Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think you forget that Israel agreed to the process of peace talks to end violence and begin ending settlements elsewhere. Hamas didn't. They want all the land and were prepared to use terrorism to g

Syria lost the Golan after attacking Israel by surprise...then losing. What would Judge Judy do?

:lol:

ohhhh the history is great but I don't think Syria will ever give their claims to it up. I also don't think Israel would ever give a strategic position like that up to them for a little peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again Israel can't make peace with Syria becuase of the Golan Heights.

Yeah because peace with Syria is just oh such a sweet reward (sarcasm). I wouldn't give a damn about Syria's nominal "war" with Israel if I was an Israeli, nor would I care about Israel's nominal war with Syria were I a Syrian. They don't fight in practice, they just keep a watchful eye on each other, meanwhile Syria continues to fund and support terrorist regimes, just as it would continue to do even if it had a formal "peace treaty" with Israel.

Also, the Golan Heights was not a place where a ton of civilians lived, it was a military location used by Syria for its aggression against Israel. Israel captured the strategic ground in the war, displacing very few if any civilians in the process, and it has since been fully incorporated into the state of Israel as an integral part of it no less than any other. It is a very different case than the West Bank and Gaza. Any Israeli leader that considers even for a moment giving up the Golan Heights, except as a necessity in war to save the rest of the country, would be an idiot.

As for water, honestly, I wouldn't care. The less water you have the sooner you deploy large scale, economically viable, desalination and/or condenser technology. A boon to high-tech industry and far superior water independence and security than could ever be achieved by access to some river or lake. All those water bodies in the middle-east are fast drying up anyway and will probably be gone in our lifetime. The question is more one of land - how do you propose to give Palestinians access to the Sea of Galilee (which is what I presume you are talking about) without cutting out a huge strip of Israel that the Palestinians have no claim to whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ohhhh the history is great but I don't think Syria will ever give their claims to it up. I also don't think Israel would ever give a strategic position like that up to them for a little peace.

It's indeed a strategic position. Poor farm land, though. From there, heavy Syrian guns could hit the coastline. Similar reasons had the Syrians hangin' in the Bekaa as apparent guests of Lebanon...or proto-Hezbollah, if you prefer.

Gaza and the West Bank...same deal. Their importance to the Arabs was their geographic positions re: Isreal. Nasser stuffed two entire divisions into Gaza before the 6 Day War. The place nearly sank, I'm sure.

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for water, honestly, I wouldn't care. The less water you have the sooner you deploy large scale, economically viable, desalination and/or condenser technology. A boon to high-tech industry and far superior water independence and security than could ever be achieved by access to some river or lake. All those water bodies in the middle-east are fast drying up anyway and will probably be gone in our lifetime. The question is more one of land - how do you propose to give Palestinians access to the Sea of Galilee (which is what I presume you are talking about) without cutting out a huge strip of Israel that the Palestinians have no claim to whatsoever.

I wasn't talking about the Sea of Galilee, desalination is a huge expense that a Palestinian state could never afford those are multi billion dollar ideas, it works for Israel because they are a real nation with money. I think 30% of their water comes from there. However almost all of natural fresh water that the Israels use is in the disputed territory of the West bank on the Jordon River. I don't think Israel can back Palestine with out some sort of an agreement on this, which wont happen becuase they live in a desert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's indeed a strategic position. Poor farm land, though. From there, heavy Syrian guns could hit the coastline. Similar reasons had the Syrians hangin' in the Bekaa as apparent guests of Lebanon...or proto-Hezbollah, if you prefer.

Gaza and the West Bank...same deal. Their importance to the Arabs was their geographic positions re: Isreal. Nasser stuffed two entire divisions into Gaza before the 6 Day War. The place nearly sank, I'm sure.

:lol:

Well there is a distinction between the Golan Heights and the West Bank / Gaza, which is that a bunch of Palestinians live in the latter. Can't just make it a part of Israel in the same way. It would make by far the most sense for Israel to dump these territories to administer themselves (or of course, even better but unrealistic, give them back to Egypt and Jordan) as soon as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't talking about the Sea of Galilee, desalination is a huge expense that a Palestinian state could never afford those are multi billion dollar ideas, it works for Israel because they are a real nation with money. I think 30% of their water comes from there. However almost all of natural fresh water that the Israels use is in the disputed territory of the West bank on the Jordon River. I don't think Israel can back Palestine with out some sort of an agreement on this, which wont happen becuase they live in a desert.

