myata

OK, thanks for clarification, that pretty much concludes the logical part of this discussion. There's no logical arguments against "I believe". By extension, should we also assume your belief in the "engagement" strategy, despite all the clear signs in reality of its successes so far? What was said is "same role as in N.Ireland", please read carefully. Then shouldn't we be able to see those "conditions and questions" in reality, not only your saying so? Sorry, a bit slower, collapse of S.U. has weakend opposition to SA regime and that caused it (the regime) to abandon apartheid? Am I the only one noticing a slight jump of logic here? In any case, this isn't really relevant to the discussion. Yet we all know the result. It happened after sanctions were deployed, and even more importantly, clear unambiguous condemnation of apartheid around the world, not during "productive engagement" or whatever, decades. Another case of stretching the reality to my vision of how it should be (have been)? No surprise, many of us see only what they want to see.

Indeed, I'm all too used by now to people claiming basic comprehension difficulties the moment they run into severe deficit of argumentation. While theres' certainly nothing even remotely brilliant about my arguments, only ability to see things as they are without ideological filter. Really Dobbin, your peaceful appeasement strategy isn't working. Anybody who could see things plain as they are, would be able to tell as much. There were two hugely disproportionate and destructive military campaigs with massive civilian casualties (Lebanon and Gaza). The condition of population in the occupied territories is in deplorable state, as attested by independent organisations like Amnesty, HRW, even in today's news. And, there's creeping, never stopping settlement activity. When something isn't working, and hasn't worked for at least two decades (at least; I'm only counting it since after the end of Cold War), would a rational individual, genuinly interested to achieve progress, (and therefore without some backroom agenda), keep on pressing the course that had failed? Keep playing the record until, on some zillionth repetion thing would somehow change (why?). There you go, nothing at all brilliant, only logic and common sense, thanks but I wasn't in any way deserving the praise. While you, please note, still have not provided any argumentation as what exactly would be terribly wrong with "disengagement", applied, as was clearly stated, conditionally, and as a last resort? I already responded to that line of argumentation previously and it's not in my habit to comb the thread for multiple examples of the above. Someone who won't see or hear, will always find a way to. I haven't dissmissed it and it's a completely different situation, for once there was willingness on both sides to achieve settlement. Parties in Middle East conflict have yet to come to that state of affairs. In that condition lending an unconditional, unquestioning support to one side is counter productive and will only exacerbate the situation. Just what we see on the ground, and in plain view. Moreover, in our current role as a close ally of one side, there's no chance we could be asked to play the same role as in N.Ireland, ie. that of a trusted, impartial mediator. Really, Soviets supporting SA regime?? Are you breaking new ground here? I thought them, Soviets, supported Communist leaning guerillas, you sure you got it right? In any case, in the essence of the matter, things are really very simple, 1-2-3: 1) you proclaim certain goal (you really, really need to help, right, otherwise why not simply get out and mind your, i.e. our, own business??); 2) you defined progress toward it (you want progress, right? Or is it just the perpetuous assistent job?); 3) you reward actual progress and you do something real if and when it does not happen. So is it really calculus?

Can't convince everybody, it's wide, wild world. In any case, we've pretty much established that "engagement" strategy fails to bring real, i.e. practical results (you know what's meant because it's been described a few times in this very thread, including the numerical formula for calculating it - result i.e. Hopscotch i.e less here, more there, won't do - you know why - because not everybody here is, how to say it politely, slow of mental perception?). So why not try the opposite, for a change, what if a miracle happens? I think you forgot to provide not only convincing, but any arguments at all to that extent, so why not? Is the sky gonna fall on us? God's wrath strike us? Btw, "disengagement" could really be applied only on bad years, i.e. where the result is negative, with full and fruitful engagement on those years where actual progress is achieved. A very simple strategy almost never fails - good result, reward, bad - "disengagement".. wonder why our elite has been so slow to discover it? Worked in South Africa like a charm, unlike earlier "positive engagement".

