Jump to content

Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election


Recommended Posts

That is the truth. However you try to squirt and look the other way, there's no denying obvious facts.

The truth is that the Gaza has no settlements now and that the focus is on the West Bank.

Your previous focuses brought massive increase in illegal settlements, and it would be irrational, if not insane, to expect a different result from applying the same failed approach over and over and again.

It is irrational to expect that disengagement will achieve anything when it has never achieved anything in the past.

I'll support anybody with a grain of rational attitude to reality, of which your position obviously has none. If one fails to even admit plain simple obvious facts, it'd be pure insanity to let them govern a country.

Good. Then please go support them or whoever it is you think will go for your idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is that the Gaza has no settlements now

The complete truth is that there's been a massive increase in illegal settlements while your strategy has been in place. That you are incapable of, or don't wish to see and admit the complete truth makes you complicit in the deception. A far cry from a genuine position for peace that you (as anybody) can claim but in fact work against, by refusing to see and thus encouraging this creeping agression.

and that the focus is on the West Bank.

We've already established that your focus has very little to do with reality, so I wouldn't mind at all if you just kept it to yourself, as your own, private affair, in which I have no interest, no any wish to discuss. The reality is, to remind:

- twenty years;

- 70% increase in illegal settlements (and counting)

- "success" (gdobbin)

It is irrational to expect that disengagement will achieve anything when it has never achieved anything in the past.

That is your saying and we've actually seen, here, in this very thread, that you can say things that have no bearing to reality.

Yet I kind of understand that for a mind failing in logical, rational analysis (whether deliberately or honestly, does not matter at this time), any rational point of view may look strange and "irrational". And it's you, Dobbin, who's failing in logical, rational thinking, that is a basis for any meaningful discussion, because you stubbornly refuse to admit obvious, plain facts that with arithmetic complexity of around third grade of elementary school. Again, Dobbin:

- 20 years;

- 70% increase in illegal settlements;

Do you really have to be an Einstein to finally take it in? I'll have to repeat these plain, obvious facts until you either admit them, and their implication for your strategy, or it'll become plain and obvious to everybody here why, i.e. for what reason, genuine failure of rational thinking, or deliberate misleading because you wouldn't admit the truth that wouldn't fit in your plain, you adamantly refuse to admit facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The complete truth is that there's been a massive increase in illegal settlements while your strategy has been in place. That you are incapable of, or don't wish to see and admit the complete truth makes you complicit in the deception. A far cry from a genuine position for peace that you (as anybody) can claim but in fact work against, by refusing to see and thus encouraging this creeping agression.

We've already established that your focus has very little to do with reality, so I wouldn't mind at all if you just kept it to yourself, as your own, private affair, in which I have no interest, no any wish to discuss. The reality is, to remind:

- twenty years;

- 70% increase in illegal settlements (and counting)

- "success" (gdobbin)

That is your saying and we've actually seen, here, in this very thread, that you can say things that have no bearing to reality.

Yet I kind of understand that for a mind failing in logical, rational analysis (whether deliberately or honestly, does not matter at this time), any rational point of view may look strange and "irrational". And it's you, Dobbin, who's failing in logical, rational thinking, that is a basis for any meaningful discussion, because you stubbornly refuse to admit obvious, plain facts that with arithmetic complexity of around third grade of elementary school. Again, Dobbin:

- 20 years;

- 70% increase in illegal settlements;

Do you really have to be an Einstein to finally take it in? I'll have to repeat these plain, obvious facts until you either admit them, and their implication for your strategy, or it'll become plain and obvious to everybody here why, i.e. for what reason, genuine failure of rational thinking, or deliberate misleading because you wouldn't admit the truth that wouldn't fit in your plain, you adamantly refuse to admit facts.

Simple fact; terrorists target civilians. Israel is dealing with terrorists, and what could you expect any nation to do with terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple fact; terrorists target civilians. Israel is dealing with terrorists, and what could you expect any nation to do with terrorists?

"Dealing with terrorists" means stealing the land? Summary destruction of homes? Grossly disproportionate military actions? Abuses of rights of civilians? Please clarify what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The complete truth is that there's been a massive increase in illegal settlements while your strategy has been in place. That you are incapable of, or don't wish to see and admit the complete truth makes you complicit in the deception. A far cry from a genuine position for peace that you (as anybody) can claim but in fact work against, by refusing to see and thus encouraging this creeping agression.

