Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Very good. The Liberals and Conservatives arguing over which ones are the greatest defenders of the Israeli aggressors and mass murderers. Jews must stand up and declare clearly that their interests are not served by either of these dastardly toadies.
The Conservatives are better than the Liberals at getting people to fight among themselves over psuedo issues like "which party better supports Israeli ethnic cleansing in Palestine" and the like. But, perhaps, the Liberal leader can show us some clever ideological backflips.
Difficult to accomplish without a spine. Mr. Feckless himself, from 1:23.
Well interesting that this goes hand in hand with the BBC's ad.....
I wonder what impact this will have, now that Ignatieff is taking an identical position to Harper on Israel. In my personal opinion, the number of Jewish voters in Canada who have Israel as their main vote determining issue represents a minority of the community, so I don't know how much further the Tories can play the "we're the only party that supports Israel" (and by definition the Jewish people) card.
From the people that brought you "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography"....opening soon at a theatre near you "Irwin Cotler is an Anti-Semite"
Antonia Zerbesias of the Toronto Star DID question Cotler's loyalty to Canada because one of his daughters served in the Israeli army...after living there for many years, being a citizen and having been born to an Israeli mother.
I really wish all the bullshit questioning of people's motives could disappear from these debates.
"Irwin Cotler is an Anti-Semite"
Actually, Irwin Cotler's own wife tore up her Liberal membership card over concerns about the Liberal Party. Bob Rae's was smeared during the last leadership because his wife is Jewish. There's a reason many life long Jewish Liberals like my parents are moving over the Conservative camp.
There's a reason many life long Jewish Liberals like my parents are moving over the Conservative camp.
Sure there is. The more you side with oppressors, the more likely you are to vote Conservative. The Israelis are the oppressors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. People (whether Jewish or not - I don't buy this whole "Jewish people vote as a bloc" thing, anymore than I do about anyone else) who side with Israel in this conflict side with the oppressors. The Conservatives always side with oppressors and so of course they do in this conflict too.
Sometimes it really is just that easy.
Where it becomes tricky is that Conservatives always side with the oppressors both domestically AND abroad. Some people who side with oppressors internationally don't like to side with oppressors domestically. Perhaps your parents fit into this camp, I don't know, since I don't know your parents. The question becomes, when does someone's support for a politician who oppresses Palestinians overcome that person's distaste for that same politician's support for domestic oppression?
For some people, that time is now. For many others, though, that time will never come. Thank goodness!
I see the Liberals and Conservatives mentioned in this forum. Where do the NDP stand?
I think the NDP is wisely saying as little as possible other than denouncing the larger pattern of the Tories usingt these "ten percenters" to spread malicious propaganda. Since the flyers were all about denouncing the Liberals and the Liberals and Tories are now in a bizarre fight of each saying "mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most pro-Israel one of all" - I think that the best response from the NDP is to say nothing.
Antonia Zerbesias of the Toronto Star DID question Cotler's loyalty to Canada because one of his daughters served in the Israeli army...after living there for many years, being a citizen and having been born to an Israeli mother.
I really wish all the bullshit questioning of people's motives could disappear from these debates.
I think this is a misrepresentation of Antonia's argument. (I know; you're shocked. Consider this your Captain Renault moment of the day.)
I can't speak for Antonia and I don't have her text in front of me, but for many of us, the family relationship was irrelevant to the genuine problem with Cotler's remarks. Cotler is a former minister of the Crown. He was praising a Canadian citizen for joining the armed forces of a foreign country.
No, that is not illegal, neither the joining nor the praising -- or at least in theory it's not illegal, although I suspect the ground could begin to shift a little depending on which foreign nation's armed forces a young Canadian decided to join.
However, it's a bit unsettling to some of us to see the bar set that low for Canadian public servants. Gee: isn't Cotler wonderful? He isn't breaking the law!
Is recruiting for foreign armies something we really want to see past and possibly future ministers of the Crown doing?
He was praising a Canadian citizen for joining the armed forces of a foreign country.
The exact quote (it was from Twitter) is as follows: "MP Irwin Cotler's children join IDF. http://bit.ly/1Ttsq0 Which country are you loyal to, sir?"
And she was not joining a the armed forces of a "foreign country". Cotler is married to an Israeli, one of his daughters was born there, both of them live there and have for some time and are citizens of israel. I certainly don't agree with Cotler on everything but a guy who has served as an MP for many years and been a staunch federalist in Quebec seems pretty "loyal" to Canada to me.