I guess we'll have to let the others decide who isn't listening here. I tried my best, everybody's witness, specifics, details and practical proposals, and I now officially give up as there's no point in reiterating all the same arguments all over, again and again, for somebody who wouldn't listen. Science have yet to find a cure for that condition. Sail you well in the hope that your "not uncritical" yet absolutely secure support would one day one moment bring a different result than always, for some mysterious, known only to yourself, reason.

I can't stop being amazed how this city changes on the first day of July. Happy Canada Day, everybody!

Gosh, it must be really challenging (deliberately?!) to put exactly two numbers together: 1) ## of illegal settlers in the all of the occupied territories on the start of the year; 2) the same ## on the end of it. Enjoy! That may be the ultimate option, if / when it fails to take in other real signs that continuation of these policies will not be tolerated (not to mention friendly "critical" advice). What would be problem with that? Do we want to achieve the result, or only show off some vague "concern"? There you go, already some practical ideas! And we've only just started this discussion. And of course we could start by making a clear unambiguous official statement each time a settlement expansion happens, or excess violence is used, or human rights of civilians in the occupied terrtitories are abused. We haven't tried it yet have we? Before we move on to more serious practical measures... I can't guarantee how influential it would be, but from where we're now, any result would be an improvement. Plus, as a bonus, we'll actually act as a credible impartial and fair mediator, not some lopesided commentator nobody cares to listen to, because they only parrot whatever the senior partner has to say. Sorry I don't believe you. I hear a lot of official statements why excess disproportional violence is OK (aka "right to defend itself"), and the rocket attacks are wrong, but virtually nothing (official) about expansion of settlements or violation of human rights. A clear symptom of your one-sided support strategy, that in fact supports the side in Israel that is bent on continuation and expansion of occupation, and therefore does nothing to end the conflict. Yeah I know that strategy all well now. You can post specific in big letters, sing and dance them, read them aloud and still somebody somewhere wouldn't as much as notice, and ask you for specifics, again and again. Usually synomous with that state of the discussion when one can't support their position with rational arguments anymore, but would be reluctant to admit it. And yeah, "would work", that's the key! We have better options! Like that friendly support strategy, there's great confidence that it "would work", i.e. it worked already so nicely in the past, right? Indeed, withdrawing "support" that is conductive to the side consistently perpetrating violence may in fact be conductive to peace. What exactly our support, in its present form, is conductive to, promotion of peace, or encouragement of one side in continuation of occupation and violence, needs to be looked at very closely.

No, wrong. The settlements are growing steadily and ever, in times of "peace" and conflict, over decades. To not notice that, or attribute it to some minor fluctuations looks a lot like deliberate blindness, perhaps inspired by "friendship"? Nor will gentle rattling half voice and mostly privately do anything to stop it, as it didn't ever since 1967. We already agreed that the problem is how we understand the "uncritical" and other words. For me it means working out clear and fair principles and insisting clearly and strongly on them being respected by either side. While you seem to be advocating unwavering political, financial and militarty support to one side, no matter what they do, doing occasional (very rare and far in between) light chiding in case of most extreme incidents, but without any real, practical, consequences. And I may believe in fairies. But is there a visible practical ground for your belief? What was our response to ongoing settlement activity so far? How did we react to excessive use of military force resulting in massive civilian casualties in Lebanon and Gaza? We all know that Harper won't do it because of his well known "friendly" position. I'm not sure what the Liberals would do but this latest development isn't very encouraging. Looks like in foreign policy, as in other areas, they are becoming virtually indistinguishable from Conservatives.

