Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[jdobbin]

"Next Year in Jerusalem" means Jews like their settlements to be delayed.

Well, they are ending 23 settlements now with 8000 people. Sounds to me like no delay.

The focus can now look at continuing to reduce violence and removing additional settlements.

Edited July 21, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I am saying adding more settlers is most likely a bad idea if this is what happens when they finally have to leave.

Well, then it is a good thing that they are removing 23 settlements now along with 8000 people.

[jdobbin]

You are going to have show me this 23 settlements that some how dwarf 2500 becuase I can not fin it anywhere and I looked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9072100213.html

The evacuation is expected to be met with resistance from the settlers. Wallerstein said some 8,000 people live at the outposts.

[benny]

Well, they are ending 23 settlements now with 8000 people. Sounds to me like no delay.

When one likes delaying his settlement, he can easily end his squatting.

[jdobbin]

When one likes delaying his settlement, he can easily end his squatting.

When squatting, does a settlement become delayed?

[benny]

When squatting, does a settlement become delayed?

yes

[jdobbin]

yes

Sounds painful. I'm sure most would want their settlement faster than that.

[benny]

Sounds painful. I'm sure most would want their settlement faster than that.

Jews are special for having written the Exodus.

[punked]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9072100213.html

Good to hear a step in the right direction. Hopefully they don't let them come back like they did the last two times they did this PR stunt.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A political move, no more and no less. I fully expect a reversal of this position with the first hint of violence from Hamas.

[benny]

That fact that no date was given for the removing of these outposts can means a surprise operation.

[myata]

Because Israel agreed to talks, two states and a process to reduce violence and remove settlements.

I see. Because they said something that you wanted to hear, even though did quite totally opposite. No matter how many times they said anything, the settlements always grew. That we know for a fact, correct?

That makes you biased, Dobbin. You do not wish to notice obvious transgressions by one side, your friendly side, and use any pretext for that. It is not a genuine position for peace mediation and you're making it more and more obvious.

Hamas has not done that. They are committed to remove Israelis from pre-1967 territory as well. Their objective is not to talk but to violently overthrow Israel and take all lands back. To do this, they are prepared to use children and women as weapons.

OK, let's sum it up. Both Isreal and militant factions in Palestine violate peace agendas, we have established it for a fact. But you prefer, help, and sponsor the side that does it covertly, even though as persistently and massively as the others. That sounds very much like your praised "peace" strategy, pay attention to what is being said, discussed, written into tonnes and megatonnes of paperwork, and who cares what's going on the ground. Or else, you're simply grasping for straws, anything that could help you justify your obvious bias and one sidedness.

Because for a real, genuine mediator of peace, there would be no problem pointing out, and objecting, and acting against violations of peace agendas, whatever side perpetrated it, correct? That we know from kindergarten, commonsense meanings of "genuine", "in good faith", "mediation" and "peace".

I have told you repeatedly that the process was to move from one area to the next. You don't like that approach even though all sides agreed to it save for Hamas.

I'm not sure how much sense that strategy actually would make from any common sense point of view (focus on making things nice and tidy in a little tiny area, and forget about everywhere else, like let things roll completely out of control), but as long as we have a clear answer, at least you position would be clear, so again:

if massive increase of settlements is fine and acceptable, from the position of that hopscotch approach, should a massive increase in militant attacks outside of "perfection" area be also tolerated and ignored. Or should we apply different standards of vision and action to militancy as opposed to creeping annexation (why?)

And the acts are terrorist. It isn't just a word.

But of course it is. You want to call some acts gross and inacceptable and ignore other, no more excusable acts as though they never happened at all. How much logical sense does it add to your definition? It's the same as the old tired "I'm good (and mine), you're bad". By definition. The conundrum could be solved very easily if you admitted and acted against all violations of peace. But that's not something you're prepared to do, because you know that your friendly side is as guilty as their opponent, and you'll never going to act against their violations, no matter how gross or massive they could be, correct?

You can't even admit that the use of suicide bombers is a terrorist attack.

I admit that it's a militant attack that goes against peace. I believe that all violations of peace should be stopped to give it best chance to settle in. I'm not sure how much meaning and understanding the use of particular loaded words would add (or take away) from this simple truth.

You can't even admit that that Hamas isn't even part of the peace process.

Maybe they think that "peace process" that results in further massive annexation of their land, isn't entirely "peaceful" after all?

Until Hamas actually agrees to the process, they are an impediment to further progress.

So you aren't even naming onging expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, as an "impediment" any more? Once again, the bias in your position becomes very obvious. You simply refuse to see that your friendly side is also violating peace agendas here and now, but prefer to jump and point your finger to the other side. That's not peace, Dobbin, in any normal sense, it's a gang.

[benny]

Once again, the bias in your position becomes very obvious.

It would take courage for Canadian politicians not to be biased in favor of Israelis since Canadian Jews can contribute more to their electoral campaigns than Canadian Muslims.

Edited July 24, 2009 by benny

[myata]

In the old times, it (courageous, independent position based on principle rathen than immediate interest) would have been Canada's claim to fame in the international affairs. Not anymore, apparently, no matter who (Harper or Iggy) actually gets to define the policy.

[benny]

In the old times, it (courageous, independent position based on principle rathen than immediate interest) would have been Canada's claim to fame in the international affairs. Not anymore, apparently, no matter who (Harper or Iggy) actually gets to define the policy.

Paradoxically, I'm quite sure that if a Canadian Jew would be Canada's PM, he would have a more courageous stance than Harper and Ignatieff on Israel.