There has also been no stop in the attacks from rockets or other violent incidents from Palestinians.

Nevertheless, Gaza no longer has settlements.

We've already established that your focus has very little to do with reality, so I wouldn't mind at all if you just kept it to yourself, as your own, private affair, in which I have no interest, no any wish to discuss. The reality is, to remind:

I'll be hear to remind you always that your idea of disengagement doesn't work whereas engagement does. We are wanted by both sides and that is enough in most people's minds to try and assist the process.

Yet I kind of understand that for a mind failing in logical, rational analysis (whether deliberately or honestly, does not matter at this time), any rational point of view may look strange and "irrational". And it's you, Dobbin, who's failing in logical, rational thinking, that is a basis for any meaningful discussion, because you stubbornly refuse to admit obvious, plain facts that with arithmetic complexity of around third grade of elementary school. Again,
Dobbin:

I think your getting angry that no one seems to take your disengagement idea seriously.

Do you really have to be an Einstein to finally take it in? I'll have to repeat these plain, obvious facts until you either admit them, and their implication for your strategy, or it'll become plain and obvious to everybody here why, i.e. for what reason, genuine failure of rational thinking, or deliberate misleading because you wouldn't admit the truth that wouldn't fit in your plain, you adamantly refuse to admit facts.

And you adamantly refuse to believe that even the Palestinians and Israelis don't want anything to do with your disengagement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has also been no stop in the attacks from rockets or other violent incidents from Palestinians.

Don't bring a distraction, Dobbin. Has your strategy achieved a halt, or reduction of illegal settlements in ALL of the occupied territories? Yes or no? The obvious (to anybody but yourself) answer, based on the posted facts is: NO.

BTW this ever ongoing creeping growth of settlements AND your apparent support of that activity (70% increase = success!) can go some way in explaining bent up anger in the territories leading to some of those attacks. Never thought of that role your strategy plays in bringing the peace to the region?

I'll be hear to remind you always that your idea of disengagement doesn't work whereas engagement does. We are wanted by both sides and that is enough in most people's minds to try and assist the process.

You can remind me of your deep thoughts as much as you want but it won't make them any more grounded in reality that that outlandish "70% increase = success!" claim.

I think your getting angry that no one seems to take your disengagement idea seriously.

No, only stating obvious facts. People are given to ignoring reality and in time they come to recognise and repent it. As you're doing right now by refusing to admit obvious glaring facts. I know it may feel comforting to belong to a group, or even a gang, but still it doesn't make your position any more logically solid or credible.

And you adamantly refuse to believe that even the Palestinians and Israelis don't want anything to do with your disengagement.

We'll discuss this angle as soon as you admit failure of your strategy in halting the construction of settlements, OK? Just for starters though, if you read my posts carefully (or just read them at all), I only mentioned disengagement as the ultimate act, if / when everything else fails. What I really advocate is a balanced, impartial engagement based on principles of justice, rights and peace, rather than ideology based affiliation. Your parrotting "disengagement" on every occasion and without it, is therefore just another ruse, distraction from a total bankrupcy of your strategy that utterly failed to achieve any progress in stopping the growth of settlements and therefore any real movement toward settlement of the conflict.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't bring a distraction, Dobbin. Has your strategy achieved a halt, or reduction of illegal settlements in ALL of the occupied territories? Yes or no? The obvious (to anybody but yourself) answer, based on the posted facts is: NO.

BTW this ever ongoing creeping growth of settlements AND your apparent support of that activity (70% increase = success!) can go some way in explaining bent up anger in the territories leading to some of those attacks. Never thought of that role your strategy plays in bringing the peace to the region?

Distraction? You think attacks are a distraction?

The success has been removing settlements from Gaza. The failure wad to get Hamas to stop rocket attacks from Gaza.

You can remind me of your deep thoughts as much as you want but it won't make them any more grounded in reality that that outlandish "70% increase = success!" claim.

Success is getting settlements out of Gaza and focusing on the West Bank.

No, only stating obvious facts. People are given to ignoring reality and in time they come to recognise and repent it. As you're doing right now by refusing to admit obvious glaring facts. I know it may feel comforting to belong to a group, or even a gang, but still it doesn't make your position any more logically solid or credible.

I think you the one who is acting irrationally.