I agree that it is inappropriate to question Cotler's "loyalty" based on one of his children being a foreign national and livging in another country. I'm sure he is not the only MP with close family members who may serve in the armed forces of another country. Let's not go down that road - unless we want to rehash whether or not Stephane Dion is loyal to Canada when he has a French passport.
The only way I see this being an issue at all would be if Cotler were ever appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs or Minister of Defence and then you might be able to argue that this creates a possible conflict of interest.
I don't know whether Antonia should have said what she did. I have no comment either way on that.
But I do wonder...if I was an MP, and my son joined the Iranian army and I praised him publicly for it, and a National Post columnist asked me which country I was loyal to as a result, do you think there would be the same outrage against that columnist for saying that as there was against Antonia for saying that about Cotler?
I don't know. What do the rest of you think? I'm betting not.
He was praising a Canadian citizen for joining the armed forces of a foreign country.
The exact quote (it was from Twitter) is as follows: "MP Irwin Cotler's children join IDF. http://bit.ly/1Ttsq0 Which country are you loyal to, sir?"
And she was not joining a the armed forces of a "foreign country". Cotler is married to an Israeli, one of his daughters was born there, both of them live there and have for some time and are citizens of israel. I certainly don't agree with Cotler on everything but a guy who has served as an MP for many years and been a staunch federalist in Quebec seems pretty "loyal" to Canada to me.
Rule 1 about Twitter: If someone includes a link in the tweet, then the content of that link is part of the tweet, eh? That link is to a video, I believe, that is Cotler being disturbing all on his own, in the terms I wrote out above.
Yeah, a lot of Canadians have dual citizenship, although most don't. Every once in a while, that looks like something of a problem to democracy here, but as long as no one pushes it too far, other Canadians have mainly not pushed back. I repeat: there is nothing illegal about urging young people to join the armed forces of a foreign nation, but there is something troubling about the possibility that that could become a policy endorsed at ministerial level, since the priority for ministers of the Crown is supposed to be Canadians, all Canadians, all the time, and it is not in the interest of all Canadians to be defending the armed forces of a foreign country.
Are some people forgetting that the IDF is a compulsory national service?
The flyers are divisive, nasty propaganda that should not be allowed in house holders. When are our politicians going to try to reign in this misuse of tax dollars? The Cons are the worst for their messages but I think we should just get rid of the whole concept of the parties getting to send out these 10%er's. You have something to say to your own constituents then that is one thing but these attack ads targeting swing ridings are outrageous. From the link above here is what they bring to the political discourse.
Comments have been disabled Editor's Note: Comments have been closed on this story because an overwhelming number of readers were making offensive statements about other commenters and/or the individual or individuals mentioned in the story. That kind of behaviour is a breach of our commenting policy, and so the comment function has been turned off. We appreciate your understanding.
Are some people forgetting that the IDF is a compulsory national service?
Compulsory for whom? All Canadians? If not, then how does that pose a quandary for all Canadians?
We're talking about public statements by Canadian public servants here.
"Irwin Cotler is an Anti-Semite"
Actually, Irwin Cotler's own wife tore up her Liberal membership card over concerns about the Liberal Party. Bob Rae's was smeared during the last leadership because his wife is Jewish. There's a reason many life long Jewish Liberals like my parents are moving over the Conservative camp.
The large majority of Jewish voters are still Liberal. And Irwin Cotler was pretty angry with the Conservatives over this latest stunt. He spoke about it yesterday during interviews.
And just finished raising a point of privilege in the House.
The Tories had Pipsqueak Pierre Poilievre give their response, which was basically a catalogue of quotes from various Liberals (including Ignatieff and Dion) where they expressed something other than a slavish devotion to defending Israel.
These ten-percenters disgust me. Ten-percenters and other franking privileges (paid for by you and me as taxpayers) are supposed to allow MPs to communicate with their constitutents and report on the work they are doing in Ottawa and in the riding. They are not supposed to be taxpayer-funded political propaganda to be used to slam your political opponent in the neighbouring riding. The rules should be changed to restrict franking and ten-percenters to the MPs own riding. If the parties want to distribute political propaganda, let them do it on their own dime.
What's more, these pamphlets are stupid politics. I would have thought that the most rabid Israel-defenders would have all switched to the Tories a long time ago.
"There's a reason many life long Jewish Liberals like my parents are moving over the Conservative camp."
There's also a reason why many, if not most, Jews refuse to vote Conservative - like the fact that the Conservative party is full of fundamentalist Protestants who think that Jews will all burn in hell during the Armageddon!
Exactly, Stockholm. :D
And that is only 2 years away ......
