myata

Listen to this voice of peaceful humanity itself. And how would such "deportation" be called? Correct, "ethnic cleansing" And how it would be classified? Yes, "crime against humanity" And where would organisers and perpetrators of such acts find themselves (when on the wrong side of our split vision western justice)? True, in The Haag. Now try to turn this phrase on the other side and imagine the unimaginable wail and invocation of the worst curses and accusations in most heinous crimes possible. No, pumping financial and military assistance into the area where people talk about each other this way is nothing short of feeding the conflict itself. If we ever recognised this, it may be our most valuable contribution to peace in many, many years.

Indeed it was pointed it out already how unconditional support of Israel's actions here almost necessarily reduces itself to denying objective reality and self-isolation in the fairy tale imaginary world where everything "we" do is right by definition and any attempt to investigate or question it is considered ridiculous or absurd or even "anti", also by definition. I'm afraid you aren't breaking any new ground here.

I don't like this idea, other than with specific and very stringent criteria on which this assistence would be provided with immediate and unconditional termination if they aren't met. Too often that "democracy building" turns out into desperate operation in propping puppet regimes that have no chance of standing on their own.

Yes I'm of that opinion as well. There's no stable and secure long term future for Israel in the atmosphere of hostility and war. Demographics are stacked against it and it's only so long one could hold the tide, even with massive military support from the US. Clearly hostile and aggressive policies like mentioned above are preventing any notion of possibility of trust and peaceful settlement and in the long term are self destructive like pouring gas in the fire next to one's own house. I'm somewhat hopefull though is that once the current generation of Israeli and Palestinian politians will prove without any further doubt the utter hopelessness of the path of hostility, the ones following them may be more receptive to the ideas of sensible compromise. Something like that happened in South Africa, and Russia before perestrojka, so it's not an uncommon scenario.

Yes those were the days ... declined..somewhat, as we're discovering. The "exchange" ruse is shameful and offensive. If the war is deemed illegal there'd be no excuse for any of our troops participating in it. Declined, really?

It was about competition, remember? Tories and Libs are looking more and more like identical twin. Guess you can call it "competion" though we arrive the same place no matter how we vote. No kidding. The ideas, solutions and platforms they are all only an adornment of the leaders portrait. Really, why the voice of 10% of voters (one million) should matteer if I find it "immature" and "delusional"? It's a democracy we have here, after all. Well, go on, show examples that it's actually evolving. I.e. moving somewhere.. anywhere. But it instantly becomes "contested" if the same apparatchik is parachuted into riding by the same party exec? We can't get an objective answer here, but I have a suggestion in case somebody's listening. At election time run a random poll on the streat asking people the party they'll vote and the name of its candidate in their riding. A "list" official could have an office in some riding hardly an essential difference(I imagine most do anyways). "Presumed" by who? You have evidence that it's closer related to his riding than general concerns about this policy? In any event, this is just an anecdote and there many (probably many more) examples of local MPs toeing party line, as well as "list" MPs abandoning their parties for political reasons. I do not insist on party list though. We can have the same system as now, except actual representation being determined by the party showing in the election. Voter breakdown by %% of vote in election = House breakdown by party, the winning candidates appointed to ridings according to party showing in it. Just one possibility of how it could be moved forward. What is inacceptable in a modern democracy is maintaining the status quo that no longer gives voters any meaningful choice.

The events happened 300 years back though (give or take). While Israel's landgrab is going on even as we speak. Easy to overlook, I understand. "Congruate" only as long as you make them to. One is the reality, the other - worthless empty epithet. Pick which.

You can say that (just as you can say anything else), no proof necessary. But of course you realise that by stating it you compare Isreal to an imperial colonial power of some 300 years ago? Rather than shining torch of democracy and freedom it appears in other arguments here? So that being your point of view, what would the reason for our leading democracy to support expansionist and aggressive imperial state involved in illegal expropriation of land and bitter conflict with its neignbours?

Obviously, Israel has no legitimate claim to these lands, so it's got nothing to do with what happens in Canada. Curiousity is a good thing, but enquiring minds better start educating themselves too.

No, but it's a choice.

Digging up new sources of objective information to stay current? Cheer up!

No, I'm talking about specific event that requires independent in objective investigation. So, again, why could not it happen? Indeed there's been an international inquiry into this incident with results published, thanks for bringing this up. So, again why can't the same happen in the flotilla incident? Instead of calling for a credible independent inquiry as a number of other countries, the US has accepted Israel conducts its own internal investigation. Again, we're talking about objective independent international inquiry with full access to relevant information. When it happens let me know I'll gladly accept my claim as "preposterious".