The Sea of Galilee is fresh water.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Sea of Galilee is fresh water.

I always get the sea of Galilee and the dead sea mixed up. It is however feed by the Jordon River right? So if you give the West Bank complete water rights they block up the river and Israel has no fresh water. The Jordon River is the contention becuase all the water that flows to Israel comes through Palestinian territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I always get the sea of Galilee and the dead sea mixed up. It is however feed by the Jordon River right? So if you give the West Bank complete water rights they block up the river and Israel has no fresh water. The Jordon River is the contention becuase all the water that flows to Israel comes through Palestinian territory.

Quite sure it's the other way. Water flows from the Sea of Galiliee, through the Jordan river, into the Dead Sea. When it hits the Dead Sea it becomes salty (obviously). The water level of the Dead Sea has been dropping rapidly in recent decades due to excessive water use in both Israel and the West Bank, reducing the flow reaching the Dead Sea from the Jordan river.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there is a distinction between the Golan Heights and the West Bank / Gaza, which is that a bunch of Palestinians live in the latter. Can't just make it a part of Israel in the same way. It would make by far the most sense for Israel to dump these territories to administer themselves (or of course, even better but unrealistic, give them back to Egypt and Jordan) as soon as possible.

I believe both finally gave up their claims. Jordan as late as '88. Much easier for both to make them Israel's problem rather than theirs...which of course...it was!

But, seriously...what a miserable cause this is, anyways; this 'Palestinian Cause'. Born out of a fanatical anti-Semite's vision of his own private state free of Jews. He even sided with Hitler to achieve this goal. The post-WW-1 mandates belonging to France and Britiain had seen the creation of several Arab states, already...with none of the violence associated with the bloodthirsty Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe both finally gave up their claims. Jordan as late as '88. Much easier for both to make them Israel's problem rather than theirs...which of course...it was!

But, seriously...what a miserable cause this is, anyways; this 'Palestinian Cause'. Born out of a fanatical anti-Semite's vision of his own private state free of Jews. He even sided with Hitler to achieve this goal. The post-WW-1 mandates belonging to France and Britiain had seen the creation of several Arab states, already...with none of the violence associated with the bloodthirsty Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

I agree, a miserable cause indeed, and in any other place in the world the victorious power would either have annexed the territory and did with it what they wanted or else signed a peace treaty returning it. Only in Israel does the world expect the victor of a defensive war to make sacrifices thereafter.

Unfortunately it now seems to be the reality and I don't see any better way out for Israel. I mean, they could try to keep the status quo for ever, but then they will lose the war of words and international support will continue to erode. They could try to expel the Palestinians and permanently incorporate those territories into Israel, but that would get them completely isolated from all Western nations really fast. They could include the territories in Israel and make those living there into full citizens, but then Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. I guess another other option is just to wait for WWIII and hope the situation is fundamentally different in some way after that, but that could take a while.

So yeah, implementing the two state solution ASAP is really Israel's best play, out of a handful of really terrible cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, a miserable cause indeed, and in any other place in the world the victorious power would either have annexed the territory and did with it what they wanted or else signed a peace treaty returning it. Only in Israel does the world expect the victor of a defensive war to make sacrifices thereafter.

Unfortunately it now seems to be the reality and I don't see any better way out for Israel. I mean, they could try to keep the status quo for ever, but then they will lose the war of words and international support will continue to erode. They could try to expel the Palestinians and permanently incorporate those territories into Israel, but that would get them completely isolated from all Western nations really fast. They could include the territories in Israel and make those living there into full citizens, but then Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. I guess another other option is just to wait for WWIII and hope the situation is fundamentally different in some way after that, but that could take a while.

So yeah, implementing the two state solution ASAP is really Israel's best play, out of a handful of really terrible cards.

I have to agree 100% with all your points. It is heavily ironic that Israel is the one that needs to accomidate the so-called Palestinians (read: abandoned Jordanians and Egyptians). Israel also feels the clock ticking from the nuclear prespective. That is: it is only a matter of when not if a terrorist group like Hezbollah or Hamas obtains a nuclear device or some deadly nerve agent like VX to use on them without hesitation. The next 10-20 years (at least) for Israel are going to be dangerous.