While building more in the other. Funny, isn't it? Like hopscotch, here I see, there I don't. ... I don't know honestly, have they? If they had spoken strongly and clearly, as some of these acts deserve, I'm sure it wouldn't have gone unnoticed. ... I'm trying to follow the logic here. There's any number of people in this country who are critical of any number of governments, regimes and states on this planet, so does it mean that Liberal Party of Canada should befriend them all (governments, regimes and states) for that reason? Why not? What would be the special case that should warrant that approach toward one particular country? Do we owe anything there? ... And I'm even less sure what'd be the point of that statement in the context of this thread. Yes there may be deplorable incidents of antisemitism in this country, just as there're incidents of discrimination and hatred against other ethnicities, so how exactly does this relate to our country's (and your party's) foreign policy? ... I wouldn't agree with those "some", that is exactly why I was calling for a balanced and impartial approach. Supporting one side is rarely a good way out of a conflict. But you think the solution to the balance is to put more cheerers (and helpers) to each side? It's not like I haven't said it, and not like once already. But once again, and only if we really really have to get involved, we can help by working out fair and impartial principles of the settlement and sharing our views with both sides. We could start noticing and condemn any violation of these principles clearly and strongly, regardless of which side is involved. We could make gross violation of such principles, such as unprovoked attacks on civilians, continuing annexation of territory, etc result in real practical measures for the side involved, such as diplomatic action, reducing assistence and so on. It isn't really difficult, if you undertstand what you want to say, and you are serious about making yourself heard.

Perhaps .. if only (sssssssssss) those friendly governments ... only just tried ... a little tiny bit less one side friendly... and very miniscule little bit more practical and impartial, approach... a miracle could happen?

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! 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. 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. 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? 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.

Harper, i.e. his nasty self, is sticking it to Iggy. Both are worthy of each other. Amen.

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.

Congrats, Dobbin, you've got some support here, too bad they won't be voting for you come election. The problem with half principled politics, the only friends you get aren't really those that you want. See Harper-Iggy and the EI election. Can't go out of your way, have to do with what you get, I understand.

We could, for starters, create clear and unambiguous principles we consider to be just approaches to the settlement of the confilict, and insist on their implementation in practice by anybody who wants to be our friends. We could insist on stopping and condemn violence, always and regardless of which side perpetrates it. We could clearly and unconditionally condemn illegal practices, by whoever happens to be involved. Sounds too much already? Much easier to define some vague club that fits our definition of the time, support it wholeheartedly when it suits us, or look the other way if something untoward is going on? Yes but do we have to? If we have nothing of real value to offer (see above; uncritical or otherwise, support of one side in the conflict hardly helps to settle anything), why couldn't we simply stay away? Oh right, the votes! If not me, then "Harper"'s gonna get them!

Or gosh, now we're gonna define the rules who qualifies (for "uncritical" support). Pulling the cord as high (or dropping as low) as the need be? Right? Wouldn't this country have more credibility internationally, insisting on clear and just principles for everybody? Not counting those who go against them as our friends, nor lending them any support, till they change their ways? Why would we, living here and having nothing to do with that conflict, want that club (or gang) style politics based on some vague self defined criteria, unlike "Iggy"/"Harper" we have no votes to be gained from it?

Like, Iraq? Indeed what outlandish claims would a politician not make, when they're in a desperate need for those votes? Wait so it was OK for Israel to be the only nuke power in the region, nobody seemed to worry much about it.. but now that somebody else is after the good stuff too, they are suddenly in the urgent need of "support"? Isn't that the way we we, "democracies" really want it, us having be biggest stick in the neighbourhood, and gently (but convincingly) advising others how to run their affairs? I mean why is it that our sense of justice only wakes up when a "democracy" finds itself in trouble (real or imaginary, different matter), but sleeps sound and undisturbed if/when that same "democracy" goes on some dirty business?

So far it's been exactly that. Without massive support from outside, the sides could be much more willing to negotiate. Anyways I doubt it's about doing good on the global sphere, simply Libs need votes now, and they want a piece of Harper's cake (who is supporting one side fully and wholeheartedly .. some way to attain peace, no doubt.. and the Libs "support democracy" adage now sounds suspiciously familar.. even to that of the late (as president) GWB. Yeahg right, not "uncritically"!!! Now it's only a matter of figuring out whatever that's supposed to mean?)

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).