I found this via Twitter today, and while I suspect this may be old news for many of you, I thought I'd share (interesting video and information about John Hagee and Charles McVety and their influence on the CPC):
Why Canada May be Headed for Serious Trouble.
Conservatives Playing a Dangerous Game
I wonder what impact this will have, now that Ignatieff is taking an identical position to Harper on Israel. Certainly the number of Jewish voters in Canada who have Israel as their main vote determining issue represents a minority of the community, so I don't know how much further the Tories can play the "we're the only party that supports Israel" (and by definition the Jewish people) card.
And to quote my friend Unionist who posted this in the B'nai Brith thread:
"Unionist wrote:
Throwing around phrases like "most Jews believe..." is the same as this treacherous "mainstream Jewish" phraseology. It's an attempt to marginalize and demonize the enlightened and progressive Jewish opinion, not by argument and debate, but by ignorant unprovable appeals to some silent majority."
I received one of these flyers yesterday. I can't see how it's part of a "10%er" since it came from John Duncan, MP- Vancouver Island North. My MP is Caroline Bennett (Liberal). It's got a tear off form to mail back to him in Ottawa. Recipients of this hate mail are asked to select which of the 4 party leaders (May, not Duceppe) "is on the right track to represent and defend the values of Canada's Jewish community". So Duncan and Harper now speak for me. Talk about appropriation.
Anyone notice that when Harper was in India a few days ago, he made a visit to the Jewish community centre where a number of people were murdered in the Mumbai attacks. He lit a candle. More pandering. Now they can attack the liberals for not lighting a candle and therevby desecrating their memory.
I never suggested that the majority of Canadian Jews are indifferent to or hostile to Israel or anti-Zionist or whatever. I am basically saying that only a minority of Jews are one-issue voters based on Israel. I'm surprised you find my post so offensive. Anyway if that were the case, the Jewish community would vote for a bloc for the Conservatives, which they certainly don't. In fact I would wager that Jewish Canadians vote Tory at a lower rate than the general population.
My feeling is this flyer just preaches to the converted.
What I don't understand is why the Tories and Liberals have gotten into this ridiculous bidding war that consists "We are 100% pro-Israel, No, WE are 1000% pro-Israel" and the Liberals have made the mistake of trying to answer a "when did you stop beating your wife?"-type question.
What would be so bad about saying, our party accepts a diversity of views on the Middle East and occassionally criticizing Israeli policies falls well within the purvey of "acceptable" political debate in Canada.
Its outrageous for the Tories to try to spread obvious falsehoods - but it should also be said that there is nothing wrong with trying to be even handed about the conflict in the Middle East
This sort of political pandering is both dsturbing and dangerous.
What would be so bad about saying, our party accepts a diversity of views on the Middle East and occassionally criticizing Israeli policies falls well within the purvey of "acceptable" political debate in Canada.
Well, the Conservative faux support for Israel appears to be religiously motivated (see the links and video in my last post above), so perhaps that is why they are clamping down on free speech and alternative views.
I never suggested that the majority of Canadian Jews are indifferent to or hostile to Israel or anti-Zionist or whatever. I am basically saying that only a minority of Jews are one-issue voters based on Israel. I'm surprised you find my post so offensive. Anyway if that were the case, the Jewish community would vote for a bloc for the Conservatives, which they certainly don't. In fact I would wager that Jewish Canadians vote Tory at a lower rate than the general population.
My feeling is this flyer just preaches to the converted.
I'm not sure why the Conservatives feel that targeting the Jewish vote will win them a lot of seats. They won Thornhill in the last election, but that is the only seat with a large Jewish population that is on the radar screen for them in the immediate future other than perhaps Winnipeg South Centre.
The other seats with large Jewish populations include:
Mount Royal
Outremont
Westmount
Pierrefonds-Dollard
Toronto Centre
St Pauls
I don't see any of those going Conservative in the next election.
Also, Eglinton-Lawrence. The Tories came close there last time. Quite the contrast from St. Paul's.
Jaku, check your PMs.
Also, Eglinton-Lawrence. The Tories came close there last time. Quite the contrast from St. Paul's.
Ditto York Centre.
True. Eglinton-Lawrence was close. Part of that may be Joe Volpe though. Perhaps next time he will work harder and not take it for granted.
What's interesting about them distributing this vile propaganda in St. Paul's is that Carolyn "Bennett was chair of the Canada-Israel Friendship Group from 1999 to 2003 and is a member of Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel. (Wikipedia)" Her pro-Zionist credentials are pretty impeccable.
I wrote to John Duncan, Republican MP- Vancouver Island North to register to my protest about his distribution of anti-Palestinian literature in my riding and his attempts to speak for me and for all Jews in Canada. I wonder if he'll write back?