Unfortunately for Israel, all its enemies are aware that demographics are against Israel surviving past a few more generations under current conditions. So letting the terrorists blast away seems to be the ultimate Muslim response to the problem. Attrition works in the long haul. Terrorism just speeds things up.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
My main concern is to see the reduction of hostilities in the Middle East. Canada, as a friend of Israel, can offer support and advice on the situation. It isn't an uncritical support. While Israel has a right to defend itself, it has to come to terms with settlements.

We all know, Dobbin, that talk is cheap. So tell us when was the last time that "critical" or otherwise, support made Israel stop building one single settler's home in the occupied territory? That's the real, practical value of your plan for "reduction of hostilities". So maybe let's drop pretending the glory of humanity and all things such; you i.e. your party wants a slice of a certain voter demographics, that's fine (and in the process, making itself virtually undistinguishable from the proclaimed arch enemy, compare e.g. Iggy's and Harper's statements of "defending itself" in other words a hugely disproportionate military action resulting in deaths of over a thoushand civilians and destruction of public infrastructure. What a commendable "reduction"!). But can you get it both ways (getting the votes by one sided position in the conflict, and retaining respect as an independent and impartial mediator in the international affairs)?? - I seriously doubt that. Regardless of those pressures of the moment, one has to be picked - and I don't envy your (i.e. Iggy's) position one bit. Nor do I find it credible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We all know, Dobbin, that talk is cheap. So tell us when was the last time that "critical" or otherwise, support made Israel stop building one single settler's home in the occupied territory?

I'd say that was evident when Israel stopped building in Gaza and despite violent protests by some of their own, bulldozed the settlement housing.

It was a sustained critical focus on Israel withdrawing from that territory that stopped settlements from being built and ended up with the removal of the existing ones.

That's the real, practical value of your plan for "reduction of hostilities". So maybe let's drop pretending the glory of humanity and all things such; you i.e. your party wants a slice of a certain voter demographics, that's fine (and in the process, making itself virtually undistinguishable from the proclaimed arch enemy, compare e.g. Iggy's and Harper's statements of "defending itself" in other words a hugely disproportionate military action resulting in deaths of over a thoushand civilians and destruction of public infrastructure.

The Liberals have commented on the proportionality of military responses. I don't expect that to change.

What a commendable "reduction"!). But can you get it both ways (getting the votes by one sided position in the conflict, and retaining respect as an independent and impartial mediator in the international affairs)?? - I seriously doubt that. Regardless of those pressures of the moment, one has to be picked - and I don't envy your (i.e. Iggy's) position one bit. Nor do I find it credible.

You say one sided but I don't see it that way. The hostility toward Israel by some people and I see it from some on both the left and the right is rather breathtaking. Their response appears to be pull out or pick the side of the Palestinian or Arab world over the Israelis. In short, Israel is the bad guy entirely.

I have no problem saying that some of Israel's policy's are destined to cause them headaches. I suspect they know that as well. Outright hostility to Israel at every turn doesn't look a solution to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say that was evident when Israel stopped building in Gaza and despite violent protests by some of their own, bulldozed the settlement housing.

It was a sustained critical focus on Israel withdrawing from that territory that stopped settlements from being built and ended up with the removal of the existing ones.

But they are still building on Palestinian land to this day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

francophone quebec people don't own Astral media, Gazette, Globe and Mail, the CBC, CANWEST, BMO, TD bank, the ADL of Bnai Brith, the CJC, CJA, and also doesn't have far reaching tentacles in the US.... AIPAC, Bernanke etc... never mind VIACOM, CBS, Disney, ABS, Newhouse Media empire, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Warner, Random House, Simon & Shuster etc etc etc etc etc

they don't even compare.

Edited by lictor616
Link to post
Share on other sites
francophone quebec people don't own Astral media, Gazette, Globe and Mail, the CBC, CANWEST, BMO, TD bank, the ADL of Bnai Brith, the CJC, CJA, and also doesn't have far reaching tentacles in the US.... AIPAC, Bernanke etc... never mind VIACOM, CBS, Disney, ABS, Newhouse Media empire, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Warner, Random House, Simon & Shuster etc etc etc etc etc

they don't even compare.

