Figleaf

By referring to a tiny minority with almost no say? I like to focus on the majority, not an oddball few. Two things: I'm not sure its such a minor fringe as you suggest, and if you meant the mainstream majority you could have mentioned that at the outset. Blah blah blah. So, you are saying peace is impossible because of terrain?

The buyout of the right of return should be paid by Israel, since it was Israeli forces that drove out the refugees. There should be some reparations paid to the new Palestinian state by the leading world powers of 1948 for their failure to ensure that the Palestinian state came into being as promised. There may be some argument for reparations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides for damages inflicted subsequent to 1948, but I'd suggest its too complicated to sort out and the settlement should specifically void such claims. (Or rather, the sides should agree that their own governments will be responsible to their own citizens for redressing losses incurred during that time.)

I see you have failed to understand the point of this whole exercise or don't remember what thread you are posting on. The thread is about understanding what Israel's supporters think the Palestinians should do and expect -- to inquire into the perceptions they have of the strategy and incentive questions from the other side. In that context, my own views are not really of interest. But, since you ask, I think the Palestinians should confine their struggle to military and government targets. If they do that, they may begin to shed the 'terrorist' reputation and become more credible, and thus harder to dismiss, on the world stage. They may then be able to convince the US of the justice of their cause and the US may then pressure Israel to give them a just peace. What I would view as just peace is: Israel to return to the Green Line, the right of return bought out on an individual basis, reparations paid to the new Palestinian (fully sovereign) state, an interim international force to guarantee security of borders, shared jurisdiction of Jerusalem.

I only started posting here after the committees had been instituted. So what? Oh grow up. The Liberals instituted these committees to keep themselves from abusing the process? Yes.

Do you know what a red herring means? How on Earth can it be a red herring to pursue the initial questions I set out at the start of the thread?

And some people still long for the days of Stalin, what your point? "Some" denotes a small, undefined minority. I think the question is what is YOUR point. You initially said: "If Israel wanted to, they could easily expand their borders for they have the military capacity, but all they want is to be left alone to eat their Mozza balls in peace and argue amongst each other about the Torrah" So why I refer to those Israelis who don't fit your claim, it is in order to refute your claim. Is what your post here seems to be all about. Fortunate that I didn't do that then, isn't it. Strategic geography and demographics. Assure Israel even an iota of security, and the situation would be much different. The same applies to question #3 dealing with Oslo. I don't understand. Please explaind.

That sounds like a need for child care to me. Isn't it time to liberate the old and retired from carrying the burdens of the next generation? Poor old grampa changing nappies and chasing toddlers all day, every day, sounds like a slog, doesn't it? He'd probably rather work at Walmart. It's a ridiculously haphazard redistribution scheme. If Stephen Harper is really and economist, he can't possibly believe in this program. It redistributes money from childless to people with children. As a redisribution scheme, it already violates the basic principles of neo-con theory. As a policy it doesn't qualify for support from economic theory because it's too diffuse and imprecise to be effective social/market engineering. Without either neo-con or economic theory at work, why would Steve-o endorse such a policy? Cynical pandering anyone?

The Harper government appointment process seems to care.

Well, if you accept/ignore the extent to which it's a pretext to protect a march toward nuclear arms, it's also a very sensible development strategy. Iran (along with many others) forsees the end of the oil economy and intends to use its oil wealth to take care of its future. Makes sense.

The double standards employed by the Right are on good display once more: On the one hand, fallaciously criticical when judges discharge their constitutionally ordained function of being a check on the legislature, but on the other hand, cheerleading when military leadership oversteps itself into civilian politics. Speaking as a rational centrist, I find that the incoherent inability to sustain theoretical consistency is the most telling fault of the right wing today. Such inconsistencies, falling always in the direction of predictable prejudices, do more to undermine the right wing than any other feature.

As I read that, what strike me is the inherent double standard it invokes. It demands that the Palestinians renounce their struggle as a PREcondition to talks, rather than as a condition of settlement. The latter is an obvious necessity, but given the history of the conflict, the former seems unfair and impractical. It would have to be a pre-condition, how can they start talking while rockets and bombs are flying - not going to happen. But look, peace negotiations are ABOUT stopping a conflict. You talk to find a way to stop it. If you won't talk until its over, then what you're thinking about is not a peace negotiation. Every conflict ended by talks must, axiomatically, have those talks begin while the conflict remains unsettled. To say "we won't talk peace until we have peace" is so absurd a formulation that it can only appear disingenuous.