Ever since some in the Toronto Jewish community began their boycott of the "anti-semitic" Toronto Star (all Jewish obituaries moved to the National Putz), I think that the conservative-leaning Jews have had the upper hand over the liberal-leaning Jews. That Peter Kent did so poorly in St. Paul's yet won in Thornhill a couple years later is not insignificant.
I wrote to Bob Rae, about the CPCCA, and received a response from his assistant. I'd post it, but I would have to obtain permission first. It wasn't very reassuring - suggesting, among other things, they are concerned about comments advocating the destruction of Israel and its people (sounds like he is mixing us Canadians up with the President of Iran) and about intimidation of Jews at our universities. He said part of the modern form of anti-semitism uses criticism of Israel as a cover.
The response didn't mention Iran, but given the objectives of the organization "Christians United for Israel: Support for Israel against Iran", I wonder whether that has anything to do with it.
There seem to be two apparent phenomena here:
a. Anti-semites using extreme criticism of Israel and Zionism as a coded way of attacking Jews as a whole (I'm sure that this does happen, but I don't know that its particularly common - and its probably mainly something you in eastern Europe where you get neo-fascists going on about "Zionists and Cosmopolitans" (sic.))
b. People who try to brand and dismiss any and all criticism of Israel as being what I describe in "a." above - even though in realit thye vast majority of criticism of Israel is just criticism of Israel - just like we can criticize the government of Myanmar and not be anti-Burmese bigots!
Ultimately, I think that the real hidden agenda is get everyone side tracked away from having any reasonable debate about the Middle East - by transforming every debate into a "when did you stop beating your wife?"-type debate about anti-semitism.
My grandfather (who'd been gone for about 13 years) was no NDPer but he always loved Bob Rae. Why? Israel.
It isn't insignificant but the Jewish communities in St. Paul and Thornhill are quite different, and I really doubt the Conservatives get anywhere near a majority of the Jewish vote. The Conservatives made significant gains but it's hard to believe that something like every other Jewish Liberal swung Tory between '06 and '08 because of Israel.
A discussion can accurately be described as a debate when the sides engaging in it approach the issue with more or less reasonably sounding and valid points of view. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, fraudulent is the mildest word that can be offered when one side of the discussion excuses the monstrous atrocities being perpetuated by the Israeli government.
There are plenty of people on the other side too who try to excuse "monstrous atrocities" perpetuated by Hamas and Co. as well. But that's not the point. It accomplishes nothing to debate what came first - the chicken or the egg. In the Middle East there is plenty of blame to go around against both sides for the current situation.
We should be free to criticise Israel without being labelled anti-semitic and we should also be free to criticize Hamas and Fatah without being accused of being "Islamophobic" or whatever other word you use to describe being bigoted against Arabs regardless of their religion.
Ultimately, I think that the real hidden agenda is get everyone side tracked away from having any reasonable debate about the Middle East - by transforming every debate into a "when did you stop beating your wife?"-type debate about anti-semitism.
Yes, though it isn't very well hidden. My understanding is that the US (and now Canada) doesn't want to see peace in Israel-Palestine. If they want to see peace, they'll need a significant attitude adjustment as right now they are just adding fuel to the conflict and are in no position to be involved in peace negotiations given their obvious bias and willful ignorance: House resolution indicates America remains solidly behind Israel.
It tells Palestinians that Congress cares nothing for them.
And it tells the Arab and Muslim worlds that Washington is not their friend.
The House resolution proves that rational debate in the Congress about Israeli policy is taboo. Until that taboo is lifted, we cannot expect progress in Mideast peace talks.
I'm not sure that anyone (Other than maybe some arms dealers) actually opposes "peace" in the Middle East. Its just that everyone has very different views as to what a peaceful settlement would look like. The Likudniks in Israel would love to have peace if it meant Israeli sovereignty over everything between the Med. and the Jordan river and all Palestinians taking the hint and moving to Jordan. Hamas would love peace if it meant that the entire population of Israel would be re-settled in other countries and a theocratic palestinian state occupied 100% of the same territory.
If there actually was a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that made everyone happy - the US would be a big winner because it would mean that a gigantic burr in the saddle that has poisoned relations between the US and most of the Arab world would be removed. Just like the UK government is quite happy that the conflict in Northern Ireland is over. Its a win win.
I'm no expert, but in my view the US does not want peace. Noam Chomsky discusses that here: "It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the US nor Israel is a “genuine party to peace.”"
