myata

Like Afghan "nazi" and Iraq "nazi" before (and Vietnam "nazi" some years back)? Everybody we don't happen to like must be a "nazi". That certainly explains so many things, pack mentality in particular.

If Harper thinks that his new course is a secret to anybody, it'd be the Polichinelle's secret. Countries would hardly want to have an obvious proxy of the US on the Council. Of course, it's a nice way to simulate an appearance of some international standing, where there isn't any otherwise.

Of course, we simply have to be the ones deciding the legitimacy of others elections, governments, ways to run the country, laws, beliefs, and so on. And if we don't like them, we'll walk out, proudly. Such a novel recipe for the world in the new millenia!

To voice its resounding, unconditional support to its newlyfound pack? Otherwise, it beats me. Under this government this country entirely lost its distinct voice on the international stage and its presence in the SC would be pointless as it'd echo US position on all issues. Not that it's should be a secret to anybody, by now. That being the case, I don't think there's much possibility of us getting the seat.

If it was meant to say that "tough justice" can reduce crime, the evidence (to the countrary) can be found right before our eyes: down south, in the system this goverment appears to be aspiring to, they have the highest rate of inprisonment in the entire developed world, and also (and by far, like, in the multiples), the highest rates of violent crime. BTW, here in Canada our incarceration levels are pretty high already compared to other developed countries (references were posted in another thread). But rational thinking and common sense was never an obstacle to ideology. And on this agenda, government is acting exclusively on the grounds of ideology and populism.

I agree. Canada's walkout only tells everybody that it now can be counted on to be a member of the pack. It does nothing to address Iran's or any other problems.

I'll respond anyways just because it was indeed a very good discussion. I tried to explain that addressing, and proclaiming each other beliefs may not be a very efficient way to peace. Attention, at least on the initial approaches to peace, should be squared on reducing and eliminating the actual, physical acts of hostility, violence and agression, in all forms and by all sides. That in itself supports and guarantees the existence of both sides much better, more certainly, than any declarations and proclamatins. Therefore I think that attention given to extracting any such proclamations upfront is a distraction from meaningful peace process. Certainly, and we achieve nothing, or rather step back in the direction leading away from peace and lasting settlement pretending that their grievances do not exist. Both past and present. I agree, but I'd like to state one more time that our (i.e West in general) role in the conflict so far did not foster such understanding, on the contrary, in my view at least, did much to prolong and exacerbate it by lending staunch, unconditional support to the side that is itself involved in perpetrating acts of hostility and agression.

Indeed, all parts of Conservatives crime control agenda are coming into the open: 1) less restrictions on gun possession to get them into more hands; 2) tough and adversary penitentiary system to raise hardened criminals; 3) no attention to causes of crime and meaningful prevention outside of jail to get more initiates into those prisons. Lets see if the result would be different that the model they are aiming at (with the highest in the developed world levels of serious crime and incarceration). It's much more fun to see our tax $$$ invested in prisons, rather than healthy communities and gun control.

Who has to make that confirmation though? Is it up to somebody from the outside to insist on all kinds of upfront statements and declarations, or for the sides themselves to find a way to exist in peace and prosperity, side by side? A genuine committment to seek peace could lead to honest, in good faith peace dialogue, then to a lasting settlement that would be the best guarantee of the right to exist for both sides. Continuing acts of agression, by either side, for any motivation and regardless of who doesn't want to notice, may very well result in escalation of the conflict to the bitter end. Needless to say that genuine committment to peace cannot come while somebody's still involved in active and massive acts of agression, no matter how some pretend to not comprehend that. And in the situation where neither of the sides has reached the point where they are ready to commit to seeking peace, genuinly and in good faith, the best outsiders could do is to help them reach that understanding, persistently and without bias. If necessary, taking real and practical measures to discourage any side still involved in such acts. This is of course, lightyears, like 180 degrees opposite from what we (West in general) were doing up till now. From one side of the mouth, we promise ongoing committment (and serious aid, military and financial) to one particular side; from the other, we gently chide it (once in a rare while) for particularly obvious acts violations. So what should the sides make of such "peaceful" position? Your guess. So how and why would a verbal declaration be more important than seeking real and practical ways to peace?