Well, I don't know about those who demonize Israel, but it's a good question to ask, even though it often draws the rote answer from some quarters that 'no, Israel must never negotiate'. Those who whinge that Hamas want's to destroy Israel are surprisingly juvenile about this matter. They act shocked and dismayed when they confront the fact that enemies don't like eachother. In fact, for anyone in conflict who wishes to find peace, it is necessary for negotiations to take place with one's opponents. DESPITE the conflict. The question, 'Should we 'expect' Israel to negotiate with implacable enemies?' has only one answer at a very practical level: If they want to reach a settlement, negotiation is the ONLY solution. Now, as to the characterization of Palestinians as set exclusively and unalterably on the destruction of Israel, consider: 1) Negotiations (though not a conclusion) were possible with Arafat, and his credentials were hardly moderate. 2) The rhetoric of enmity is a natural resort for someone locked in a life-and-death struggle, and neither side should, based on rhetoric alone, assume that the other side won't change it's tune if offered a compelling reason. 3) Palestinian rhetoric is consistent with it's historic reasoning. Not totally sound reasoning, but a kind of reasoning nonetheless, and thus, it is inaccurate and unproductive to ignore the fact and nature of the historical reasoning by substituting an inaccurate and less useful vision of a monolithic culture of rabid murderers. Leaving aside the (un)fairness of that characterization, it should be abandoned because its inaccuracy makes it UNUSEFUL in the declared purpose of finding peace.

As I read that, what strike me is the inherent double standard it invokes. It demands that the Palestinians renounce their struggle as a PREcondition to talks, rather than as a condition of settlement. The latter is an obvious necessity, but given the history of the conflict, the former seems unfair and impractical.

Peace is peace. Oh please. You know very well I'm asking about final borders, population settlement, redress payments, water access, and security guarantees and the like. Reciting 'peace is peace' obviously doesn't touch on these points, so let's not pretend otherwise, hm.

Well allow me to put it in simpler terms. Isreal is not the aggressor. If they are not attacked or threatened they will not retaliate. If there is no one shooting or bombing them - they will not do the same thing in return. That is fleshed out enough for most - hopefully it works for you. Unfortunately, you are continuing to say nothing about the shape of the peace. Wow, what a bizarrely immature response. Reported to the Admin.

Actually I am. If you campaign on a platform and are elected on it, you have an obligation to at least try and carry it out. It's a simple concept. If you campaign on a platform, presumably it reflects what you believe in. Presumably unless you are lying, and if enough people agree with you, you get elected. SO, presumably, Harper really believes those elements of theocon policy he included in his platform.\

He should shut up and do his job. His job is not to mouth off about the choices of civilian government.

Such dishonesty! It really is telling when someone (like Rue here) can't stick to fair discussion and resorts to blatant falsehoods about others. While I have said Israel is wrong about many things, I have never said (and don't think) that Israel is evil. Furthermore, I have never denied the existence of Israel, and am on record here supporting a two state solution. Finallly, I certainly have NEVER 'portrayed' Jews in general AT ALL. Rue's comments are false, and malicious.

So I don't get something... I do none of those things, but you still bitch when I criticise Israel's policies.

Well, a couple of things: 1. It is a matter of public record that at least SOME Israelis have a overtly stated objective of restoring the ancient borders of Solomon's empire as those of modern Israel. 2. If ALL Israel wanted were to be left alone, how do we explain their settlement of West Bank lands? 3. If Israel wanted peace, why did their final Oslo offer fall so far short of being reasonable?

You have demonstrated in past posts that; 1-you are not interested in any dialogue as to the above questions; 2-use such questions as a platform to ignore the responses and make negative subjective generalizations with no basis of fact against all Jews; 3-deliberately mistate Jewish history. I would advise people responding to you is pointless.[ Rue, take your lies and get stuffed.

Well, thanks, Borg, but like so many others, you're response falls short of useful specificity in regard to question 2. Please review the thread and flesh out your vision of "peace".

But you didn't mind when the LIberals were selling judge's robes in exchange for free legal services right? Guys, you can't all repeat the same thing over and over again. Of course I minded that, who didn't. Now try to understand: The selection committees were instituted by the Liberals to prevent that kind of abuse from continuing. NOW, by changing the committees in this way, Harper is re-instituting the abuses.

In my opinion Hillier has long been way too political for a serving general officer. He is a civil servant, not a spokesperson and has a responsibility to behave that way. If he can't do that part of the job, he's the wrong man for the job.

Figleaf political compass Economic Left/Right: -2.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79