20 years ago people argued that the Cold War could never end because the US didn't actually want it to end. But then it ended and the Americans were quite happy to be triumphalistic about it.
I think that if by some miracle, Israel and the Palestinians negotiated a comprehensive peace treaty and Tel Aviv became a train stop on the road from Cairo to Beirut and there was a Middle East Economic Union with free trade between Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt etc... that Obama would be more than happy to be the impresario and have a ceremony in the Rose Garden and everyone would live happily ever after.
Seriously, what possible down side would there be for the US if there was peace in the Middle East?
Seriously, what possible down side would there be for the US if there was peace in the Middle East?
If they get to control the regions oil there is no down side for them. For the people of the region I suspect many of them would see a down side to that control.
There's no oil in Israel or Palestine
There's no oil in Israel or Palestine
I believe there are some rich gas reserves in the Gaza sea. Don't know how relevant that is though, except to the Gazan fishermen.
What I really wanted to know is how and why Canadian politicians are not willing to discuss the Palestine/Israel issue on the basis of international law instead of mushy friendship and support. Why should we care about their personal feelings about Israel? They're members of parliament, and our government is a member of the UN. As Finkelstein says, his opinion isn't important - he's not a moralist.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24015.htm
There are laws. Canada is a signatory to these laws. And in lieu of the current Afghanistan detainee crimes, we should be discussing international law. Loud and clear.
Seriously, what possible down side would there be for the US if there was peace in the Middle East?
I don't know, Stockholm, this is an interesting guessing game. Let's start with another question:
What possible down side would there be for the US if Israel disappeared tomorrow as a political entity?
Also, Eglinton-Lawrence. The Tories came close there last time. Quite the contrast from St. Paul's.
Jaku, check your PMs.
Thanks LP I checked my PMs and while I appreciate the material you sent it still does not at all address my original request. To remind you I just wanted the stats or study to back up your contention that "...the number of Jewish voters in Canada who have Israel as their main vote determining issue represents a minority of the community". I have to take it that you simply cannot back this up.
I'm saying most Jews are not one-issue voters. Do you disagree?
I'm saying most Jews are not one-issue voters. Do you disagree?
LP you are changing the page now. Yes I would agree though I have no study to back it and will admit so. But that is a far different question than claiming as you did that "the number of Jewish voters in Canada who have Israel as their main vote determining issue represents a minority of the community". You see you can still consider a number of issues but have one issue as predominant. So will you finally tell the board that you had no proof for the statement you made?
Unfortunately polling data among Canadian Jews is hard to come by. But, I STRONGLY suspect that if we polled 500 Jews across Canada and asked them - "What is going to be the main factor in determining who to vote for in the next federal election?" - very, very, very small minority (if any at all) would respond "Israel".
Yes, thank you for exposing me as a fraud. I re-edited that post you found oh so offensive. Happy? I'm sure you will for now on make it clear that you are speaking only for yourself when you generalize about "mainstream Jews."
Yes, thank you for exposing me as a fraud. I re-edited that post you found oh so offensive. Happy? I'm sure you will for now on make it clear that you are speaking only for yourself when you generalize about "mainstream Jews."
I appreciate your change. For the record I never claimed to find your post offensive, those are your words. I only claimed it was inaccurate. Please to not mis-chrarcterize my motives. Thanks.
Unfortunately polling data among Canadian Jews is hard to come by. But, I STRONGLY suspect that if we polled 500 Jews across Canada and asked them - "What is going to be the main factor in determining who to vote for in the next federal election?" - very, very, very small minority (if any at all) would respond "Israel".
You may in fact be correct Stockholm. It would be interesting to see some studies on this though.
20 years ago people argued that the Cold War could never end because the US didn't actually want it to end. But then it ended and the Americans were quite happy to be triumphalistic about it.
I think that if by some miracle, Israel and the Palestinians negotiated a comprehensive peace treaty and Tel Aviv became a train stop on the road from Cairo to Beirut and there was a Middle East Economic Union with free trade between Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt etc... that Obama would be more than happy to be the impresario and have a ceremony in the Rose Garden and everyone would live happily ever after.
Seriously, what possible down side would there be for the US if there was peace in the Middle East?
So why is it the Americans can't see that? If the US wanted peace between Israel and its neighbours, there would be peace. It really is that simple. I suggest the US benefits to a much greater degree from violence, instability, and weak governments in resource rich regions than they do from peace, stability and democratic government. And I will hold up any resource rich region in the global south as an example.
"If the US wanted peace between Israel and its neighbours, there would be peace. It really is that simple."