Nazi anti-semitic poster circa 1938.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a sustained critical focus on Israel withdrawing from that territory that stopped settlements from being built and ended up with the removal of the existing ones.

They stopped in one place to continue and accelerate in another. News or new settements or expansion of existing ones is a regular event. Has all the "critical support", or "supportive criticism" in the past decades been able to achieve any real movement (= actual freeze or god forbid, reduction) on this one single major obstacle to peace? There you go, everything else is just talk and spin. Funny one has to resort to resort to it, just like their right wing arch enemy. No, all can't be bad with Harper's international policies after all!

The Liberals have commented on the proportionality of military responses. I don't expect that to change.

OK, I made an honest effort to find an official Liberal position on that one, and quite honestly, failed. But found several references to the "right to defend". So if you come across any, I'd be indepted for sharing it.

You say one sided but I don't see it that way.

Really? When you would be also puzzled and maybe even concerned by apparent, obvious and utmost inefficiency of "critical" support policies to achive the actual progress in stopping the expansion of settlements (aka illegal land grab) as well as multitude of other things like excess violence, rights of population in the occuplied territories. Along with, most certainly, the right of people in Israel proper to peace and security.

The hostility toward Israel by some people and I see it from some on both the left and the right is rather breathtaking. Their response appears to be pull out or pick the side of the Palestinian or Arab world over the Israelis. In short, Israel is the bad guy entirely.

I'm not sure who are the hypothetical "some" being referred to, or what they do. I'm only asking for a principled balanced approach, the one based on facts and actual situation, rather than wholesale "friendship" committments based on ideological proximity. In such approach, unprovoked attacks on civilians on one side, and illegal annexation of territory by the other would both receive clear and unambiguous condemnation. BTW and for the record though I'm getting tired repeatng it, I also do not consider legitimate criticism of illegal policies and practices by any state as hostility toward its people, that should be obvious, n'est ce pas?

Outright hostility to Israel at every turn doesn't look a solution to me.

Certainly sounds like a symptom of gang mentality, when any legitimate, civil critisim of "mine" is immediately perceived as "hostility". The standard accusation is the combined effect of 1) dropping any pretense to impartiality (an impartial observer would be able to comment on any specific issue logically and with substance, without any need to resort to generic "hostility" claim); and 2) insufficient confidence in one's position, hence the need to throw back accusation, rather than addressing issues specifically and with substance. Overall, isn't at all different from what's been thrown around all these years, a definite step back from a balanced, impartial position, the only credible position of a trusted mediator, and certainly won't be of any help in the real resolution of the conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Canadians can vote based on whatever issue they find important. If what matters to them is economy, they can vote for the party they think best represents them on that, if it's healthcare, or education, or whatever else, they can vote based on that. And if it happens to be foreign policy that someone cares about, then that too is a valid issue to base one's vote upon.

No canadians don't build the platforms on which they can vote... To mind, I was never given a concrete specific choice on immigration for instance (I was always given a choice to vote between parties who hold virtually identical immigration policies... and its precisely the same with Israel)... so no... not at all.. the politicians produce the platforms on which they are to be elected which are for the most part never representative of the interests or the whims of the electorate.

Furthermore it really helps when the media is for all practical purposes under the control of pro Israel jews... Astral media ? Izzy aspers empire? Controls about 62-65% of ALL PRINTED, TELEVISED and RADIO MEDIA IN CANADA. CBC being owned by the rabinovitches is a close... canwest, CTV the list goes on and on...

So do you think there's a conflict of interest here? Do you suppose these people may have a whim to use their propaganda machine (which reaches EVERY HOME IN CANADA) to push their agenda?

Can't you smell the rot and the stench of this whole mess?

Its high time we divorce ourselves from that desert and bazaar region of the world and start looking after OUR OWN AFFAIRS before that of foreign interests (who hate us anyway!)...

Link to post
Share on other sites

well dog on porch nice refutation.... a nazi poster... Godwin's Law to its absolute ridiculous maximum...

It would be like someone talking about corporate fascism and me bringing this poster http://englishrussia.com/images/anti_usa/29.jpg

fantastic argument! right!

you know you couldn't refute or defuse the truth of Jewish media ownership so you call ME names... brilliant ad hominem anti intellectualism dogonporch.. brilliant!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...