Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[DogOnPorch]

I just don't like when people falsely attribute real changes to the UN. By the time the UN resolution came into effect and the British mandate expired, the existence of a Jewish state in Israel was already an established fact on the ground. States have been coming into existence and disappearing since long before there was any body like the UN to pass resolutions.

As for Pakistan... obviously. The Muslims bloc has voted against Israel in every possible vote at the UN. Now if we had a few dozen Jewish states to even the scales...

I agree. But the Jews/Zionists/Israelis still took it very seriously. They threw a party in the streets of Tel Aviv singing the Hatikva. It was the 'new way' to make a state and they were keen to play by the rules if everyone else was going to. The real wrench in the works was the Grand Mufti who was not going to let these Zionist interlopers get in the way of his various interlopers.

[myata]

The settlements in Gaza didn't end? Amazing.

Amazing, isn't it? They're just moving next door with a four-five fold increase, but I'm not seeing or hearing because life is sunny and beautiful (and "successful").

As your beautiful approach to peace. I'm happy, my buddy's happy, so everybody must be happy now. "Success"! Settlements "ended", peace achieved, million dollars won, Britney Spears called for a date.

No end to happiness.

Keep trying Dobbin. What have your strategy done in real, ongoing terms, about persistent, ongoing, and massive expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories?

May I suggest starting with your highly selective vision?

I think we can safely safely say that you believe that Hamas is not a terrorist organization.

As we have observed on numerous occasions in this conversion, your power of saying greatly exceeds anything that actually exists in this reality, so you can certainly keep exercising it to achieve many more great "successes" (in whichever indirect, complex, opposite, relationship, or without any whatsoever they may be with the actual reality).

[jdobbin]

Keep trying Dobbin. What have your strategy done in real, ongoing terms, about persistent, ongoing, and massive expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories?

The removal was real and so was the process.

You said Oslo was a success and it didn't even have plans for removing settlers at all.

As we have observed on numerous occasions in this conversion, your power of saying greatly exceeds anything that actually exists in this reality, so you can certainly keep exercising it to achieve many more great "successes" (in whichever indirect, complex, opposite, relationship, or without any whatsoever they may be with the actual reality).

Your failure to clear up where you stand on Hamas is a fairly straight forward indication that you don't believe they are a terrorist organization.

I can imagine the reason you stay anonymous is because your view is one not easily defended.

[Craig1]

Well, I won't be running this election. heh

My main concern is to see the reduction of hostilities in the Middle East. Canada, as a friend of Israel, can offer support and advice on the situation. It isn't an uncritical support. While Israel has a right to defend itself, it has to come to terms with settlements.

YOUR ONLY INTEREST IS SUCKING ISRAELY DICK CAUSE THEY GOT NUKES TELL HOW TOU REALLY FEEL ABOUT THE MESS OVER THERE, AND IM CURIOUS WHAT DO YOU MEAN MY REDUCTION OF HOSTILITIES? WHO IS THE HOSTILE?

Edited July 17, 2009 by Craig1

[jdobbin]

YOUR ONLY INTEREST IS SUCKING ISRAELY DICK CAUSE THEY GOT NUKES TELL HOW TOU REALLY FEEL ABOUT THE MESS OVER THERE, AND IM CURIOUS WHAT DO YOU MEAN MY REDUCTION OF HOSTILITIES? WHO IS THE HOSTILE?

It looks like your cap key is stuck.

[myata]

The removal was real and so was the process.

The "moving and adding" (4 for 1 and counting) was of course real, and as a result of that very real process the settlements are up 70% (150% in East Jerusalem). And your party, so very concerned with promoting peace and justice, certainly did nothing about it, and even very obviously (you can hardly make it any more obvious, Dobbin, can you?) felt very uncomfortable even noticing these otherwise fully "successful" developments.

Correct Dobbin? You don't really want to act against your declared buddy, so you really prefer to look the other way when they go on a dirty business; and if and when somebody points it to you, you weasel, squirm, distract, deviate, go on tangents, call names, etc, i.e. do anything at all possible to ignore the act. Would that summarise your prefered approach to "peace settlement" more or less accurately? Thank you for making it so clear.

Your failure to clear up where you stand on Hamas is a fairly straight forward indication that you don't believe they are a terrorist organization.

You're certainly free to speculate about my beliefs but I can't see how it would help us understand and explain the way you act.

I can imagine the reason you stay anonymous is because your view is one not easily defended.

And my "anonimity" would certainly have a lot to do with it. But I understand, all things must be tried when you simply can't find anything else to defend your clearly bankrupt position.