[myata]

I'm much more inclined to think that courage, principle, independence is a matter of personality rather than any physical factors. And of course, a political system that encourages (or not) such individuals to seek a careers in politics.

[benny]

I'm much more inclined to think that courage, principle, independence is a matter of personality rather than any physical factors. And of course, a political system that encourages (or not) such individuals to seek a careers in politics.

To me, being a Semite is a physical factor, being a Jew is a cultural/religious factor.

[jdobbin]

I see. Because they said something that you wanted to hear, even though did quite totally opposite. No matter how many times they said anything, the settlements always grew. That we know for a fact, correct?

We have seen Israel trade land for peace a few times. They did it with Egypt where they removed a half dozen settlements in Sinai and around 4000 or so settlers and a few thousand more troops.

We have seen it in Gaza where 21 settlements were shut down and 9000 settlers were removed.

We are now seeing it in the West Bank with 23 settlements and 8000 settlers are to be moved.

That makes you biased, Dobbin. You do not wish to notice obvious transgressions by one side, your friendly side, and use any pretext for that. It is not a genuine position for peace mediation and you're making it more and more obvious.

I'm afraid the evidence has been demonstrated. Israel has come to the table, your Hamas has not.

OK, let's sum it up. Both Isreal and militant factions in Palestine violate peace agendas, we have established it for a fact. But you prefer, help, and sponsor the side that does it covertly, even though as persistently and massively as the others. That sounds very much like your praised "peace" strategy, pay attention to what is being said, discussed, written into tonnes and megatonnes of paperwork, and who cares what's going on the ground. Or else, you're simply grasping for straws, anything that could help you justify your obvious bias and one sidedness.

Because for a real, genuine mediator of peace, there would be no problem pointing out, and objecting, and acting against violations of peace agendas, whatever side perpetrated it, correct? That we know from kindergarten, commonsense meanings of "genuine", "in good faith", "mediation" and "peace".

Hamas is not even in the peace agenda. It remains to be seen whether they will be or not.

They want to end all Israeli presence in the area. Your obvious bias towards them and not identifying them as a

terrorist group is not exactly helping.

I'm not sure how much sense that strategy actually would make from any common sense point of view (focus on making things nice and tidy in a little tiny area, and forget about everywhere else, like let things roll completely out of control), but as long as we have a clear answer, at least you position would be clear, so again:

if massive increase of settlements is fine and acceptable, from the position of that hopscotch approach, should a massive increase in militant attacks outside of "perfection" area be also tolerated and ignored. Or should we apply different standards of vision and action to militancy as opposed to creeping annexation (why?)

Moving from one area to the next was the agreed upon approach. You don't like it that much is clear but it does get results as clearly Gaza demonstrates.

Now, if Hamas will agree to end the violence, there might actually be more progress on a number of fronts.

But of course it is. You want to call some acts gross and inacceptable and ignore other, no more excusable acts as though they never happened at all. How much logical sense does it add to your definition? It's the same as the old tired "I'm good (and mine), you're bad". By definition. The conundrum could be solved very easily if you admitted and acted against all violations of peace. But that's not something you're prepared to do, because you know that your friendly side is as guilty as their opponent, and you'll never going to act against their violations, no matter how gross or massive they could be, correct?

I want you to acknowledge that one side has not come to the table and is determined to use violence to get what it wants.

Israel has come to the table. Your Hamas has not.

I admit that it's a militant attack that goes against peace. I believe that all violations of peace should be stopped to give it best chance to settle in. I'm not sure how much meaning and understanding the use of particular loaded words would add (or take away) from this simple truth.

Not good enough. Their stance is to use violence to achieve their aims and not come to the table. You can't bring yourself to even call it a terrorist attack.

Maybe they think that "peace process" that results in further massive annexation of their land, isn't entirely "peaceful" after all?

Baloney. Looks at what their objective is: Total removal of Israelis from the Middle East. How do you reconcile that? They won't come to the table because they can't agree to even live with Gaza and West Bank. They want it all back.

So you aren't even naming onging expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, as an "impediment" any more? Once again, the bias in your position becomes very obvious. You simply refuse to see that your friendly side is also violating peace agendas here and now, but prefer to jump and point your finger to the other side. That's not peace, Dobbin, in any normal sense, it's a gang.

I have already indicated that it is.

Hamas not coming to the table at all and continuing to fight is a huge stumbling block. It doesn't even achieve your baseline of success which is Oslo.

And you continue to support them and put this all on Israel. Israel has come to the table. Your Hamas hasn't.

You want to achieve more in the region, speak to your friends there and tell them to come to the table.

Edited July 24, 2009 by jdobbin

[benny]

Hamas not coming to the table at all and continuing to fight is a huge stumbling block. It doesn't even achieve your baseline of success which is Oslo.

And you continue to support them and put this all on Israel. Israel has come to the table. Your Hamas hasn't.

You want to achieve more in the region, speak to your friends there and tell them to come to the table.

Hamas is preparing the table for Iran.

[jdobbin]

Hamas is preparing the table for Iran.

And this makes you happy?

[benny]

And this makes you happy?

Even if it was making me happy, this challenge could not be bigger.

[jdobbin]

Even if it was making me happy, this challenge could not be bigger.

The challenge to make you happier about Iran's belligerence is greater?

[benny]

The challenge to make you happier about Iran's belligerence is greater?

I'm not Iranian.

[jdobbin]

I'm not Iranian.

But Iran makes you happy?

[benny]

But Iran makes you happy?

Does it matter to you!?