Ah, but I already commented on that, and quite a while back too. This "right to exist" adage is a pointless (but highly useful for pseudo peaceful strategists) distraction away from addressing the real and practical issues, in solving which their policies have failed so utterly and consistently, i.e. deescalation of ALL hostilities and stopping ALL acts of agression, regardless of who's involved and for what reason. That would be the first real and serious step toward achieving the real and practical confirmation to the "right to exist" for both sides involved in the conflict. The next would be of course, negotiating a serious, confident and lasting settlement that would allow the sides to live in peace and prosperity. Only that settlemnt would finally enshrine the "right to exist", for all sides involved in the conflict, and much better and reliably than any verbal declarations by outsiders. And vice versa still, in the absense of such lasting settlement, there can be no guarantee that the confict would not run to the bitter end, i.e. one side driving the other into the sea, or something similar. Again, regardless of any verbal declarations outsiders may have to contribute.

The business of apologising agressive Israeli policies must be running pretty slow of late, if it only inspires this sort of defenders (and arguments).

Peacekeeping is very much doomed in this age of retired democracy. The only way majority of democratic populace would approve the cost of intervention somewhere away from the sphere of their immediate concerns, is by being brainwashed into fear for their lives (compare our staunch will to face existential threats from Iraq, Afghanistan, to perfect inability to act in e.g. Rwanda)

Party politics suck. Two party politics suck to the power of two. In the near future, if not already now, it may come out as the single biggest obstacle to real democracy in our political system.

It's a tight knot indeed. But as said, hope never dies, and tomorrow will be a new day.

As said, it was pretty obvious you've been seeking all possible (and impossible as well) ploys to employ this default, well shuffled and worn out argument ever since the early days of this discussion (for the lack of anything better, one may wonder?), but I guess this should conclude our discussion (on my part at least), permanently.

We already discussed that at length. Just as reality of belief, reality of say may or may not be different from the reality of act. Which, the latter one, could also be taken into account once in while. So, the belief in entitlement to other's property and/or land can never lead to "hostile acts", no? If you'd only care / could? read you'd certainly notice that it was a question. It's kind of relates to the above, because I clearly described the acts of hostility and agression I'm primarily concerned with, and apparently that had no effect on your understanding of my position, so I'm really at loss how else could I carry the meaning of it to you. Still talking to yourself? No need to say it, it clearly shows in your act, if not you'd be able to point to the last time any real, practical measure was taken about that blatant, ongoing and persistent policy of illegal expansion? Of course and we were growing restless waiting when this (default) one was going to show up? Congrats Dobbin, now you've made yourself virtually indistinguishable from a hard line Israeli apologist, such a great position for promoting "peace"!

Well looks like we here, for once, could come to a negotiated agreement, and can only wish the same to the sides still involved in the conflict. As well as that the outsiders, if they (really) have to be involved, encourage the sides to move toward lasting, negotiated settlement not in the least observing even minimal impartiality and balance.

Nope. Only a general statements on the nature of beliefs vs reality. Glad you noticed. So, for example, a belief in entitlement to the other's property (e.g. land) could lead to "hostile acts" too? And you like to speak for others, not so? But anyways, even it were to be so, would that justify Israel's own clear acts of agression? If so, then your position has been correctly summarised (see above), thank-you. And if not, why your advocated pseudo peace plan so staunchly and persistently fails to as much as even notice these major violations, not to think of acting upon them? No, that must be something (someone?) else. It may very well be so, but of course, in any approach even remotely related to genuine peace, it would never excuse or justify obvous acts of agression perpetrated by the other side. Ignoring, excusing, and condoning obvious acts of agression by your ally and friend is exactly the reason why your advocated approach has very little to do with genuine peace. Indeed you're very successful in pointing out those flaws, but entirely in your own arguments because I never said anything of what you're trying to attribute to me.

