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:
[i]What possible down side would there be for the US if Israel disappeared tomorrow as a political entity?[/i]
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".
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.
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?
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."
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?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):
Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber lives in Thornhill, but said the flyers somehow missed his own home.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
So why is it the Americans can't see that? If the US wanted peace between Israel and its neighbours, there would be peace.
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.
So why is it the Americans can't see that? If the US wanted peace between Israel and its neighbours, there would be peace.
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):
Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber lives in Thornhill, but said the flyers somehow missed his own home.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: "[URL=http://bit.ly/7sma4x]Jewish leaders ask Harper to trash Tory flyer[/URL]". 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.
[url=http://www.carolynbennett.ca/whatsNewPosting.cfm?ID=2565][color=red]Here's a link to a readable version of the letter.[/color][/url]
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!!!!!"
[url=http://www.carolynbennett.ca/whatsNewPosting.cfm?ID=2565][color=red]Here's a link to a readable version of the letter.[/color][/url]
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
[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/731572--speaker-rebukes-torie... Rebukes Tories for "damaging" flyers[/url]
. . .
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!!
