Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...28?hub=Politics

The fact Liberal MP Anita Neville is Jewish just didn't seem to hold as much sway with her Winnipeg community last election.

Neville watched as some of her formerly faithful Jewish supporters left for the Conservative party, impressed by its unequivocal pro-Israel stance.

It was a phenomenon felt in other Liberal ridings with significant Jewish populations. One of those ridings actually went blue.

"I have some constituents who for them, (Israel) is the only issue, and they will vote based on that issue and we were not in a good place at that time and not clear in our responses," Neville said of the period before the 2008 campaign.

If there was ever a time to knock off the Liberals in Winnipeg-South Centre, it would have been last election. I think things there have stabilized for support and unlike last time, the Tories don't seem to have as big a star candidate to run in the riding. The nomination is next week.

Ignatieff is more measured in his speeches about Israel and his support is sounding more solid. The Tories are going to attack Ignatieff by saying they are only party that supports Israel. It remains to be seen if this message will be regarded as a little over the top, especially when innuendo of being anti-Semitic is thrown in for good measure.

Neville's riding sees mailings from Tories almost daily. Some people are becoming offended by the costs of numerous mailings.

For one issue voters, the main concern of the Liberals is to remove the issue by having the same position that many people support. This will then focus attention on other things such as the economy.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

Well, there you have it again. Canadian government being determined in part by ethnic groups based on what the parties' stances are vis their homeland.

Funny how the party that stridently pro a certain country suddenly gains almost universal support from a certain ethnic group and suddenly has monstrous amounts of cash to bolster its war chest. I thought this only happened the the delusional minds of anti-certain ethnic groups and has no basis in fact, is bigoted, racist, and stereotypical...

[jdobbin]

Well, there you have it again. Canadian government being determined in part by ethnic groups based on what the parties' stances are vis their homeland.

I think the main thing is to support countries that are democracies as best you can. It isn't an uncritical support but if these democracies are threatened with attack, it is something Canadians must stand against.

[lictor616]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...28?hub=Politics

If there was ever a time to knock off the Liberals in Winnipeg-South Centre, it would have been last election. I think things there have stabilized for support and unlike last time, the Tories don't seem to have as big a star candidate to run in the riding. The nomination is next week.

Ignatieff is more measured in his speeches about Israel and his support is sounding more solid. The Tories are going to attack Ignatieff by saying they are only party that supports Israel. It remains to be seen if this message will be regarded as a little over the top, especially when innuendo of being anti-Semitic is thrown in for good measure.

Neville's riding sees mailings from Tories almost daily. Some people are becoming offended by the costs of numerous mailings.

For one issue voters, the main concern of the Liberals is to remove the issue by having the same position that many people support. This will then focus attention on other things such as the economy.

well its the most important minority vote... by far!

[Bonam]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...28?hub=Politics

If there was ever a time to knock off the Liberals in Winnipeg-South Centre, it would have been last election. I think things there have stabilized for support and unlike last time, the Tories don't seem to have as big a star candidate to run in the riding. The nomination is next week.

Ignatieff is more measured in his speeches about Israel and his support is sounding more solid. The Tories are going to attack Ignatieff by saying they are only party that supports Israel. It remains to be seen if this message will be regarded as a little over the top, especially when innuendo of being anti-Semitic is thrown in for good measure.

Neville's riding sees mailings from Tories almost daily. Some people are becoming offended by the costs of numerous mailings.

For one issue voters, the main concern of the Liberals is to remove the issue by having the same position that many people support. This will then focus attention on other things such as the economy.

The liberals record on standing by Israel is terrible, the Tories is excellent. If someone feels that Canada's stance towards Israel should be of importance to their decision to vote, it's not a difficult choice at all. If someone is rabidly anti-Israeli and supports Arab propaganda, they can vote based on this as well (for NDP or liberals), just as people who feel that a parliamentary democracy surrounded by hostile regimes that have on numerous times tried to destroy it deserves our support can vote based on this (for the conservatives). I doubt, however, that this is a vote-determining factor for many.