Yeagh, we have the best system possible and we know all what's gonna happen so it (any change) isn't really even worth a try. Let's just sail, quetly and complacently.. lolling..lolling... nothing happens.. or ever will.

So, in the end it all comes down to defining "me" as the "good guy" (because I am a "democracy" i.e. I know who's a "bugger" who's not, and I've a better way of "getting rid" of them)? Over the last decades Iran have known progressive presidents, and nationalistic ones (like the current), while (again, over decades) the democracies certainly had their measure of political unrest. Can we really make the call on who is the "bugger" or "democracy" based on one episode, or maybe on our omniscient given from above knowledge of what is good / what not? No I'm not saying that Iran's regime is a democracy, most likely not, and certainly not in the Western understanding of the word. That by itself does not make it illegitimate, though. This is one big difference between the two views on the world, one making only one, my (surprise!) way of doing things right and superior to all others, the other recognizing that it's only one of many, and attempting find common notions and approaches with people regardless of their views on organisation of their power structures (surprisingly, this seem to bother us much less in some cases than in the others - take e.g. Egypt; Saudi Arabia, dictatorships in Latin America awhile back; highly dubious warlord "democracy" we're building in Afghanistan now). And indeed, over time people in Iran may decide to make the change, perhaps even to more of a Western style democracy. We should welcome such change but let it happen on terms and in the time defined by the people themselves, not some self appointed democratic apostle half globe away. I'm hearing that in Obama's approach, and that's much welcome fresh air from the "global powerhouse democracy" courtesy of our warplanes by G.Bush.

The Bloc would be in the squeeze to support PR or they would be further underminded in the relatively progressive (in the political context of Canada) Quebec. But my take is that barring some late in coming miracle, we'll see governing duopoly rising to unsurpassed grotesk levels, unchallenged by apathetic aging population that in the majority wants nothing more than continuation of the status quo. I wonder if maybe subconscious understanding of this fact is the cause of weak participation of younger people in politics. More of the same. Always.

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

Really, at the power table? The last time anything very remotely like that had a quite remote possibility to happen (last December's multiparty coalition, a thing of normal for many, many democratic citizens of this world) there's been a whine and squeek rising up as though the sky itself was about to fall. In this system we have, only two parties can ever govern, and for that reason, the two have very strong incentive to keep it as is. In a dream perfect world, the two would be vying for our (public's) attention with solutions to improve and modernize our government and public service. Do we see anything like that in our real world around us? Obviously, no. The best survival strategy for the two players in a duopoly is to keep a good face while doing nothing. Doing things, especially serious things, gets messy and almost bound to create problems and issues, not good for electability. Slow dance, lots of rhethoric and doing nothing is the safest bet, lets them stick to the sugar for a long long time, and the longer they stick, the less is done, until finally they forget who and where they are and fall off the feeder bursting with stuff and completely exausted with the effort. Nope it won't change by itself. Don't vote Liberal until and unless they agree to support some way of electoral reform. With NDP on board and block in a tight squeeze, it may just happen. And until it does, we'll be stuck with the "Harper" / "Iggy" choice and it won't get better, let's not fool ourselves.

No, the system will not reform itself, it'll be up to us to force it do so. If we're content with endless faceless Lib-Con slow dance we'll have it for a long long time, and we shouldn't complain about lack of choice, parties being the same etc, because, understand, it's in the nature of this system (and our aging society). If we want the change we'll have to force one of the duet to agree to it, even reluctantly. How - by following the promise to not vote for it, until it accepts the need for the change. Regarding PR and regional representation, in a country as geographically spread and diverse as ours, there's certainly a case for the second, democratically elected chamber of the house, with fixed (or adjusted in some way) representation by regions. One'd think that adoption of constitution would mart the start of the democratic trek, not the end of it. If we, collectively believe otherwise, we can all go to sleep, because all good things were done for us in the past, and there's no more that could be done here.

That would be a pretty damning conclusion. The only way from that state of affairs would be down. If there's a major problem one can't even think of challenging, they are done for, and I won't even have sympathy because it's entirely self imposed.