I'm lumping anything together. Only pointing out that both are clear cases of hostile behaviour and agression. It isn't sane to expect that any form of peace could ensue if any one side continues hostile agressive policy on a massive scale, other than the total domination / submission scenario. It's probably only a misunderstanding. My statement only applied only to preconditions for the final settlement negotiations. Dialogues around achieving ceasefire (in the sense of stopping all forms of massive hostilities) can go ahead anytime - as long as both parties actually seek practical results, i.e. achieving reduction or cessation of hostilities, rather than minute political gains, as it mostly has been the case till now. That bias does not exist. I already pointed out many times that militant attacks constitute obvious form of hostility and agression, and only argue that Israels' own policy of expansion should be qualified as such, clearly and without reservations. However if we differentiate legitimate defence activities within proper borders (and/or clearly defined and limited security perimeter) from obvious acts of agression, and call the latter as such clearly and unconditionally, the difficulty may not be as hard to resolve. Agree, raising the level of demands would certainly increase the risk of failure. Why couldn't it be limited to the sides, immediately involved in the conflict, at least as the first step toward all-encompassing settlement? Indeed, history is oftentimes ironic, and prone to move in circles. I agree that it should be a matter for negotiations, yet, any substantial deviation from commonly recognised "fair" grounds (of which the condition to share Jerusalem is obviously one, in the light of all the history) would greatly undermine the chance of achieving lasting peace. Was not that ostensible "backwardness" one of the reasons the project has been created there in the first place? Could such project happen anywhere within the "democracy" domain? Now, there're only two alternatives, to seek ways to peace with whoever was chosen (by us ourselves, decades back) to be our adversary / partner, or continue with the status quo, of mutual hostility and agression.

Yes sometimes people have strange beliefs. Those (beliefs) though, no matter how strange and bizzare, by themselves would not yet constitute an agression. I thought it should be obvious to everybody except maybe those who seek any reason to justify their own dirty business. And who could that be? I referred to very obvious "violation of peace" that is persistent and ongoing expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Assuming that it could not have been made any clearer, did you mean that they should be allowed to go ahead full steam with their own acts of agression, because somebody wouldn't agree that everything they (and us, as their obvious sponsor) did, was nice, proper and hush-hush? In other words, some acts of agression should be excused, tolerated, and maybe even considered good? "progress"? if they are committed with a "right" justification? Would that be a more or less correct summary of your peaceful position? Yes we already know that talk is pretty much all you are prepared to (capable of?) notice. As you couldn't seem to notice ever continuing agression, in the form of illegal occupation, perpetrated right in front of your eyes. But, rephrasing another great teacher, "if a fact points to a problem, remove the fact, and the problem will go away". A very thoughful monologue, but I'm afraid that I can't (and won't) comment on your internal musings anymore. BTW this problem has nothing to do with "my method", it is entirely of your own, exclusive creation.

If we start talking about the facts of beliefs, there would be any number of countries that may believe that their adversary should not exist. E.g. Turkish Cyprus, Kurds country, Abhasia, and so on. So I'm not sure what makes you take one particular such situation so close to your heart? When we observe the facts of acts though, it becomes clear as day that both sides are complicit in violations of peace, hostile and agressive acts against each other. Wherein you only allow yourself to see one half of the picture, the one that fits the forgone conclusion that your chosen ally could do no wrong. That is the essence of that peace plan with very unclear relation to genuine peace. You made this conclusion because I am an Arab country (of many)? Because I see no other possibility of logical connection between two parts of that statement. And Israel isn't showing much committment to such solution either, both in word, and more importantly, in its act of incessant, ongoing policy of creeping annexation. You condemned Hamas, and cheer for Israel, so what should it tell us about worth of your position as anything to do with genuine peace? Again you seem to be hypothesising, taking your own thoughts for my position (which obviosly has nothing to do with them). You just can't go without dropping something important in this discussion, so I'll do it for you (again): indeed, I won't state it because it has no relevance to the topic of this discussion. We could discuss my position on Canada's role in deescalation of conflict and seeking lasting settlement though, of course if you were interested.