We'll discuss this angle as soon as you admit failure of your strategy in halting the construction of settlements, OK? Just for starters though, if you read my posts carefully (or just read them at all), I only mentioned disengagement as the ultimate act, if / when everything else fails. What I really advocate is a balanced, impartial engagement based on principles of justice, rights and peace, rather than ideology based affiliation. Your parrotting "disengagement" on every occasion and without it, is therefore just another ruse, distraction from a total bankrupcy of your strategy that utterly failed to achieve any progress in stopping the growth of settlements and therefore any real movement toward settlement of the conflict.

Your lack of recognition of the failure of disengagement is rather breathtaking. The Israelis and Palestinians don't want that.

Admit that your plan is not supported by anyone including those involved with the conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper has been openly pandering to the "Jewish vote".

Of course he's pandering to the "Jewish vote." Who's denying that? He's also pandered to the Quebecois at a cost of billions to the rest of Canada but that doesn't mean that Quebecois have voted for him in significant numbers. You made the outrageous claim "Funny how the party that stridently pro a certain country suddenly gains almost universal support from a certain ethnic group." Yet you have no statistics to back up your absurd claim that he has received even 50% of the Jewish vote let alone has almost universal support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is literally no cost associated with our prime minister stating his support for a nation that should indeed have our support.

Of course there's no cost. Right wingers and Evangelical Christians aren't about to abandon Harper because he supports Israel. For Ignatieff to take the same stance as Harper, which he has, there will be a political cost at least among some Muslim supporters of the Liberal Party. Or are you in denial that Ignatieff has taken the same stance as Harper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distraction? You think attacks are a distraction?

No, they'll become arguments the moment you answer the question. So have your strategy resulted in a halt of construction, or reduction, of illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories? Yes or No?

Till then it's a distraction because you'd use anything to avoid answering it, but you're only making a ridicule of yourself because it shows so clearly everything your strategy is, and isn't and worth of.

The success has been removing settlements from Gaza.

Success is getting settlements out of Gaza and focusing on the West Bank.

And the 70% increase in illegal settlements. Thank you. That you are unable to take in the complete picture of reality, along with your focuses, grand plans and strategems is a condition of your brain. Try to admit it, as the first step toward healing.

In the reality though your strategy is encouraging that land grab, creeping agression, and maybe causing escalation of hositilites. You claim to be wanting peace but in reality, the fact, you're working against it.

I think you the one who is acting irrationally.

But I can actually prove that it's you, because you're refusing to admit plain obvious facts, i.e. the reality, and that is the first major symptom of an irrational state of mind.

Your lack of recognition of the failure of disengagement is rather breathtaking.

And now you're ascending even higher on the spiral of irrationality (in which there's no end to your "progress") claiming as a fact failure of something that has never yet been tried.

I already commented on severely flawed, yet incessant repetion of "disengagement" and won't do it agian because it wouldn't serve any purpose for someone who wouldn't read or comprehend the meaning of what they are reading.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on the domestic agenda?

Prior to the threat of Harper being toppled in December, Harper and Flaherty had no economic stimulus plan, only an economic update even though Harper knew we were in a recession. Harper delivered a budget with a stimulus plan in January. I suspect that Ignatieff had something to do with Harper's complete reversal.

Ignatieff's not a social conservative like Harper. I'd be shocked if Ignatieff ever tried to foist censorship on Canadian television and film as Harper unsuccessfully attempted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...ticle714705.ece

And do you think that Ignatieff would ever have voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? Harper did. The legislation passed with the support of the Liberals, NDP and BQ.

Having said that, I would agree that Ignatieff needs to do more to distinguish himself on the domestic agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Dealing with terrorists" means stealing the land? Summary destruction of homes? Grossly disproportionate military actions? Abuses of rights of civilians? Please clarify what you mean.

Steal the land? You are kidding right? The Palestinians were invited to stay when the Jews formed a nation, they elected to leave. The death and destruction you speak of is a direct result of the actions of the terrorists, who also hide in those homes you speak of.

What I mean is that the Jews are not going to lay down and take it ever again. I count the terrorists luck to still live. I will suggest that electing a group of terrorists to form a government does nothing to calm the citizens of Israel at all. As long as the Palestinian people support terrorism I for one do not wish them well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they'll become arguments the moment you answer the question. So have your strategy resulted in a halt of construction, or reduction, of illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories? Yes or No?