[lictor616]

The liberals record on standing by Israel is terrible, the Tories is excellent. If someone feels that Canada's stance towards Israel should be of importance to their decision to vote, it's not a difficult choice at all. If someone is rabidly anti-Israeli and supports Arab propaganda, they can vote based on this as well (for NDP or liberals), just as people who feel that a parliamentary democracy surrounded by hostile regimes that have on numerous times tried to destroy it deserves our support can vote based on this (for the conservatives). I doubt, however, that this is a vote-determining factor for many.

here's a novel idea!

TO HELL WITH THE LOT OF THEM...

Canada owes ZERO to the gangster state of Israel and positively shouldn't even think about meddling in the affairs of the furry faced crack pots in the middle east.

Our involvement gets us nothing but hate and log rolling... its time to bid that festering hell hole a good buy and GOOD LUCK...

[Oleg Bach]

here's a novel idea!

TO HELL WITH THE LOT OF THEM...

Canada owes ZERO to the gangster state of Israel and positively shouldn't even think about meddling in the affairs of the furry faced crack pots in the middle east.

Our involvement gets us nothing but hate and log rolling... its time to bid that festering hell hole a good buy and GOOD LUCK...

Who cares? The Arabs - the Jews and the secularist semites of all kinds--- I don't care anymore what they do - to much time and effort and mind is spent on these people - let them fend for themselves the same way as you let go of your adult children..to hell with their problems - they had 60 years to repair things and remove strife and all civil difficulties -- apparently they are not interested in solutions - nor are their American and Saudi management - It might be time to formally divorce the middle east - we cared about them - they had no regard for us ever - that's not a relationship to be preserved.

[Keepitsimple]

I think the main thing is to support countries that are democracies as best you can. It isn't an uncritical support but if these democracies are threatened with attack, it is something Canadians must stand against.

That's the Dobbin I like. Bang on.

[myata]

I think the main thing is to support countries that are democracies as best you can. It isn't an uncritical support but if these democracies are threatened with attack, it is something Canadians must stand against.

Well, why did it sound like somebody very familiar... wait, could it be G.W.Bush? Democracy at all cost. And why am I not surprised that right now i.e. in critical preelection time we turned out big supporters of democracies, globally? Could it be that between the two, somebody's gotta get those votes, so better be me! At all cost. No Dion should have stayed another year, and finished that he started. Now it's hopeless... between the two you'll never figure out the difference.

(First, we critically support them (democracies) as they grab more stuff from non-democracies, but then they are threatened with attack....). Like this (today.. again): BBC: More settlements

Edited June 29, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

well its the most important minority vote... by far!

I don't know about that. It seems to me that the francophone vote remains the most influential vote. It is so influential that we don't have a leader of a party who isn't bilingual.

[jdobbin]

I doubt, however, that this is a vote-determining factor for many.

It is often the only factor in some people's votes. However, if the factor of support for Israel is taken out of the equation then people have to be more circumspect with their vote.

The risk is to be completely uncritical in terms of Israeli support. The government of Canada has to remember that good friends give good advice.

[jdobbin]

Well, why did it sound like somebody very familiar... wait, could it be G.W.Bush?

I think you forget I said that support shouldn't be uncritical.

Bush made the mistake of not strongly enough discouraging Israeli settlement expansion enough into disputed territories. In short, it threatened Israeli security by spreading out the population and inflamed tensions. And not just for Israel but for numerous countries.

Democracy at all cost. And why am I not surprised that right now i.e. in critical preelection time we turned out big supporters of democracies, globally? Could it be that between the two, somebody's gotta get those votes, so better be me! At all cost. No Dion should have stayed another year, and finished that he started. Now it's hopeless... between the two you'll never figure out the difference.

Not democracy at all cost. I don't know you can force any country to be a democracy.

I said support for those countries who are democracies.

(First, we critically support them (democracies) as they grab more stuff from non-democracies, but then they are threatened with attack....). Like this (today.. again): BBC: More settlements

Once again, I said support should not be uncritical. It has to focus on how to reduce tensions not in inflaming them.

