Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[benny]

He does seem to want to ignore Hamas though.

Iran is not ignoring Hamas though.

[jdobbin]

Iran is not ignoring Hamas though.

And Israel is not ignoring Iran.

[benny]

And Israel is not ignoring Iran.

Iran is not ignoring Israel either.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Iran is not ignoring Israel either.

Iran has already spoken of Israel, and has since refused to retract its remarks. All I can say to this is that you reap what you sew.

[Bonam]

And if there's no place for standards and principles in our international politics, then it'll be all about serving current interests via gang like affiliations (I close my eyes to your dirty business if you ignore mine), and I'd be OK with that, if Dobbin wouldn't insist on applying to it lofty words like "peace" and "justice", as this is obviously the last thing such affiliations would be about.

So you're "ok with that", you just disagree with dobbin's terminology? If only dobbin hadn't posted in this thread, you'd be all for Israel, applauding our association with it? Somehow I find that doubtful.

You also seem to have missed the point, that if we applied these "standards" of yours as you seem to want to see them applied, then we'd be "shunning" just about every country out there, our neighbour to the south for starters.

Or are these standards only to be applied as seems convenient to you?

[jdobbin]

Iran is not ignoring Israel either.

And the U.S. isn't ignoring Iran.

[jdobbin]

So you're "ok with that", you just disagree with dobbin's terminology? If only dobbin hadn't posted in this thread, you'd be all for Israel, applauding our association with it? Somehow I find that doubtful.

I think he is making stuff up again with the quotes. I don't think I have ever mentioned anything about justice in this thread. I can't see in what context I'd discuss it.

I have mentioned peace in the context of actual agreements that Israel has signed with Jordan and Egypt. I've also mentioned that thinking behind the land for peace process. It was successful in Sinai, not so successful with Gaza.

I've indicated why it wasn't successful and that is because Hamas doesn't believe in the process. It isn't just about the settlements for them. It is about Israel's very existence.

[Bonam]

I think he is making stuff up again with the quotes. I don't think I have ever mentioned anything about justice in this thread. I can't see in what context I'd discuss it.

I have mentioned peace in the context of actual agreements that Israel has signed with Jordan and Egypt. I've also mentioned that thinking behind the land for peace process. It was successful in Sinai, not so successful with Gaza.

I've indicated why it wasn't successful and that is because Hamas doesn't believe in the process. It isn't just about the settlements for them. It is about Israel's very existence.

Oh I know, I've been reading the thread Just haven't posted too frequently in it as most of it has been rather redundant and circular...

[myata]

So you're "ok with that", you just disagree with dobbin's terminology? If only dobbin hadn't posted in this thread, you'd be all for Israel, applauding our association with it? Somehow I find that doubtful.

Nope I believe that gang style politics are still not the way forward now, at this time in the world, but that's not something I could change easily, so we could start a meaningful discussion the moment we begin admitting reality and use proper names for acts and events.

Or are these standards only to be applied as seems convenient to you?

On the contrary, if you read this thread carefully, you would see that the only thing I propose is applying same standards to everybody, in a principled and impartial manner. This way we'll have less chance of continuously finding ourselves in Dobbin's shoes, having to resort to all sorts of tricks, ploys, and simulated memory losses to avoid admitting reality that simply wouldn't match our lofty words.

[myata]

The schedule has been defined, the exact day is not to ensure that supporters don't martial even larger protests. That has also been reported in the the various links.

Dobbin, that article does not describe any confirmed schedule for the removal of outposts. I'm really getting tired of wasting my time on your charades, so I have to say, with all responsibility that your approach to referencing material in this discussion has been either severely confused (please specify the reason), or worse still, a fraud.

Wallerstein's organization is the one that runs the various unauthorized settlements that the story details. Both the Washington Post and Reuters have reported the 8000 number.

And that is also not true. Washington Post and Reuters only reported that "Wallerstein said the number 8,000". This is in no way confirmation of the number itself, that you want to make us believe so much. Another creative ploy to obscure the facts.

Some of the outposts number 300 to 500 people in them.

Your report does not mention these numbers. Do you have a reference to confirm them, or is it yet another charade?

Until I hear figures that are different, Wallerstein's number appears to be current number being talked about. Even if the smallest of the settlement are being talked about, it still amounts to 1200 people. And that is just using Wikipedia numbers.

