the other. Your equation of these to speaks poorly for either your logic or attention to fairness.

[Michael Bluth]

I'll be happy to accept and work with the definition of either from any major English dictionary.

I'll say again, occassional massacres arising in IDF engagements are reported in regular Canadian and international news outlets. That's a fact.

Take time to tie the two together and then I'll...

Now, will you define what you meant by 'anti-Israel'?

[jbg]

a letter he wrote to the Edmonton Journal when he accused the Israeli government of "terrorism, massacres and savagery inflicted upon the innocent inhabitants of Palestine." If that's the worst thing his letter said, what's the problem? "Massacres" and "savagery" are factual, provable statements. "Terrorism" is a very flexible term and a matter of opinion. Most countries in the world have been 'accused' of 'terrrorism' by someone at some time.

Oh come on. Israelis don't blow up pizza parlors.

[Figleaf]

a letter he wrote to the Edmonton Journal when he accused the Israeli government of "terrorism, massacres and savagery inflicted upon the innocent inhabitants of Palestine." If that's the worst thing his letter said, what's the problem? "Massacres" and "savagery" are factual, provable statements. "Terrorism" is a very flexible term and a matter of opinion. Most countries in the world have been 'accused' of 'terrrorism' by someone at some time.

Oh come on. Israelis don't blow up pizza parlors.

So, what is your definition of terrorism?

[Figleaf]

I'll be happy to accept and work with the definition of either from any major English dictionary.

I'll say again, occassional massacres arising in IDF engagements are reported in regular Canadian and international news outlets. That's a fact.

Take time to tie the two together and then I'll...

Now, will you define what you meant by 'anti-Israel'?

What?

[Michael Bluth]

What?

Typical. Can't defend the indefensible so you play games.

When you:

1. Provide proof of Israeli "massacres" and "savagery", I'll define anti-Israel.

I won't need to because you will dither, and evade and insult and put down. But you won't support your "arguments".

[jbg]

So, what is your definition of terrorism?

Attacks whose target is of no military value and whose intended victims are innocent civilians. And yours?

[Figleaf]

What?

Typical. Can't defend the indefensible so you play games.

I have no need to defend the indefensible. I just didn't understand what you were saying.

When you:

1. Provide proof of Israeli "massacres" and "savagery", I'll define anti-Israel.

WTF are you talking about? Do you really mean to tell me have never seen reports of massacres resulting from IDF engagements in Canadian newspapers? Are you just trying to jerk me around here?

I won't need to because you will dither, and evade and insult and put down. But you won't support your "arguments".

You said 'anti-Israel'. I just want to know what you mean by that. Why that's hard for you, I can't imagine (well, maybe I can, but I can't say it). Anyway, if you won't explain what you mean by a term, there's no sensible way to discuss it and your comment can't be taken seriously.

[Figleaf]

So, what is your definition of terrorism?

Attacks whose target is of no military value and whose intended victims are innocent civilians. And yours?

I might go with something more like: execution of violence against non-military targets with the intent of sowing fear or social disruption.

[Figleaf]

One example, just for Bluth:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...613.wisrael0613

[Michael Bluth]

One example, just for Bluth:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...613.wisrael0613

That provided a definiton of anti-Israel. So I guess you don't have any more questions for me.

The civilians weren't targetted and weren't in the area of the initial blast.

This was neither a massacre nor savagery.

[jbg]

One example, just for Bluth:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...613.wisrael0613

I read that link. It's far better than the Syrians' use of huge bombs with casualties in the hundreds to kill one elected Lebanese politician. What you are failing to consider in this article is that there was a target of military value, the militant leader. Those who keep his company are making decisions to imperil their own life and safety.

[Figleaf]

One example, just for Bluth:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...613.wisrael0613

I read that link. It's far better than the Syrians' use of huge bombs... .

If you like, but my point remains the same, and now proven. It is perfectly correct for Chak to say that Israel has been involved in massacres.

[Figleaf]

One example, just for Bluth:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...613.wisrael0613

That provided a definiton of anti-Israel. So I guess you don't have any more questions for me.

WTF?

The civilians weren't targetted and weren't in the area of the initial blast.

This was neither a massacre nor savagery.

You don't know what a massacre means, obviously.

You've demonstrated over the last several exchanges we have had that your level of knowledge is insufficient to support your approach to discussion. I find that tedious and a waste of my time. Be advised, you're now on my Ignore list.

[Argus]

I think the real question here is whether the man hates Jews or is simply stupid. Most of the anti-Israeli crowd fall into one group or another. The first group - well, we know what motivates them. They simply hate Jews, and that's all there is to it. The second group is more problematic. Generally speaking they're the victims of their own ignorance and lack of imagination and empathy. They see unarmed Palestinians, and uniformed Israelis, and their sympathy is always for the unarmed group. They see uniformed men with guns and they have a knee-jerk reaction whenever they're not being smoothly polite and helpful to civilians. Uniformed people with guns are required to be polite and helpful!

The generations long war between the Israelis and their neighbours really isn't something they can understand. They don't understand the mindset on both sides, or how daily violence or the threat of daily violence affects cultures. They've never been threatened, their society has never been threatened, so they don't understand the measures a government has to take against a group which supports terrorism against them. Road blocks are described as "humiliation" regardless of the fact they're a necessity in a world of terrorism. The wall is described as an affront to human rights, regardless of the fact it's there to ensure public safety. And worst of all, attacks on Palestinian terrorists and bombers, which inevitably involve civilian casualties, are greeted with great consternation and disapproval by people who simply haven't the capacity to think about what they themselves would do and how they would act in the same situation. The stupid people are generally on the Left side of the political spectrum - no surprise there, because that is where most people whose political beliefs arise from "feelings" and emotion rather than logic and common sense reside.