Edited July 17, 2009 by myata

[benny]

Here one reason for Canadian Jews to think twice before given their votes to Ignatieff:

http://briarpatchmagazine.com/talking-torture/

[myata]

I don't think voting CPC or Liberals would make one grain of a difference in this matter, because as Dobbin is clearly showing us, neither one is seriously interested in a serious, genuine effort for peace, that simply cannot be imagined without adopting a balanced, principle based position. Of course, in the long run, genuine peace mediation would benefit all people in the region, Jews, Arabs and all others, because it's the only position that can be trusted by all sides, monitor progress and results as they actually are, rather than through a system of ideologicaly twisted filters (showng us a pretty nicey picture in this little square and obscuring it everywhere else), and act according to principles (our own, so often proclaimed), rather than gang-style affiliation.

But that doesn't seem to be an interest of either of the Behemoth parties. They are OK with the way things are, artistically punching each other for non-existent differences, but overall both fine and smug about the way things are progressing (or just the opposite, subject to terminology) on the ground.

[M.Dancer]

YOUR ONLY INTEREST IS SUCKING ISRAELY DICK CAUSE THEY GOT NUKES TELL HOW TOU REALLY FEEL ABOUT THE MESS OVER THERE, AND IM CURIOUS WHAT DO YOU MEAN MY REDUCTION OF HOSTILITIES? WHO IS THE HOSTILE?

Speaking of grade 3 intellects...

[DogOnPorch]

YOUR ONLY INTEREST IS SUCKING ISRAELY DICK CAUSE THEY GOT NUKES TELL HOW TOU REALLY FEEL ABOUT THE MESS OVER THERE, AND IM CURIOUS WHAT DO YOU MEAN MY REDUCTION OF HOSTILITIES? WHO IS THE HOSTILE?

jdobbin has to be one of the nicest posters here. This was totally uncalled for.

[jdobbin]

Correct Dobbin? You don't really want to act against your declared buddy, so you really prefer to look the other way when they go on a dirty business; and if and when somebody points it to you, you weasel, squirm, distract, deviate, go on tangents, call names, etc, i.e. do anything at all possible to ignore the act. Would that summarise your prefered approach to "peace settlement" more or less accurately? Thank you for making it so clear.

Once again, you called the Oslo accord success. Was it or was it not a success. I've already pointed out, it didn't end settlements. It didn't even talk about them,

The roadmap which is the process all parties agreed on was to move from area to the next. You want it all at once or you consider it a failure.

You're certainly free to speculate about my beliefs but I can't see how it would help us understand and explain the way you act.

Given that you seem so reticent to say whether suicide bombing and other violent attacks are terrorism.

And my "anonimity" would certainly have a lot to do with it. But I understand, all things must be tried when you simply can't find anything else to defend your clearly bankrupt position.

I have defended it. I have said it is the process that all the parties agreed to. It succeeded in removing settlements from one region and the focus was to shift to the next area. What didn't end was the violence and the process was derailed.

We are now seeing parties come back to to the table and once again the focus is the West Bank and ending violence.

You want Canada to place sanctions on Israel because you believe it will succeed in ending all settlements and violence.

I believe that your general acting out in these forums is a result of your ability to post anonymously. I don't find it very serious.

[benny]

I don't think voting CPC or Liberals would make one grain of a difference in this matter, because as Dobbin is clearly showing us, neither one is seriously interested in a serious, genuine effort for peace, that simply cannot be imagined without adopting a balanced, principle based position. Of course, in the long run, genuine peace mediation would benefit all people in the region, Jews, Arabs and all others, because it's the only position that can be trusted by all sides, monitor progress and results as they actually are, rather than through a system of ideologicaly twisted filters (showng us a pretty nicey picture in this little square and obscuring it everywhere else), and act according to principles (our own, so often proclaimed), rather than gang-style affiliation.

But that doesn't seem to be an interest of either of the Behemoth parties. They are OK with the way things are, artistically punching each other for non-existent differences, but overall both fine and smug about the way things are progressing (or just the opposite, subject to terminology) on the ground.

Here the first long post that I have found worthy of reading (twice).

[myata]

The roadmap which is the process all parties agreed on was to move from area to the next.

Yet we were talking about genuine approach to peace, and in any honest approach, a massive breach of trust on an important agenda like that of the illegal settlements simply could not have been ignored. That your strategy does not even want to notice these issues is a clear sign that a genuine, honest mediation is one thing it is not about. Much more likely, a gang style pushing of your friendly party's interests and agendas, under the guise of peacy and justicy rhetorics and nobody needs to be reminded that this is one thing you certainly excel in, unlike achieving, real practical results.

You want it all at once or you consider it a failure.