OK, you're willing to take numbers given by the party with a direct wested interest in having them exaggerated, over a report of a professional news agency? That speaks volumes about your attitude to reality, but we shouldn't be surprised by now, being yet another of many such examples. You won't see any fact that wouldn't fit your mental picture, and that's OK for you, but I'll make sure to expose every such incident as clearly as I possibly can.

Try to read the numbers that give the population that Wallerstein says presently live in those settlements. He didn't say 100 people live in the 23 locations. He said 8000.

Wallerstein is the leader of the same illegal settlement activity with direct wested interest in exaggerating the numbers. What you're willing, no can't wait to jump to take him on his word, over the reports of an independent professional news agency should completely eliminate even shreds of pretense to impartiality of your position. Your interest is clearly vested with one side, no matter what it does, and that is certainly to way to peace and no role to any meaningful mediation.

I know you don't believe him but he was the one that also gave the exact numbers of settlers moved from Gaza as well.

Right, just because somebody come up with a number you have to believe it. Very convincing. Try that approach in your investment strategy.

And your policy focusing on Israel and pretty much ignoring Hamas is pretty much rejected by anyone supporting the peace process.

954 (to go)

It is true. You seem to think that Israel is the main problem although they have come to the table. Hamas hasn't.

953

You see: there is that focus on Israel again.

952

Hamas is not interested in just settlers. They want all the land the back and all Israelis gone. Until you recognize that, you can't even make a good faith argument. Hamas has rejected all entreaties to this point about Israel even having the right to exist.

No this still does not answer the quesion, why you, not Hamas, refuse to do anything about ongoing expansion of settlements, and even trying every possible ploy to pretend they do not exist. Once you answered that question, we can have a more meaningful discussion of the approaches to resolving the conflict, and the role creeping annexation plays in escalating the tensions, and feeding extreme factions like Hamas.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look folks, the settlements are not the real issue. How can they be? The real issue here is the existence of the Jewish state. The efforts to limit Israel's growth and their means of providing land and housing for their citizens is what is being spun here. So that should tell folks that the real opposition is to Jewish development. In essence the problem here is being glossed over with terminology designed to confuse the truth.

I have no idea why the Jews put up with it, it makes no sense to me. I can't envision what Canada would do in such a situation besides fight back and yet the world seems to want them to negotiate a settlement! Lets turn that issue around and clearly state the reality. Even the rest of the Arab world will not carve out a few miles of desert for these people, now why is that? Why should Israel?

[benny]

And the U.S. isn't ignoring Iran.

Iran gears up.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, that article does not describe any confirmed schedule for the removal of outposts. I'm really getting tired of wasting my time on your charades, so I have to say, with all responsibility that your approach to referencing material in this discussion has been either severely confused (please specify the reason), or worse still, a fraud.

As shown, Israel is circumspect about the timing of the removal because they don't want to face the same problems they did with Amona.

And that is also not true. Washington Post and Reuters only reported that "Wallerstein said the number 8,000". This is in no way confirmation of the number itself, that you want to make us believe so much. Another creative ploy to obscure the facts.

You have told me that there is only 100 or so settlers involved but have shown no report I've seen has given any number even remotely close to that. The Washington Post and Reuters have reported the same number for outposts. I'm sorry if you don't like it. Speak to them about it.

Your report does not mention these numbers. Do you have a reference to confirm them, or is it yet another charade?

I showed you the link to the Sasson Report already. The Israelis are focused for the moment on unauthorized settlements built n the West Bank. The Sasson Report lists 105 of those places.

What happens often, according to the report, is that an authorized settlement asks to set up an antenna or generator for the main settlement some hundreds of meters away. This allows for a power supply and then homes are built without authorization.

This is what happens around Talmon.

The settlement of Talmon was created in 1989 and populated in 1992, when 210 settlers were registered there, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics.

Since Israel signed on to the road map, which calls for a freeze in settlement activity, the settlement has grown by nearly 1,000 people, from 1,618 in 2003 to 2,600 in 2008.

The Israelis government looks to authorize outpost Givat HaBricha which will become part of Talmon but some of the other outposts housing hundreds of people surrounding settlement are among the 23 settlements listed by the government for closure.

OK, you're willing to take numbers given by the party with a direct wested interest in having them exaggerated, over a report of a professional news agency? That speaks volumes about your attitude to reality, but we shouldn't be surprised by now, being yet another of many such examples. You won't see any fact that wouldn't fit your mental picture, and that's OK for you, but I'll make sure to expose every such incident as clearly as I possibly can.