Except that it is NOT that simple. Clinton would have given ANYTHING to have a peace agreement before he left power in 2000 and yet the deal fell apart. The only way the US could force there to be peace would be to invade Israel/Palestine and arrest the leaders of bth sides and impose a settlement. Somehow i don't think that's what you have in mind.
Unfortunately polling data among Canadian Jews is hard to come by. But, I STRONGLY suspect that if we polled 500 Jews across Canada and asked them - "What is going to be the main factor in determining who to vote for in the next federal election?" - very, very, very small minority (if any at all) would respond "Israel".
I think virtually anyone who makes "support for Israel" their #1 issue would vote Tory. Yet the (albeit limited) hard data suggests that the vast majority of Canadian Jews vote for other parties.
That may depend. I mean if I were one of that teeny-weeny minority of fanatics who was a single issue voter for Israel, i might actually try to be strategic and if I lived in a riding where the Liberal candidate was someone like Cotler etc... or even if I had an NDP MP like Pat Martin, I might vote for them on the logic that its good for Israel to have string supporters within each party caucus.
In the US, there is little doubt that Republicans tend to be more "pro-the Likud view of Israel" than Democrats and yet exit polls show that American Jews suppoted Obama over McCain by an 82% to 18% margin!
"If the US wanted peace between Israel and its neighbours, there would be peace. It really is that simple."
Except that it is NOT that simple. Clinton would have given ANYTHING to have a peace agreement before he left power in 2000 and yet the deal fell apart. The only way the US could force there to be peace would be to invade Israel/Palestine and arrest the leaders of bth sides and impose a settlement. Somehow i don't think that's what you have in mind.
I very much disagree. The US holds all the cards. Today, right now, the US has demanded Israel halt all expansions and the government of Israel is very publicly thumbing their noses at the demands and humiliating Obama. Olmert bragged about having Condi Rice change her position during Gaza massacre. Sharon The Butcher had Bush II change the so-called road map to peace to accomodate expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank. The US has failed, over and over again, to exert its very substantial influence on Israel. That is why even Abbas, America's Palestinian, has finally even acknowledged it is hopeless. Not because the Palestinians don't want peace, not because the Egyptians and the Syrians and the Lebanese don't want peace, but because the US has never acted in the interests of peace through pressure on a state entirely dependent on US financial, economic, and military support. It is indeed that simple.
What did Obama say just this week? He said Israel's continued expansion is "dangerous". Dangerous! So, what's he gonna do about it? Nothing. So there is no peace.
That kind of thinking didn't work out too well for Susan Kadis in Thornhill, though, where voters turfed one of the most outspoken pro-Israel MPs in the Liberal Party in favor of Peter Kent.
I think it was more like 77-22 but that is a minor point. Orthodox Jews, immigrants from the FSU and the minority of Jews who vote based on "Israel" or "terrorism and national security" (who overlap with the first two) vote Republican, the rest go overwhelmingly Democrat. I think a somewhat similar pattern exists in Canada.
Bernie Farber weighs in (sorta):
Having seen the flyer, he said there is need for MPs to get their message out, but it is easy for messages on all sides to get skewed.
While trying to take a "birds-eye view" and not be called in to referee inter-party disputes, he did caution against trying to sum up complex issues in a few words.
The flyer argues the Liberals "willingly participated" in the Durban conference but his group, B'nai Brith and the Simon Weisenthal Centre all had representatives there at Israel's behest, and they all stayed in the hope some good might come of it, he said.
Instead it turned into a "an anti-Semitic hatefest" and 9/11, just a month later, changed everything, he said.
"I don't believe any political party in this country is anti-Semitic," he said.
"Fighting anti-Semitism and terrorism has been and will be unifying themes in Canadian politics," Mr. Farber said.
http://www.yorkregion.com/article/99670
A great number of USians are evangelical christians who see an Israeli state at war in the Middle East as a necessary step on the road to the rapture. Peace is an obstacle to their being vacuumed into heaven by the holy ghosts.
A great number of USians are evangelical christians who see an Israeli state at war in the Middle East as a necessary step on the road to the rapture. Peace is an obstacle to their being vacuumed into heaven by the holy ghosts.
That may be, AQ, but I honestly think that U.S. pro-Israel meddling and deliberate maintenance of instability in the region long pre-dates any measurable influence of evangelical crazies, which is a far more recent phenomenon. It's all about oil and geopolitics. If the Arab (and non-Arab) countries of the region ever got their act together in a situation of peace, the potential consequences for U.S. economic and military hegemony would be disastrous. OPEC showed a glimmer of that in the early 1970s.