I wouldn't want to go into great depths here. But being kicked out of one's own house / land not an example of violence and agression? I doubt any end would be served by this kind of differentiation. Perpetrating side could take it as tacit encouragement and continue even more determined. The opposite side would see it as a bias, and radical elements would receive a boost, very likely leading to another flare up of violence as it happened over and again. All policies of agression, hostility stop regardless of who's involved - a very obvious and the only logical starting point to any meaningful peace negotiations. No, it depends on what kind of talk it would be. The talk intended to hide and extend agressive policy would have nothing to do with peace. In other word, committment to peace should come before talking. And certainly, such committment includes ceasing acts of hostility and agression that are already in progress, and not starting any new ones. I wouldn't be as optimistic about that side's committment to geniune peace, because its act is quite obviously different from what it says. But maybe it's just a matter of character, and perhaps we should simply be more trusting to people e.g. believe Iran that they'd use nukes exclusively for peaceful means, etc? Not to mention, in our private lives as well? You'd want to unroll it all the way to the origins of the conflict? Or admit that at this time it's not the matter of who started what, but that all agressive acts and policies should come to end, to allow a chance for meaningful peace negotiations? Obviously, in the conflict with this history, it's hard to expect that things would go by orchestration and violence would cease at once. Yet ceasing major acts of hostility would eventually bring results. We should concentrate our influence on bringing all incidents and instances of violence to halt, rather than judging who should be doing what. BTW it's being awhile since I heard reports of any serious militant violence in the area, but news of continuing construction of settlements keep coming (I keep an eye on a few trusted sources, and would notice either). Which only proves that there's no angels and demons in this affair, and the way to go is to stop appointing the right and wrong ones, but to insist on termination of all forms of violence and agression. Yes you might see, excuse and justify what you want, but would it lead to any progress toward peace? Both sides acted, and continue to act violently, and both should understand that it's not in their interests, at least not their children's. We could help them in that understanding.. or in determination to continue hostilities. Which one would lead to peace? Again, I wouldn't attempt to speak for anybody, but I think you may not have current information. I believe your proposal is pretty much the same as the one introduced by a group of Arab countries recently (in essence, peace and recognition in exchange for Israel's complete withdrawal to its proper borders), and most Arab, including Palestinian leaders, acknowledged it. Again I wouldn't appoint right and wrongs here, but incessant and continuing insistence by any one side on continuation of clearly hostile and agressive policies sends a very obvious message that it's committment to peace is less than certain. I'm not sure it'd be wise to pretend to ignore this message any longer. True. Perhaps both sides (or much more precisely: hostile factions on both sides) still have hopes that they could achieve something more than lasting peace. This is exactly why outside world should focus its efforts on explaining (inlcuding practical means) that such views are wrong in each and every instance where agressive acts are committed, regardless of who's involved, and for what reason.

Is that a somewhat misleading title, or the author of the OP happens to posess a very rare ability to read the future?

This may be essential to understanding your statements. Do you really not comprehend the difference between an opinion, and a fact? First of all, I already pointed out several times, that considering, saying something does not necessarily mean a hostility, or agression by itself. There're several examples right now, where countries, regions etc would not recognise each other without developing into open hostilities. Secondly, attacking somebody by arms is certainly an act of hostility and agression. No peace is possible while such attacks are being perpetrated on a massive scale. Just as taking somebody's propertly, lands, by force is also an act of agression. And again, perpetrating these acts also has nothing to do with peace. What you're ready to point out, condemn, and react to some acts of agression, and not interested at all to even notice, not to say, act, on the others, makes your position so obviously hypocritical and useless for any real development of peace. Correct, I won't say that. Because, no matter I could believe in private, my position of open, based on principle mediation could still lead to peace. That of selective condemnation of some violence, and tacit support for another, only results in escalation of hostilities, even if you'll pray to all gods of holy peace multiple times a day at that. So, you see, it's not my belief but my act that matters, and therefore the questions is obviously irrelevant. I described very clearly and multiple times in this very thread what exactly I mean by deescalation of hostilities. Your formula has nothing to do with what I said, and I have no comments about it. My position is presented very clearly. My private beliefs is my own business. I can't see how else I could satisfy your curiousity.

No, I still see no logical connection between the two, because those violations are established facts, my (and yours, btw) saying anything, are only our private opinions and beliefs. But most certainly, the right to existence could not, and should not be used as justification or excuse for massive violations of its own, that you seem to be trying to imply, and therefore, discount and ignore (these massive violations).