I can't comment on something that you saw. I already commented in response to another poster that at this stage in the conflict no automatic, default excuses can be taken for granted anymore from either side. Any and all acts of hostility, by whatever side must be considered on their own merit. Including, obviously the program of illegal settlement building that is nothing short of an obviously hostile and aggressive acts. If Israel itself maintains this aggressive policy for decades and regardless of changes in the attitude of its neighbours, it can no longer claim "hostility" as automatic excuse for its every act. A very commendable effort that Israel as well communities around the world can be proud of but I see no reason for it do be sponsored by superpower at the time when the government of the country is involved in persistent aggressive policies. A very sad event indeed. Yes there're many relevant aspects of which current and ongoing policy of illegal land appropriation (as opposed to Soviet Union or Holocaust of long ago) plays a key role, just as any act of hostility against Israel so I'm at a loss explaining your persistent failure to notice or discuss it. For it to be a genuine "rejection" it has to show in some practical act though. Otherwise it really does not mean much as money continue to flow regardless of how many illegal settlements Israels builds up. That gives Israel a mixed message (or maybe quite clear one) that is counter productive to any serious progress toward peace because it encourages clearly hostile and aggressive behaviour that can result in nothing else but continuing cycle of hostility. Without clear act indeed this will be the logical perception of the outside world. Words without act to match them have lost all meaning in this affair. And Jews murdering Arabs, as well or in return? Anyways can we attempt to keep our focus on the current events? I said nothing about "root cause" please don't misrepresent me. But Israeli settlements policy is a clearly hostile and aggressive act that plays important role in the current state of the conflict. Israel can call itself whatever it likes but there's no obligation on anybody else to "identify" it. Just as for any other country in the world, btw. Canada could call itself a secular democracy or e.g. heavenly kingdom of the leaf, but it would be ridiculous to require everybody else in the world to formally recognise it as such. Even more incredible would be to use it as a justification of a clearly hostile and aggressive act. Indeed we need to go into any relevant statemements and acts, on either side of the conflict, to judge them objectively and for their own worth, without default excuses or justifications. That is the only way to encourage parties to move away from hostilities toward (some form of) trust and mutual respect without which no resolution is possible. There are no legal reasons for taking something that does not belong to you, "memoirs" or explanations aside. This conflict has a long and painful history for both side and the first step one makes toward its continuation further and further into the future is by ignoring reality that does not match one's views and finding excuses and justifications for unexcusable and unjustifiable acts of one's own. It is a spiral of hostility and aggression and each hostile and aggressive act contributes to it, and nothing changes if one calls it "expansion" instead of "landgrab" or spin heroic legends around it. By intent maybe, but not the result. And it's the result that counts, i.e that shows to the outside world and the offended party that is supposed to become their partner in peace. Which is of course a total and utmost impossibility, nonsense. How could one negotiate peace while never stopping, not even for a moment robbing the partner of their possessions? Any notion of that is nothing short of being ridiculous not to mention the offence to the other side.

Again, why exactly wouldn't it possible to have an objective and independent inquiry of the incidents so that we could know the truth from more credible source than homemade satire? Let's recall recent Georgia - Russia conflict, where both parties agreed to allow independent EU commission to invistegate the matter. What was it again that puts acts of Israel above any possibility of objective scrutiny? And its all powerful ally covering up for it no matter what?

We're talking about current state of affairs, when Soviet Union is long gone (about two decades) and Israel continues to receive massive grants including those for military assistence and massive buildup of illegal settlements. Nobody suggested that "only". The connection is being made between the assistance Israel receives from the US and it's persistence with building illegal settlments. Continuing it (assistence) after all these decades when it became clear that settlements program is a long term deliberate plan that is not influenced by the developments in the conflict, would be nothing short of encouragement and sponsoring of that program. And that, of course (encouragement and practical sponsoring of aggressive activites) has nothing to do with promotion of peace.

We wouldn't know the truth though until there's an objective and independent inquiry of the matter. And Israel refuses exactly such an inquiry. And its staunch friend and ally understandably covers it up. So this "truth" looks more like direct borrow from the Cheering guide, have we perused it lately?

It's true that Canada does not have independent foreign policy anymore (in any meaningful or noticeable sense). And it is true that it didn't start with Harper, though he's certainly very happy to follow in that direction. And it sucks because that was pretty much the last thing that gave this country anyhow meaningful role internationally. But maintaining independence costs, and we'd rather save those for our merrymaking or home renovation projects.