Except that as you may recall, the OPEC crisis of the early 70s was also mostly caused by the Israeli conflict in the first place. The Arab members of OPEC started an embargo on selling oil to the US to punish the US for supporting Israel etc...It should also be noted that back in the 50s and 60s, it was the more rightwing "realpolitik" view in American foreign policy circles that the US ought to be pro-Arab in the Middle East since the Arab countries had all the oil and it was in the US's interest to get on their "good side"
Bernie Farber weighs in (sorta):
Having seen the flyer, he said there is need for MPs to get their message out, but it is easy for messages on all sides to get skewed.
While trying to take a "birds-eye view" and not be called in to referee inter-party disputes, he did caution against trying to sum up complex issues in a few words.
The flyer argues the Liberals "willingly participated" in the Durban conference but his group, B'nai Brith and the Simon Weisenthal Centre all had representatives there at Israel's behest, and they all stayed in the hope some good might come of it, he said.
Instead it turned into a "an anti-Semitic hatefest" and 9/11, just a month later, changed everything, he said.
"I don't believe any political party in this country is anti-Semitic," he said.
"Fighting anti-Semitism and terrorism has been and will be unifying themes in Canadian politics," Mr. Farber said.
http://www.yorkregion.com/article/99670
Interesting statement by Farber. I wish he would have gone somewhat further and call out the Tories on this one for propagating misinformation. Nonetheless by making the point as he does anyone can read pretty clearly between the lines. Thanks for this LP.
I'm not sure that anyone (Other than maybe some arms dealers) actually opposes "peace" in the Middle East.
I think that is the majorly significant understatement here, the "maybe some arms dealers" part.
Israel is a MIC heavy, which is why it is never nuanced enough to note the size of U.S. aid to Israel. As far as the MIC is concerned, the two military-industrial economies are now so intertwined that national identity really doesn't matter. Well, it never does to the MIC.
I'm sure this also relates to Unionist's point about U.S. hegemony, but I can't see that for the moment.
Hi everyone, my first post here in a long time, was just interested to know if anyone knows where to find each individual MP's "printing costs" for these propaganda sheets. I'm planning a protest of Conservatives using taxpayer's money to campaign with, and would really like to find some information on the printing costs of the local Conservative MP who seems to send out an awful lot of these disinformation pamphlets. I've seen reports of the top 10 spenders in the newspaper, so there must be a way to get the info. Any help would be appreciated. Also any info related to Mike Duffy's expenses billed to taxpayers to attend Tory fundraisers would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance,
DrGreenthumb
There might be something in this thread below that you can follow for Duffy stuff
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/stoffer-stands-senator-duffy-a...
KenS would probably know where the franking and printing cost details reside.
or you might look at pundits guide under MPs
This flyer was an obscenity. I heard some B'nai Brith guy on radio struggling hards to defend it but he was clearly pushing the proverbial envelope.
While I agree that Canadian jews are probably not one issue voters, I imagine that Israel still holds a cental place in their thinking. That said, I read Ignatieff's speech he gave to the CJC annual conference in May and he was very solidly in support of Israel almost moreso than Harper, if that's possible. Seems to be little difference between political parties when it comes to Israel,
Globe: "Jewish leaders ask Harper to trash Tory flyer". I can't view the letter (Apple won't allow Flash on iPhone). Does anyone have another link to it?
I saw it only online at Globe. The letter is a re-hash of what was already said. More interesting are the signatores. Most revealing was that a longtime B'nai Brith Leader signed the letter, David Matas. It will give Frank Dimant heart palpatations.
Here's a link to a readable version of the letter.
It's pretty pathetic. Summary: "The Liberal Party has been just as pro-Israel as the Conservatives!!! Our policies are absolutely identical!!!! So please stop attacking us!!!!!"
Here's a link to a readable version of the letter.
It's pretty pathetic. Summary: "The Liberal Party has been just as pro-Israel as the Conservatives!!! Our policies are absolutely identical!!!! So please stop attacking us!!!!!"
Ya, it's pretty one sided. No wonder there is no peace.
Exactly pretty much what I expect from the Liberals.
Lord P. should not underestimate the short-term political importance of dislodging Liberals
in central Toronto ridings like my own, even as it is true that there is a limit to Israel-centredness for most Jewish voters. A riding or two falling or almost next time around, as is possible, insinuates the Cons. among us and it would be easier for that to migrate through more of Toronto. Another piece towards the next modernist party to face demise.
As for what you tolerate here in spewing from your unionist et al, can I ask that Heaven help the Canadian left?