Yes. In Gaza. Now the process can move on to the next area.

Till then it's a distraction because you'd use anything to avoid answering it, but you're only making a ridicule of yourself because it shows so clearly everything your strategy is, and isn't and worth of.

I think you're the one who is looking foolish.

In the reality though your strategy is encouraging that land grab, creeping agression, and maybe causing escalation of hositilites. You claim to be wanting peace but in reality, the fact, you're working against it.

The Palestinians and Israelis don't see it that way.

But I can actually prove that it's you, because you're refusing to admit plain obvious facts, i.e. the reality, and that is the first major symptom of an irrational state of mind.

And I keep showing the process was initially focused on geography as all sides agreed on. Part of that process is done. It moves to the next part now.

And now you're ascending even higher on the spiral of irrationality (in which there's no end to your "progress") claiming as a fact failure of something that has never yet been tried.

The fact is that there is no example of your process of sanctions working historically.

I already commented on severely flawed, yet incessant repetion of "disengagement" and won't do it agian because it wouldn't serve any purpose for someone who wouldn't read or comprehend the meaning of what they are reading.

Now maybe you'll admit the failure of sanctions as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. In Gaza. Now the process can move on to the next area.

Not so fast, Dobbin, see you can't change the question on the fly to make it suit already prepared answer (as you do in the House). Everybody by now understands that you want to limit your view to one little tiny piece that suits your idea of reality, yet the full, complete reality that any rational and unbiased human being above age of 10 would be able to undestand, is:

- 20 years of applying strategy

- 70% increase in illegal settlements

- "success" (gdobbin).

Until you acknowledge that, I'm afraid we won't be able to move on anywhere else.

I think you're the one who is looking foolish.

You're absolutely free in what you can think, yet it is you here who stubbornly refuses to admit obvous facts. If you'd like to check an independent (medical) opinion on that, I think it could be a good idea.

And I keep showing the process was initially focused on geography as all sides agreed on. Part of that process is done. It moves to the next part now.

Sorry, which sides? You mean Palestinian side explicitly agreed to massive increase of setllements outside of Gaza and overall? You'll have to confirm this with facts or retract that part of your statement, that'll be another item I'll hold you to.

BTW I also noticed a smug omission of East Jerusalem from your strategy. What about it, Dobbin, does your strategy also includes stop and dismantling of settlement there, Yes or No? We can discuss this after you answer #1 (overall result of your strategy) and #2 (Palestinian side authorising growth of settlements outside of Gaza).

The fact is that there is no example of your process of sanctions working historically.

But of course there is. South Africa regime was reformed while sanctions were in place (again I'm sure you have special thoughs on the subject but I'd rather focus on reality at this time). Did South Africa regime start to reform while sanctions and isolation policy was in place, Dobbin, yes or no?

Another example is Saddam's destruction of WMD while under sactions after the first Gulf War.

What we don't have many examples of, is the friendly engagement working. It didn't work in South Africa, and as the plain facts show it did not work in the Isreaeli-Palestine conflict. A very obvious logical reason for that is that by giving unconditional support to one side, we discourage it from seeking genuine resolution and encourage it to continue hostile acts, like creeping annexation, and so on. That's what we have historically.

Now maybe you'll admit the failure of sanctions as well.

No Dobbin, as a sane, rational human being I'm afraid the only conclusion I can make from the factual examples cited above is that santions can work if applied meaningfully, i.e. aimed at a clear measurable result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so fast, Dobbin, see you can't change the question on the fly to make it suit already prepared answer (as you do in the House). Everybody by now understands that you want to limit your view to one little tiny piece that suits your idea of reality,

I think it is you who wants to change the focus. You want to say that it has all been a complete failure but the roadmap was about a process that moved from place to place. The initial phase was about Gaza and was successful in removing settlers, not so good for ending violence from there,

You're absolutely free in what you can think, yet it is you here who stubbornly refuses to admit obvous facts. If you'd like to check an independent (medical) opinion on that, I think it could be a good idea.

There is one thing in common that you have with some conservatives and that seems to be the tendency to get angry and insult. I think a deep breath might be good.

Sorry, which sides? You mean Palestinian side explicitly agreed to massive increase of setllements outside of Gaza and overall? You'll have to confirm this with facts or retract that part of your statement, that'll be another item I'll hold you to.