OK thanks for honest admission with my correction for being current. If they want to maintain at least the appearance of being interested in a peaceful resolution, they should. No rather have no choice but to. It's plain obvious logic. One can't continue obviously aggressive acts at the same time, wouldn't it be like blowing ("peace") and sucking (more and more land) in the same breath. And that's just recreates and magnifies the spiral of violence with obviously very little possibility of any positive movement. But wait, you still haven't posted any evidence of them "not holding back". I can't claim 100% accuracy but I read international media daily and in several sources, and according to my view of the situation - and I'll be certainly grateful for any factual updates on that, there haven't been any serious attacks on Israel proper for a while now - at least several months, while unfriendly and aggressive Israeli construction of settlements goes full steam (references posted in many threads here) and there were also multiple reports of civilian deaths. The bottom line is, you can't any longer claim this "defence" or "retaliation" excuse for granted, without factual evidence that attacks on Israel proper, in the scale anywhere near Israel's actions in the occupied territories are still taking place. And that's what our convention shall be: analysis of situation based on objective, factual reports. And no "defaul" excuses other than as default justification of preconcluded opinion having little to do with objective reality. "Ignore" and "commit gross violations" itself are soooooooo diffrent things. You know it for sure, so why waste my time explaining it to you? "The Arab world" has also come up with a comprehensive peace proposal. It what you want to see (and feel), and claim as justification for absolutely unjustifiable by a civilized nation behaviour. I think that "refugee" problem is Arab's response to Israel's landgrab. Rather than hopping around the issue the "Quartet" should come up with a short list of principles of settlement. And agree to take real and practical measures against any party that destabilised settlement process. In another thread there was a suggestion to make a black tradeoff settlements - right of return. All, no exceptions other than mutually negotiated agreements, settlers out of Arab territories and complete freeze on settlement growth in East Jerusalem, till its status is defined in the future, for relinquishing claims to return to Israel proper. Oh we do remember the existence of "law" after all? So does it address threats in the same way as actual violence? Or maybe justifies real deadly violence as response to verbal threats? Or maybe, allows to take somebody's possession and claim it for own? No a little more specifically, please, you think that because they occupy these lands they somehow have rightful possession of them? Because you can't "trade" something that doesn't belong to you, in an honest deal can you? It did though, not in the least through numerous UN and UNSC resolutions(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel). And now you have to prove that it's false, i.e there's a country in the world that recognises Israel's claim to the occupied terrtories. Yes I see that you want to have this discussion reduced to childish level. Yes one could "claim" and "punish" and that would also reduce their credibility as being honest party for peace to zero. That's the only point I'm making. Your volume of humour in your argumentation appears to come all at the expense of factual evidence to support it. I guess laughter is the only option here... Already addressed, but don't you simply admire it how these folks would decry the law and then cite it all in the same blow? Well they did. This is no revelation it came up in multiple resolutions, statements of leaders and formal peace proposals (see above). We can't but assume that somebody somewhere just isn't interested, in the real and genuine sense. And it's about time to stop all pretence about it, if we want to see any movement on the issue.

If I'm not mistaken it was League of Nations that gave British the mandate to rule these territories. The British then decided in their almightiness to allow massive foreign immigration to the land. Which lead to conflicts, acquisition of arms, terrorist campaign and so on, as per your post. So League of Nations and British (as the US and many countries thereafter) both influenced the course of this conflict. I'm not sure how much positive could be extracted from going back to the sources of conflict, but if you're going to use history as argument, leaving out essential events as though they didn't happen instantly reduces credibility of that argument to zero, turning it into plain apology.

There's no objectively verifiable way to tell though. Not by the content of parties platforms, nor by quality of their leaders. Indeed, once the reality is safely out of the way, it's time for musing and fuming. Who cares that with a great leadership they could have gotten one or two seats, instead of 30 something according to popular support. Depends on the framework of reference. If lack of choice, assured grip on power and stagnation are a good thing, I'll agree that there's no better system than ours. But that would be quite original way of thinking judging by the fact that everybody else is moving on, in some way. Relax, it's just a discussion, so you arent rear ended anywhere and nothing's going to happen for a few generations anyway. Having voted for one for ages, and still proudly ignorant about it. What is your party's list of candidates? How exactly is it different from the dreaded "party list"?

Or even in generally harsh conditions.. looks on the other side; it's been a long while since there were any real doves there either. But we like our principles to work only one way - on others and in our favour. If not, then good bye principles (democracy, justice, objectivity and so on).

And it's not like we'd have nothing to do with it (as is becoming quite usual). Remember who it was dictating which government they should and which could not, have in Palestine?

Like "fiercly competitive" tweedle dum-dee duet? Can you be sure it's real competition rather than a have-do-to public show? Both are guaranteed a turn at the power, sooner or later. Just like everybody else is guaranteed to be excluded. So you think that with great leaders they'd get strong representation in FPTP? Think again. Because with left-center vote split three ways it'd be total and absolute domination of the House by CPC. There's just so many ways in which "left" vote could be split (LPC-NDP, NDP-Green, LPC-Green, and so on), that both individual and combined representation of the left part of political spectrum would be decimated. Before you make these statements, try to understand the system. It's made to have exactly two real parties and to produce majority governments for them, alternating. We could discuss them forever, but the point is who is listening. Neither of our governing duo has anything to gain from this reform, and they'll have to be dragged into it kicking and screeming.

Interesting: in Berlin, wall was brough down by voluntary and peaceful unification; while in Jerusalem, a wall was built to "unite" it. Along with brute force and blatant disrespect for international law, of course. Some similarities indeed.

Just a hunch. Future works in mysterious ways. Take apartheid regime in South Africa for example, it was so strong and so dominant and occupied other countries too. And now, where can it be found, only a few decades from its peak, such a triffle in the measures of history?