[myata]

To which the "friendly' government could be oblivious because it knows that "support" (moral, political, financial, military) would still be coming due to critical nature of those votes. Yes? Are we going to call people "friends" and provide them with friendly (meaningless ie. toothless) advice and unwavering support because they are a "democracy", no matter what they actually do? I'm not sure I'd see that kind of relationship as friendship, sounds more like a gang (though, of course, democratic one).

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

I think the main thing is to support countries that are democracies as best you can. It isn't an uncritical support but if these democracies are threatened with attack, it is something Canadians must stand against.

So do we do it as a matter of principle or because the government is pressured or supported by certain special interest groups? These special interest groups put their homeland before Canada and that is simply not right.

[Oleg Bach]

Forget the Jewish thing - it's old school economics base on stero-typing - the world has changed and the "Jooooos" as BC puts it do not rule the world - you do..so wake up and stop living in the past.

[punked]

I think the main thing is to support countries that are democracies as best you can. It isn't an uncritical support but if these democracies are threatened with attack, it is something Canadians must stand against.

Seems to me Palestine has elections despite Israels best tries to prevent it. Where is Canada on that one?

Edited June 29, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

Seems to me Palestine has elections despite Israels best tries to prevent it. Where is Canada on that one?

Seems to me that Canada supports Palestine's aim of two states and provides aid. Canada is critical of the violence within the country which for a while was tantamount to a civil war between Fatah and Hamas. Canada was also critical of attacks originating from territories on Israel.

Canada should be helping both sides resolve the issue.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Seems to me that Canada supports Palestine's aim of two states and provides aid. Canada is critical of the violence within the country which for a while was tantamount to a civil war between Fatah and Hamas. Canada was also critical of attacks originating from territories on Israel.

Canada should be helping both sides resolve the issue.

Why? What business of it is ours.

Middle east peace is an oxymoron. It is not something that can be solved or facilitated from the outside, it must be dealt with by the parties involved and resolved according to their dictates not ours. Neither side is going to simply give up and hand over power or control of anything at all. The fight will go on.

The Arab states support Palestine, the US supports Israel. Yet peace cannot be enforced by either side, only by the inhabitants of the region in question.

[punked]

Why? What business of it is ours.

Middle east peace is an oxymoron. It is not something that can be solved or facilitated from the outside, it must be dealt with by the parties involved and resolved according to their dictates not ours. Neither side is going to simply give up and hand over power or control of anything at all. The fight will go on.

The Arab states support Palestine, the US supports Israel. Yet peace cannot be enforced by either side, only by the inhabitants of the region in question.

Iggy actually thinks that someone should send in their troops and impose peace by force. In this article he says the USA but if he leads Canada who is too say what he would do with our troops.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/19/israel3/print

[jdobbin]

Why? What business of it is ours.

I suppose it is our business since the conflagration tends to spread all over and quickly.

Middle east peace is an oxymoron. It is not something that can be solved or facilitated from the outside, it must be dealt with by the parties involved and resolved according to their dictates not ours. Neither side is going to simply give up and hand over power or control of anything at all. The fight will go on.

I used to think that about Northern Ireland but outside influences were critical to where we are now.

The Arab states support Palestine, the US supports Israel. Yet peace cannot be enforced by either side, only by the inhabitants of the region in question.

I don't see it as so cut and dry.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What you don't seem to understand is that the involvement of outside interests actually facilitate confrontation not resolve it.

[jdobbin]

What you don't seem to understand is that the involvement of outside interests actually facilitate confrontation not resolve it.

I don't think that is completely true. Ignoring it could lead to a nuclear conflict which I think affects everyone.

[punked]

I don't think that is completely true. Ignoring it could lead to a nuclear conflict which I think affects everyone.

Where does this come from? Israel is the only with Nukes in the conflict.

[GostHacked]

How about they battle for Canadian support first??

[jdobbin]

Where does this come from? Israel is the only with Nukes in the conflict.

For the moment.