Both sides agreed to the process on Gaza. The Palestinians let the process break down on security and the Israelis let it break down on continued settlements on the West Bank.

The focus is now on getting things back on track on the West Bank.

BTW I also noticed a smug omission of East Jerusalem from your strategy. What about it, Dobbin, does your strategy also includes stop and dismantling of settlement there, Yes or No? We can discuss this after you answer #1 (overall result of your strategy) and #2 (Palestinian side authorising growth of settlements outside of Gaza).

No.

But of course there is. South Africa regime was reformed while sanctions were in place (again I'm sure you have special thoughs on the subject but I'd rather focus on reality at this time). Did South Africa regime start to reform while sanctions and isolation policy was in place, Dobbin, yes or no?

Ah, taking credit for South Africa's changes because sanctions were in place.

Sanctions did not force South Africa to do anything. As long as they battled the ANC, no amount of sanctions had any effect.

Another example is Saddam's destruction of WMD while under sactions after the first Gulf War.

The sanctions only made the Iraqis suffer. It was the actual blockade and threat of military action that was used fairly frequently that allowed for inspectors to do their job.

What we don't have many examples of, is the friendly engagement working. It didn't work in South Africa, and as the plain facts show it did not work in the Isreaeli-Palestine conflict. A very obvious logical reason for that is that by giving unconditional support to one side, we discourage it from seeking genuine resolution and encourage it to continue hostile acts, like creeping annexation, and so on. That's what we have historically.

South Africa was in part a battle of Cold War enemies. Israel also fell under that umbrella until around the same time.

Canada used sanctions to no effect in South Africa although you seem to think they worked.

No Dobbin, as a sane, rational human being I'm afraid the only conclusion I can make from the factual examples cited above is that santions can work if applied meaningfully, i.e. aimed at a clear measurable result.

They don't. They are the illusion of action. They usually just invite suffering on the general population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is you who wants to change the focus. You want to say that it has all been a complete failure but the roadmap was about a process that moved from place to place. The initial phase was about Gaza and was successful in removing settlers, not so good for ending violence from there,

No Dobbin, unlike you I won't deny the obvious, progress was indeed achieved in Gaza. But first of all, settlers were not "removed", they were moved somewhere else. Plus, for each settler moved from Gaza, three new ones were added. In 1993, there were 4,800 settlers in Gaza, i.e. less than 2 (two) percent of the total number of 281,800. It took your strategy 20 years, no, not to remove them but to move them to another area, and in the meanwhile add 70% more settlers overall. In what rational mind would such state of affairs qualify as "success"?

Now let's calculate how long would it take your strategy to "remove" all of the settlements, that being the ultimate objective, correct, we agree on that?

Let's see, less than 2% = 13 years, 1% = 7 years. Can you do the simple math, Dobbin, or shall I help you with that too? (just in case of complications with basic arithmetics, hint: seven hundred (700) years. About 400 years for West Bank only, not counting East Jerusalem). Just another point for rationality of your strategy.

So Dobbin,

- 20 years;

- progress in less than 2% of the problem area;

- massive (70%) increase in illegal settlements everywhere else and overall;

- 700 years (based on fact, i.e. achieved track record) to complete the plan and no guarantee of success

You call it "rational" and "success"? Then indeed, the word must have a different, special meaning for you.

There is one thing in common that you have with some conservatives and that seems to be the tendency to get angry and insult.

It's nothing to do with the conservatives, only that state of mind that stubbornly, persistently refuses to admit plain, obvious facts. Whatever helps in overcoming it, I'd be very glad.

Both sides agreed to the process on Gaza. The Palestinians let the process break down on security and the Israelis let it break down on continued settlements on the West Bank.

Oh yes, "break down", right! Then you could certainly point to a period, withing the last two decades, when it wasn't broken i.e. construction of settlements was actually stopped, halted? Let's hear it, please, a vous:

(and if you can't find such a period? should we then have to conclude that the expansion of settlements was going full speed all the while your beatiful strategy was in place, and so we shouldn't really say "break down" but more like, "business as usual"? And your strategy had no problem with that, hence a "successful" result of 70% overall increase? The only question would be, how would it relate to such abstract notion as "peace", because we're talking about creeping annexation, i.e. an aggression in its own right, and your strategy doesn't seem to have much problem with that, correct?).