I might not approve of everything Israel does, but I understand the context, and the difficult choices, and context is not something the Left is ever very good at. The Left doesn't care about context or common sense. The Left focuses on one ideologically based goal and doesn't want to be distracted by nuts and bolts and reality.

By the way, the second group: the stupids, a lot of them dislike Jews too, though not for the same reason as the first group. They dislike Jews because they associate Jews with Israel. They highly disapprove of Israel, and so they highly disapprove of anyone who doesn't. And that's most Jews. The Left inevitably ascribes moral failings to anyone who disagrees with their politics, and so Jews become doubly guilty. Thus the rise of anti-antisemitism among the Left.

[madmax]

Thus the rise of anti-antisemitism among the Left.

The rise of anti-antisemtism? Is this a just a typo?

[Figleaf]

...The second group is more problematic. Generally speaking they're the victims of their own ignorance and lack of imagination and empathy. They see unarmed Palestinians, and uniformed Israelis, and their sympathy is always for the unarmed group. They see uniformed men with guns and they have a knee-jerk reaction whenever they're not being smoothly polite and helpful to civilians. Uniformed people with guns are required to be polite and helpful!

You are missing a group. Those who know the history of the region, and know what international law says on the relevant issues, who conclude based on evidence what appears to be the rights and wrongs of the situation. When such a person concludes that Israel has been wrong on something, actually having the temerity to say so generally invites a round of character assassination from certain apologists, e.g. the National Post.

(P.S. The remainder of your post seemed to be a nasty, highly subjective, rant against a construct of your imagination you call 'the left', so I'll just ignore all that.)

[jbg]

You are missing a group. Those who know the history of the region, and know what international law says on the relevant issues, who conclude based on evidence what appears to be the rights and wrongs of the situation.

International law has a way of binding nations, and not non-national entities such as "liberation groups" and other roving killing squads. International law has the undesireable side effect of binding countries whose governments are subject to free public opinion, so they are, in effect, fighting with one or both hands tied behind their backs. The "liberation groups", facing no such constraints, kill with gleeful abandon.

[Argus]

...The second group is more problematic. Generally speaking they're the victims of their own ignorance and lack of imagination and empathy. They see unarmed Palestinians, and uniformed Israelis, and their sympathy is always for the unarmed group. They see uniformed men with guns and they have a knee-jerk reaction whenever they're not being smoothly polite and helpful to civilians. Uniformed people with guns are required to be polite and helpful!

You are missing a group. Those who know the history of the region, and know what international law says on the relevant issues,

Because law is important, even if it's wrong. Because since the UN keeps passing resolutions condemning Israel, well then, Israel MUST be a terrible place.

(P.S. The remainder of your post seemed to be a nasty, highly subjective, rant against a construct of your imagination you call 'the left', so I'll just ignore all that.)

Of course there is no LEFT, otherwise, like, you'd be on it, right, and we know you're not a lefty. Nosirree.

[jbg]

Because law is important, even if it's wrong. Because since the UN keeps passing resolutions condemning Israel, well then, Israel MUST be a terrible place.

Israel is, without a doubt, the worst country in the world, and the source of most of the world's problems that aren't caused by Bush.

[White Doors]

Good Post Argus.

Painfully true.

[buffycat]

Some of the above posts clearly illustrate why any kind of real debate over Israel's GOVERNMENT's behaviour is impossible in NA. Anything critical of Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories or her Foriegn policy in general, is simply greated by the cry of "Anti-Israel' (read -> antisemite).

Let's face it - Israel HAS been caught doing some VERY questionable things. That does not negate that her nieghbours - or anyone else for that matter - doesn't also engage in questionable activities. No country should be beyond reproach and sadly when debate turns to Israel, the double standard rings loud and clear.

Now, wrt this candidate, it's his opinion and certainly can be proven true for a myriad of circumstances and situations - even many Israelis would agree with him. So what's the problem? You don't have to agree.

Oh and as for the Liberals being anti-Israel - (whatever that actually means) that is a big laugh! It was under the Liberal government that Canada's policy wrt the Israeli/Palestinian conflict took a definitively sharp PRO-Israel stance.

Oh and BTW I would love to hear a really good definition as to what exactly is 'Anti-Israel'. If it's simply hating all things Israeli for no justified reason then it could be bigotry - however if it is simply refering to any kind of criticism of Israeli policies then you would have to include alot of Israelis in the anti crowd!

Let's face it simply being critical and asking questions over policy issues and administrative behaviours is not anti anything - it's called being responsible in one's civic duties.

[Figleaf]

Of course there is no LEFT, otherwise, like, you'd be on it, right, and we know you're not a lefty. Nosirree.

Oh, there is definitely a Left, it's just not the same thing as the imaginary construct of your mind that you call 'the left'.

As for me, I'm not a leftist, but I can't speak for what imaginary category you pidgeonhole me into in your imaginary world.

[Figleaf]

... Israel is, without a doubt, the worst country in the world, and the source of most of the world's problems that aren't caused by Bush.

I can think of places a lot worse than Israel in which to live. Certain native reserves in Canada, for example.

[M.Dancer]

if Dion is smart he'll let this one go, but lets keep an eye out to see if there's a 'pay off' huh

[url=http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=bbf2603e-e95c-4970-ae1e-

Some of the writings blame the Israeli government for slaughtering, raping and enslaving Palestinians, and suggesting the West masterminded terrorist attacks to discredit Muslims.

Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly

ARRESTED IN 1993

It also came to light that Chak was arrested in 1993 in connection with the firing of a shotgun into the door of a south-side nightclub.

Perhaps the Greens want him.......