Washington Post is a professional news agency. They fact check statements that are quoted in their papers.

Wallerstein is the leader of the same illegal settlement activity with direct wested interest in exaggerating the numbers. What you're willing, no can't wait to jump to take him on his word, over the reports of an independent professional news agency should completely eliminate even shreds of pretense to impartiality of your position. Your interest is clearly vested with one side, no matter what it does, and that is certainly to way to peace and no role to any meaningful mediation.

Give it a rest. You obviously don't trust the Washington Post to see through a statement of fact without checking the numbers.

Right, just because somebody come up with a number you have to believe it. Very convincing. Try that approach in your investment strategy.

Just letting you know that when Gaza was evacuated, he stated the exact number of people who lived there.

No this still does not answer the quesion, why you, not Hamas, refuse to do anything about ongoing expansion of settlements, and even trying every possible ploy to pretend they do not exist. Once you answered that question, we can have a more meaningful discussion of the approaches to resolving the conflict, and the role creeping annexation plays in escalating the tensions, and feeding extreme factions like Hamas.

Hamas doesn't care about just the settlements. The reason they don't come to the table is because their goal is remove Israel from the picture.

You can't pretend that isn't an issue. Hamas didn't care about getting Gaza back. Their goal is to get all of it back. If all Israeli settlements in the West Bank were gone, Hamas is still committed to fight for the rest of Israel.

Edited July 29, 2009 by jdobbin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Hamas doesn't care about just the settlements. The reason they don't come to the table is because their goal is remove Israel from the picture.

You can't pretend that isn't an issue. Hamas didn't care about getting Gaza back. Their goal is to get all of it back. If all Israeli settlements in the West Bank were gone, Hamas is still committed to fight for the rest of Israel.

We agree on this.

[benny]

Meanwhile a high-profile Jew seems unhappy that Fatah is not composed of terrorists:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2009...aron-cohen.html

[myata]

As shown, Israel is circumspect about the timing of the removal because they don't want to face the same problems they did with Amona.

Dobbin, you previously said that the schedule was defined:

QUOTE (jdobbin @ Jul 28 2009, 08:03 AM) "The schedule has been defined..."

yet your reference contains no such definition. Is it yet another creative confusion, or a fradulent use of refererences?

You have told me that there is only 100 or so settlers involved but have shown no report I've seen has given any number even remotely close to that.

The report by New Zealand TV describing one "illegal outpost" in high level of detail has been posted for evebody to see. If you wouldn't bother to notice it because it wouldn't fit your ideas, is entirely your problem and also wouldn't surprise me one bit.

The Washington Post and Reuters have reported the same number for outposts.

Yet what they actually reported was a statement by a certain individual on the issue. The individual who had every reason to exaggerate the numbers. Your using this report as a confirmation of the number itself, could only be one of the two logically: 1) inability to understand plain language; 2) intentional deception.

...

The Israelis government looks to authorize outpost Givat HaBricha which will become part of Talmon but some of the other outposts housing hundreds of people surrounding settlement are among the 23 settlements listed by the government for closure.

Very informative. Still does not provide any independent, credible estimate of the number of settlers affected by this potential project (it's still potential, as there's no confirmation of actual schedule, is there, Dobbin?)

And now the question is, what (if anything) is your peace process going to do about it (the continuous, ongoing and massive expansion of illegal settlements), Dobbin?

Washington Post is a professional news agency. They fact check statements that are quoted in their papers.

The agencies reported the fact, which is a statement by certain individual on certain subject, but you, Doggin, you want to sell it as something else. See, it's nothing to do with the agencies, and everything - with you. So why do you want / need so hard to sell things for what they are not? Could it be because the actual reality would deviate so much from your grand plan that it would make it obviously empty and bankrupt?

Give it a rest. You obviously don't trust the Washington Post to see through a statement of fact without checking the numbers.

No Dobbin, I can't and won't give it rest until your every attick, ploy, charade and confusion are exposed as clearly and plainly as I could possibly make it.

Hamas doesn't care about just the settlements. The reason they don't come to the table is because their goal is remove Israel from the picture.

And the process that you support has sanctioned them seriously, but not the other side for its continous, ongoing and massive build up of settlements. Why is that, Dobbin, and what would it have to do with genuine mediation for peace?