No.

OK, one frank admission at least. So one sunny day one could wake up find nearly all arab population squeezed out from East Jerusalem and that would perfectly fine for your strategy and peaceful assistance. That may explain why in two decades of your helpful strategy, settler population in East Jerusalem has increased 2.5 times, i.e. by 150%.

Sanctions did not force ..They are the illusion of action. They usually just invite suffering on the general population.

Dobbin, these, again, are your ideas and you can't mix them up, or substitute for reality. The reality is that all these changes happened while sanctions were in place, and vice versa, no changes to apartheid or WMD in Iraq happened before they were put in place. We had friendly involvement or whatever we called it at the time with South Africa and it did not end the apartheid. That is a fact.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Dobbin, unlike you I won't deny the obvious, progress was indeed achieved in Gaza. But first of all, settlers were not "removed", they were moved somewhere else. Plus, for each settler moved from Gaza, three new ones were added. In 1993, there were 4,800 settlers in Gaza, i.e. less than 2 (two) percent of the total number of 281,800. It took your strategy 20 years, no, not to remove them but to move them to another area, and in the meanwhile add 70% more settlers overall. In what rational mind would such state of affairs qualify as "success"?

Now let's calculate how long would it take your strategy to "remove" all of the settlements, that being the ultimate objective, correct, we agree on that?

Let's see, less than 2% = 13 years, 1% = 7 years. Can you do the simple math, Dobbin, or shall I help you with that too? (just in case of complications with basic arithmetics, hint: seven hundred (700) years. About 400 years for West Bank only, not counting East Jerusalem). Just another point for rationality of your strategy.

So Dobbin,

- 20 years;

- progress in less than 2% of the problem area;

- massive (70%) increase in illegal settlements everywhere else and overall;

- 700 years (based on fact, i.e. achieved track record) to complete the plan and no guarantee of success

You call it "rational" and "success"? Then indeed, the word must have a different, special meaning for you.

It's nothing to do with the conservatives, only that state of mind that stubbornly, persistently refuses to admit plain, obvious facts. Whatever helps in overcoming it, I'd be very glad.

Oh yes, "break down", right! Then you could certainly point to a period, withing the last two decades, when it wasn't broken i.e. construction of settlements was actually stopped, halted? Let's hear it, please, a vous:

(and if you can't find such a period? should we then have to conclude that the expansion of settlements was going full speed all the while your beatiful strategy was in place, and so we shouldn't really say "break down" but more like, "business as usual"? And your strategy had no problem with that, hence a "successful" result of 70% overall increase? The only question would be, how would it relate to such abstract notion as "peace", because we're talking about creeping annexation, i.e. an aggression in its own right, and your strategy doesn't seem to have much problem with that, correct?).

OK, one frank admission at least. So one sunny day one could wake up find nearly all arab population squeezed out from East Jerusalem and that would perfectly fine for your strategy and peaceful assistance. That may explain why in two decades of your helpful strategy, settler population in East Jerusalem has increased 2.5 times, i.e. by 150%.

Dobbin, these, again, are your ideas and you can't mix them up, or substitute for reality. The reality is that all these changes happened while sanctions were in place, and vice versa, no changes to apartheid or WMD in Iraq happened before they were put in place. We had friendly involvement or whatever we called it at the time with South Africa and it did not end the apartheid. That is a fact.

Am I to understand you are a Palestinian supporter? You openly side with terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Dobbin, unlike you I won't deny the obvious, progress was indeed achieved in Gaza. But first of all, settlers were not "removed", they were moved somewhere else.

And now progress can begin on West Bank.

Certainly the statement from Hamas last Thursday gives hope to that idea.

You call it "rational" and "success"? Then indeed, the word must have a different, special meaning for you.

I do. The indications now that Hamas for the first time has publicly supported the idea of two states and that they open to negotiation on how to get back on the roadmap that was derailed by recent violence.

It's nothing to do with the conservatives, only that state of mind that stubbornly, persistently refuses to admit plain, obvious facts. Whatever helps in overcoming it, I'd be very glad.

Just like the conservatives, you make excuses for your insults. You share a lot in common.

Oh yes, "break down", right! Then you could certainly point to a period, withing the last two decades, when it wasn't broken i.e. construction of settlements was actually stopped, halted?

Actually yes. Gaza settlement was stopped.

