myata

Guess you have to know where to look. 'cause our MPs just came back greatly inspired by the progress.

Ditto. Whatever turns it, as long as we're content being cranked up.

Thanks, didn't know that one, but you see, it actually works for both sides! To each, their own only with somewhat limited menu. But that's what we like so no complaints, right?

When discussion descends to the level of "anti-" labels, there would be nothing in it left of argumentation or information, only propaganda. On that level (defining any statement as an expression) "propaganda" would be any expression that isn't identical to my own. So the world reduces itself to a nice simple pattern: my own views and expressions thereof; and hostile propaganda. Nothing else is guaranteed to exist, by definiton.

I admire this great Russian wisdom: Pig not in the least because it's so illustrative of how things are with many of us in life (and on this board too). So why does a pig always find mud to roll in? Maybe because it's the only thing it looks for? The only thing it knows?

Yes it shows. There isn't much that could be debated with seriously in what you posted so far. But it'd be so below yourself to bestow on us your accurate and complete knowledge? Especially if we asked for it to be verifiable in some objective way? But of course! What could be a better counterpoint to those who have already made their mind and taken certain knowledge for a gospel? I hope you'll stay well entertained and amused for as long as you desire it. JBG: yaaaaaaaaaaawn

Or could it be because you have no answer? Go on try to explain ongoing, persistent, no matter what appropriation of others land as a way to lasting and fair peace. On my side, I probably said as many times as I responded to these threads that security of Israel within its proper borders must be guaranteed by any such settlement.

I said no such thing which means that you just have to prove it. That the animosity is caused predominantly by anti-semitism and not e.g. by Israel's (or pre-Israel) own act. I thought you should be getting the idea by now, none of these default one size fits all justifications and/or excuses is going to work here.

Yeagh right, just because you said so everybody is supposed to nod in agreement, thoughtfully. It could also result in one or more parties continuing their hostilities under the veil of peace process. Not like it didn't happen before, so there isn't much point in going there again. Halt all serious hostilities as a token of genuine interest in peace and a measure to establish minimal level of trust between parties; only then there'd be any real chance for successful negotiations. With their land taken daily even as negotiations proceed they certainly wouldn't be negotiating from equal position. So you'll have to clarify it for us: do you also see allowing them to lop rockets into Israel in return for appropriation of their land? And Israel to conduct disproportionate retribution operations in return? And so on... as a colourful background to genuine peace negotiations? Or maybe you'd want to insist that attacks on Israel stop unconditionally and completely, while in its turn it would be allowed to proceed with its landgrab policies unabated? Which scenario is closer to your idea of honest negotiation? No, it's all there, just keep reading it, carefully and as it's written rather than as you want to see it appear in your mind. Indeed, they (conditions) are quite obvious. And the best, i.e. quickest and most efficient way to encourage sides to accept them is to start acting objectively, encouraging and rewarding build of trust and condemning and censoring all acts of hostility and aggression - regardless by whom or with what justification.

Well, presuming it to be so, would your wealth of exprience also tell you that the best way to reach peace and mutual acceptance with other people is to keep taking what they have (land, water, possessions)?

Yes I'd entirely support this solution. Yes or no, no backdoors for "kind of". Yes those 30 or so troops mean that Canada participated in the war, factually if not oficially.

It's not the first time I said it here (not by far) but I'm glad that it has finally reached your active consciousness. Well, I've no time or interest in babytalk. Without excusing hostile talk, it's obvious that no court would treat a threat of violence as being equivalent to actual physical violence. It's been proven that both sides have involved themselves in hostile polemics and regardless of excuses, perpetrating acts of hostility and aggression would lead, naturally, to no other result than more hostility and aggression. I wouldn't though, nor would I advise it to anybody in their right mind. Honest negotiation necessarily implies some minimal level of trust to the partner and no such trust could exist if you are being robbed even as negotiations are taking place. Could it be perhaps that as happens here you confused the words (negotiation with capitulation)? They sound quite similar indeed. Well does it mean what your earlier interpretation suggested? Keep reading carefully and you'll find the answer, hopefully.

I'm not sure how much can be found in reexaminations of various nuances of the "anti" terminology. Clearly it's been used as a prefabricated label to dissmiss facts and views that contradict the doctrine, offhand and without any rational argumentation. As such the strategy is pure propaganda having no relation to intelligent disputing or searching for solutions. It'll play its tune for as long as the battery runs and the only response I could think of is to filter it out like an annoying commercial.

And for that reason eliminates the need for any other sources of information. Such as e.g. objective and independent investigation of the incident. Awsome piece of work illustrating the mentality of some posters here.

However, as we just established here, Israeli government itself is involved in aggressive and hostile acts advocated by these parties, giving us all the reason to think that no one sides is predominantly guilty of perpetrating hostilities, at least, not anymore. So again, you are saying that some words should be held equivalent to acts, while some acts (ongoing settlements buildup) would mean something entirely different from their objective manifestation (obvious and blatant landgrab)? And only you could interpret with confidence which word amounts to which act? No, that assumption is entirely yours. I only said that each act must be judged on its own: illegal expansion as a manifestation of aggressive intents, while absense of militancy - well, absense of militancy. By militancy I of course mean not only actual attacks but any serious activity on preparation and execution thereof. However it has to be proven, in an objective manner, rather than taken for granted as common knowledge. Great idea. And it'll work with one minor addition that all serious acts of hostility must cease before meaningful negotiations of a lasting settlement could begin in any honesty. Can't negotiate with somebody who keeps robbing you even as you "negotiate" as was the case on all such earlier occasions. Much of what you're saying is new to me, so I'll have to research some more details on this. Of course, no serious negotiations are possible while massive hostilities are ongoing. The only thing that can be negotiated at that stage is immediate cessation of aggression and hostilities. See the example above. Well, this (highlight mine -m) is not what was said, nonetheless. So now you either enroll in English comprehension therapy, or explain here the meaning of lying or shall we say, misinterpreting and misrepresenting?