You can't pretend that isn't an issue. Hamas didn't care about getting Gaza back. Their goal is to get all of it back. If all Israeli settlements in the West Bank were gone, Hamas is still committed to fight for the rest of Israel.

I never did, on the contrary I state at every occasion that all violations of peace agendas should be condemned and if necessary, addressed in a real and practical manner. You, on the other hand, only want to notice violations and transgressions by one side, and "see no evil" from the other. That clearly shows which approach is actually about genuine peace, and which one - unconditional support of one side in the conflict, gang style.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, you previously said that the schedule was defined:

QUOTE (jdobbin @ Jul 28 2009, 08:03 AM) "The schedule has been defined..."

yet your reference contains no such definition. Is it yet another creative confusion, or a fradulent use of refererences?

It has been defined. I said the exact day has not been named to avoid another Amona.

The report by New Zealand TV describing one "illegal outpost" in high level of detail has been posted for evebody to see. If you wouldn't bother to notice it because it wouldn't fit your ideas, is entirely your problem and also wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I have seen that report and that is how Sasson describes an outpost starting up. She also describes how they can grow quickly to a communal settlement that is still unauthorized.

Yet what they actually reported was a statement by a certain individual on the issue. The individual who had every reason to exaggerate the numbers. Your using this report as a confirmation of the number itself, could only be one of the two logically: 1) inability to understand plain language; 2) intentional deception.

I reported what credible newspapers reported. They said 8000 people in outposts slated for evacuation.

I have not seen any countering reports to say the number was exaggerated or wrong.

If you have a problem with what the Washington Post reported, take it up with them.

Very informative. Still does not provide any independent, credible estimate of the number of settlers affected by this potential project (it's still potential, as there's no confirmation of actual schedule, is there, Dobbin?)

You got the number from the person who is in the best position to know the number.

As for the schedule, it won't be announced till it is actually happening.

And now the question is, what (if anything) is your peace process going to do about it (the continuous, ongoing and massive expansion of illegal settlements), Dobbin?

It is working on that right now.

The agencies reported the fact, which is a statement by certain individual on certain subject, but you, Doggin, you want to sell it as something else. See, it's nothing to do with the agencies, and everything - with you. So why do you want / need so hard to sell things for what they are not? Could it be because the actual reality would deviate so much from your grand plan that it would make it obviously empty and bankrupt?

And the Washington Post fact checks statements. Go to their website if you want to see the standard they set.

No Dobbin, I can't and won't give it rest until your every attick, ploy, charade and confusion are exposed as clearly and plainly as I could possibly make it.

And I will continue to point out that you can't even admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

And the process that you support has sanctioned them seriously, but not the other side for its continous, ongoing and massive build up of settlements. Why is that, Dobbin, and what would it have to do with genuine mediation for peace?

The reason is that Israel is prepared to come to the table and Hamas has not. That should be pretty easy to understand.

I never did, on the contrary I state at every occasion that all violations of peace agendas should be condemned and if necessary, addressed in a real and practical manner. You, on the other hand, only want to notice violations and transgressions by one side, and "see no evil" from the other. That clearly shows which approach is actually about genuine peace, and which one - unconditional support of one side in the conflict, gang style.

Hamas is not part of any peace agenda.

[benny]

Hamas is not part of any peace agenda.

Like if Hamas is not sharing Iran's peace agenda.

[jdobbin]

Like if Hamas is not sharing Iran's peace agenda.

It is why both Iran and Hamas are listed as terrorist supporting entities.

[benny]

It is why both Iran and Hamas are listed as terrorist supporting entities.

First, is this list established by peacemakers?

[jdobbin]

First, is this list established by peacemakers?

It is established by many countries based on violence or threat of violence.

[benny]

It is established by many countries based on violence or threat of violence.

Violence directed at states is violence against monopolies on violence.

[jdobbin]

Violence directed at states is violence against monopolies on violence.

So we shouldn't list terrorist groups because we are all terrorists?

[benny]

So we shouldn't list terrorist groups because we are all terrorists?

Given their independence movement, Quebecers are suspicious of what Canadians may agree to call terrorism.

[jdobbin]

Given their independence movement, Quebecers are suspicious of what Canadians may agree to call terrorism.

Think that is pretty clear: violence or the threat of violence.