OK, one frank admission at least. So one sunny day one could wake up find nearly all arab population squeezed out from East Jerusalem and that would perfectly fine for your strategy and peaceful assistance. That may explain why in two decades of your helpful strategy, settler population in East Jerusalem has increased 2.5 times, i.e. by 150%.

There are two thing I know won't happen. One: The Israelis won't go for a divided capital. Two" The Palestinians won't go for recognizing the state of Israel (at least Hamas won't).

Dobbin, these, again, are your ideas and you can't mix them up, or substitute for reality. The reality is that all these changes happened while sanctions were in place, and vice versa, no changes to apartheid or WMD in Iraq happened before they were put in place. We had friendly involvement or whatever we called it at the time with South Africa and it did not end the apartheid. That is a fact.

The fact is that you can't link sanctions to changing behaviour in South Africa or Iraq.

Look, unlike you, I think that there are some interesting things happening on the Middle East front. The overtures from Hamas, from Syria, from the Palestian Authority and from Obama all seem to indicate there might be some movement on critical security issues and settlement on the West Bank.

Barak and Mitchell are now meeting in London on a comprehensive plan that will see a freeze on settlements in exchange for regional peace agreements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I to understand you are a Palestinian supporter? You openly side with terrorists?

If in your view all Palestinians are "terrorists", that's a pretty mudded view. You'll have to clarify the second part of your question, and I suggest to start clarification with reading up on the history of the conflict, then take time to ponder the facts, and then attempt to take a open, balanced look at it, as you obviously cannot now.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now progress can begin on West Bank.

...

I do

But we're talking about actual results, Dobbin, not future possibilites. And the results are:

- 20 years;

- progress in less than 2% of the problem area;

- massive deterioration in every other area and overall;

By any rational measure, it's an accomplished failure and any rational individual genuinly attempting to achieve positive change would have no choice but to admit it.

Just like the conservatives, you make excuses for your insults. You share a lot in common.

I'm sorry that you're finding insult in my stating plain, obvious fact, that you adamantly refuse to admit. But I'm left with no choice really, because it is a fact and it cannot be negated by simply looking away and pretending it's not there.

Actually yes. Gaza settlement was stopped.

OK, I'm starting to understand your creative languge, and it means that you cannot name such a period. Your hopscotch vision is your own problem. I'm afraid we have to conclude that your strategy of "friendly encouragement" indeed encourages creeping annexation, and therefore and in actuality works against peace. That would be the only rational logical explanation.

There are two thing I know won't happen. One: The Israelis won't go for a divided capital. Two" The Palestinians won't go for recognizing the state of Israel (at least Hamas won't).

So you're prepared to turn a blind eye on and excuse illegal annexation of land (from the point of view of international law) and in the possible eventuality of squeezing native population out of East Jerusalem, something not unlike ethnic cleansing? Certainly sounds like a "peaceful" strategy and once on that peaceful path, I'd find it hard to predict where you'd end up.

The fact is that you can't link sanctions to changing behaviour in South Africa or Iraq.

For once, I agree that though they happened at the same time, the causal connection has yet to be proven. What we do know for sure though, that the earlier "encouragement, involvement appeasement, etc" strateties did not work, i.e. did not cause any "change of behaviour". That, Dobbin, is a fact.

Look, unlike you,

Again you're stating something as a fact but you have to prove it, not in the least but showing that you can have a clear unbiased view of the entirety of the situation. And because we now have a factual confirmation that you're miserably failing at that, not being able to take in clear, obvious facts glaring you straight in the face, the above statement would remain, as many thing that you say, just that, your saying. With no further implication or meaning. You can say many other things (feel free to try) but without some factual confirmation, and/or logical argumentation, they would remain a thing of your imagination, i.e. may have nothing to do with reality.

The overtures from Hamas, from Syria, from the Palestian Authority and from Obama all seem to indicate there might be some movement on critical security issues and settlement on the West Bank.

Barak and Mitchell are now meeting in London on a comprehensive plan that will see a freeze on settlements in exchange for regional peace agreements.

These indeed may be hopeful developments, but we're discussing the actual results of your advocated strategy so far. With massive increase of illegal settlements in vast majority of the occupied territories and overall, with no cessation of large scale military hostilities, with massive violations of human rights in the occupied territories, documented by independent organisations, do you admit that it's been an accomplished failure so far?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...