So all these years we've been building and rebuilding there, you haven't been (following it)? And wait, it's still 2010 and we have to see what's going to happen in 2011. It may as well be yet another "sovereignty dance". Waldo, this is something I can't agree upon. What is the relation of principle vs a word ("exchange", "cooperation")? If the war is deemed illegal and unjustifiable, following the principle would be not allowing any Canadian forces to participate in it. What we have here smacks of tacit approval or at least, ambiguity. Yet again, one truth for the public, another - for the exalted ones.

How ironic.. or ignorant.

Yes even that terminology (highlight mine -m) is familiar, you aren't inventing anything new even here.

No it's not shocking in any way, any informed individual would be aware of these views, as well as their numerous and tragic manifestations in the humanity's history. You're just one of the long list. But I wouldn't aspire to the company of your spiritual peers, it's obviously quite grotesque. Yes sounds like a valid justification.

If it was so, I would agree with you. But it's not the case, at least not anymore. Palestinian parties are no more unanimous in hostility to Israel, than Israeli parties - to the state of Palestine. Unless, as has been the case, you're all too willing to overlook that last part. Indeed there's no bottom that would be low enough if one seeks hard. Not sure it could be used as any sort of moral justification as it could justify anything. Absolutely anything. And so, Israel's aggression (landgrab) demonstrates "restraint" while lack thereof from the other side - obviously aggressive intentions? Truth is lie and lie is truth? Congratulation on that belated discovery. Wow, admitting the obvious is a huge step forward here. The next question is, what are we going to do about it. Rationalizing Israeli reasons, are we also going to look at those on the other side? Or come up with policy based on objective view of the situation, encouraging both side to make steps toward peace and censoring them for acts of aggression in any form and regardless of affinities and affiliations? I'm getting tired repeating that Israels concerns about security in its propor borders are fully justified and have to be addressed in any lasting settlement. For the umpteenth and last time. Again, reasons to continue hostilities can be found on either side, especially when looking hard enough. The question is what we do about it, and we have only free choices: contribute to the cycle of hostility; remain neutral; or encourage both sides to break it. So because it has that contentuous issue it can be dissmissed out of hand without as much as meaningful comment, in ten or so years? Sounds like a truly and creadibly peaceful position, does it? No, you haven't answered the question so keep trying. Without that "balogna" (i.e clear standard of acceptable relations between countries) we'd be back to square one (right of force, aka cave age). If thats' what you're advocating I already said there's no point in any logical or moral discussions because it's a direct opposite of the notions of logic or morality. Again, and for the umpteenth and last time I'm calling for objective, fact based view on the situation, encouraging parties for each positive development and censoring every hostile act on its own merit. But it's been provided in the form of the list of countries that support Israel's right to the occupied lands (none - except Israel itself). It happend here on this board, in a different thread and in discussion with a poster no other than yourself. I'll even go through a painful process of finding and reposting the reference here, but only if you undertake to enroll into intensive therapy to address severe obtusion and/or memory loss for at least as long as the time that has passed since posting that information here (not to worry it shouldn't be more than a few months but even that would be great help).

But of course it would. Chosing something else but the eternal duo would actually have some meaning, unlike what we have now. How's that not free, or at least more free than what we have now? How exactly would it be "reduced"? Each vote would get it exact worth, one vote to one unit of representation. Majority (more than 50%) voting for a party would still result in a majority representation. As explained (multiple times) my argument is based only on principles of fairness and freedom, rather than long term political engineering. In other words, I want real uncompromised choice and I'm fully preparted to take full responsibility for it.

No, I already explained it out painstakingly to another poster here that you can't claim knowing "what electorate wants" until they are given free and uncompromised choice. The reason why Tories and Libs are the new political twins has also been explained. Imitating each other is the lest risky strategy in late and tired stage of evolution of two party system. Neither partocracy wants any unnecessary movement or risk, it's safe and cheaper this way and their turn in power is guaranteed sooner or later. And until they tell her what you're telling them, they merit no representation in the Parliament? Yes, it's the democracy we have here after all. Indeed I'm not voting any party till I have a meaningful choice anything less is like playing into two hundred year old game to the benefit of two party commmittees. OK, we'll have to defer this argument until suggested experiment is conducted (percentage of people in the riding who recognise the candidate as opposed to party). Or how about even this minor modification, remove the name of the party from the ballot, and see what happens? Rather, having a free and unrestricted political choice as the condition of my participation in the process. So far, there's been two suggestions, one with no party lists, and the other with lists only for those who wants them. And all we hear from you so far is "Wahh! I don't want any change!!!"

Oh I see, US is using its veto (and so consistently, in this specific matter) only to save the other members the embarrasment of not being able to enforce their decision? How thoughtful indeed! Not to mention, how credible

Yes, it's always justification for these kind of things. Lives saved (our lives of course), eternal evil prevented and so on. Good student of the atrocious teachers, but agian, hardly breaking any new truths.

Only a call for ethnic cleansing? Correct that makes your position an identical twin of that of those organisations.