"There's a reason many life long Jewish Liberals like my parents are moving over the Conservative camp." -- indeed, SSC
"The flyers are divisive, nasty" -- did kropotkin do as i did and respond a couple of idiot flyers ago to their online survey and have a bit of fun?
"enlightened and progressive Jewish opinion" are words that Jaku figures apply to Jaku's friend, but if it applies to myself, one of us will have to let go of one of those adjectives at least...how about you take the "progressive"?
no, hsf, "religiously motivated" is not why Cons. try to pander to reflexive Israel-backers, although no doubt that is important for a well-placed few, and do you really really think there is such a "clamping down" -- my question from another thread remains unanswered, "The verbal anti-Israel grotesqueries I witnessed on babble, is that what you all feel is threatened?"
further, hsf, Chomsky on Israel, beware
Stockholm, it is not a "teeny-weeny minority of fanatics", for if you take the some, what, 10% serious traditionalist Tor.-area Jewish people voting as a determinded block, it makes a difference in the targetted ridings; where we are, the school board trustee won on that basis, for what that's worth, except that i hear he might jump to fed./prov. politics...(if my level of dissatisfaction, for now anyway, were lower for the Greens I've tried to assist, I'd consider running as one just to face the nice fellow and, well, tear his Cons. to shreds, for sheer amusement, i know the fellow and his central cluster of supporters and am aghast at therir one-issue politics, but no way sharing the angle on it of so many around here!)
"OPEC showed a" etc -- unionist is missing it again by half; all the zeal & venom could be of some use if you only had the right target
"OPEC crisis of the early 70s was also mostly caused by the Israeli conflict in the first place" -- and more level-headed Stockhom, too: look, do none of you appreciate the manipulation behind it all, how Israel was bloodied then, how the intent was to initiate $ hegemony riding the back of Saudi oil, how this is & was to Israel's true detriment, however they are stuck in the American embrace (for now -- watch for growing rapprochment of sorts with Russia...very interesting...)
The complete Conservative campaign flyer to Canada's Jewish communities is online here:
"Stand up for Canada" - "Leadership pour le Canada"
Conservative Party Flyer, November 2009
Publish at Calaméo or browse others.
What the hey is D V trying to say? Please translate
You quoted Unionist as your friend and D V ' s really confused by it all and thinks we all suck here at babble except for SSC.
"suck"?
now i'm confused, maybe jaku can explain
Explain what? I was trying to understand your post!!! Why do I feel I am in a Monty Python skit?
welcome to the cheese shop, then
argument full of holes? -- sorry, no emmenthal left
argument stinks? -- sorry, no limburger
argument too boring? -- sorry, no brick
argument too derivative? -- sorry, out of processed cheese slices
your turn
are those cheese cutters then hanging form the necks of unionist's red friends?
welcome to the cheese shop, then
<blah blah blah />
this message brought to you by The Ministry of Silly Talk
Speaker Rebukes Tories for "damaging" flyers
. . .
Can someone explain how the 10 %ers work?
I have never understood how an MP gets to progagandize another riding at public expense. And why are they called 10 %ers?
Can someone explain how the 10 %ers work?
I have never understood how an MP gets to progagandize another riding at public expense. And why are they called 10 %ers?
I believe the way it works is there is a separate category for flyers that are sent to a riding as long as they are not sent to more than 10% of households in that riding. So sitting MP's (from all parties) send out 10%'ers because it is virtually free advertising paid for by the public. So an MP's name will be used to send flyers into ridings that the party is trying to target but they don't currently hold. An MP has other pots of money to use for talking to their own constituents.
Except that as you may recall, the OPEC crisis of the early 70s was also mostly caused by the Israeli conflict in the first place. The Arab members of OPEC started an embargo on selling oil to the US to punish the US for supporting Israel etc...It should also be noted that back in the 50s and 60s, it was the more rightwing "realpolitik" view in American foreign policy circles that the US ought to be pro-Arab in the Middle East since the Arab countries had all the oil and it was in the US's interest to get on their "good side"
And the Saudis were fully on-side with the anticommunist jihad by the1980's. In 1986 the Saudis began dumping cheap oil on world markets and exacerbating Soviet deficit spending in an economy that was increasingly dependent on oil revenues. While economic warfare was waged on the Soviets, US taxpayers and Saudi princes were funding the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Of course, since dissolution of the USSR the US CIA and Military have severed all ties with their former jihadis who've sworn off terrorism and US plans to destabilize Central Asia and what Zbigniew referred to as a the arc of crises nations. Say no more, Zbigniew and US-CIA, US Military planners, US hawks and Brits etc, because the whole world believes you no questions asked say no more aye-aye!!