An obviously false statement, but I don't really care to give you "successes" anymore, you probably got enough for the rest of this discussion and more. What I do want is a real result, measurable and factual progress on all agendas of peace, not only those of your choice and not accomplished failures guised as a "success" via sophisticated and biased system of specially created criteria. If 70% increase in settlements is OK by your process (and much higher in some areas), then should it also accept a similar increase is militant violence as progress and success? No? Why not? Because you want "progress" and "result' have different meanings for each side, right? Your buddy should be able to continue to do what they do without being unnecessarily obstructed by any censoring on your part, while their opponent must show perfect and complete compliance to even get noticed. That's our great spirit of fairness and justice, a certain path to lasting peace.

Given that you seem so reticent to say whether suicide bombing and other violent attacks are terrorism.

And another demonstratably false statement, but I assume that anybody writing to this board is capable of reading and understanding what they read.

I have defended it. I have said it is the process that all the parties agreed to. It succeeded in removing settlements from one region and the focus was to shift to the next area. What didn't end was the violence and the process was derailed.

No Dobbin, no. You forgot to explain, why "derailments" by one side cause your serious concern, and real, practical acts, while those from the other, which btw also happened to be your friendly, barely ever get noticed.

So you've got to try again, sorry. Either admit that your position has very little to do with genuine peace mediation, as you claimed it to be, and you simply and obviously want to prop your friendly party in whatever way possible. Or, you have to show some act to prove that you mean what you're saying. And the record being as it is, we simply have to assume that it's the former, i.e. your position has nothing to do with genuine, honest mediation for peace. There's simply no factual records to support it, and words, they are just that, words.

You want Canada to place sanctions on Israel because you believe it will succeed in ending all settlements and violence.

You seem to simply love to speak, think and believe for me, but here's what I and everybody here knows, because it's a proven fact: Canada had no problem placing sanctions on one side for its violations of the peace agenda, so what would be so terribly wrong with applying the same principle to the other side?

I believe that your general acting out in these forums is a result of your ability to post anonymously. I don't find it very serious.

Finding anything is certainly one of your democratic rights.

[jdobbin]

Yet we were talking about genuine approach to peace, and in any honest approach, a massive breach of trust on an important agenda like that of the illegal settlements simply could not have been ignored. That your strategy does not even want to notice these issues is a clear sign that a genuine, honest mediation is one thing it is not about. Much more likely, a gang style pushing of your friendly party's interests and agendas, under the guise of peacy and justicy rhetorics and nobody needs to be reminded that this is one thing you certainly excel in, unlike achieving, real practical results.

Who are you to say what is genuine? The arrogance. You set the standard over the parties that agreed to the process? You?

Your strategy is to ignore the strategy that the Palestinians and Israelis agreed to proceed on. The sheer hubris of that policy.

It ignores the multilateral approach that Canada has embarked on for much of its history. You want to do it unilaterally.

An obviously false statement, but I don't really care to give you "successes" anymore, you probably got enough for the rest of this discussion and more. What I do want is a real result, measurable and factual progress on all agendas of peace, not only those of your choice and not accomplished failures guised as a "success" via sophisticated and biased system of specially created criteria. If 70% increase in settlements is OK by your process (and much higher in some areas), then should it also accept a similar increase is militant violence as progress and success? No? Why not? Because you want "progress" and "result' have different meanings for each side, right? Your buddy should be able to continue to do what they do without being unnecessarily obstructed by any censoring on your part, while their opponent must show perfect and complete compliance to even get noticed. That's our great spirit of fairness and justice, a certain path to lasting peace.

As I said, your process is a unilateral one and ignores the process that was agreed upon following Oslo. You want it all and you want Canada to define the terms and set sanctions up for not following our timetable, our rules.

You focus on the Israelis mostly in your discussion and then complain about identifying Hamas as a terrorist organization. Yes, you complained about that. You were the one that said there was something wrong with that. I've asked repeatedly if you feel suicide bombing is a terrorist act and you refuse to answer.

And another demonstratably false statement, but I assume that anybody writing to this board is capable of reading and understanding what they read.

You said you believed there was something wrong with the sanctions against Hamas being a terrorist organization.

I told you that Canada was not going to deal with them if they continued to carry out terrorism but that Canada would continue aid. We did. $300 million if aid went to the Palestinian people.

No Dobbin, no. You forgot to explain, why "derailments" by one side cause your serious concern, and real, practical acts, while those from the other, which btw also happened to be your friendly, barely ever get noticed.

So you've got to try again, sorry. Either admit that your position has very little to do with genuine peace mediation, as you claimed it to be, and you simply and obviously want to prop your friendly party in whatever way possible. Or, you have to show some act to prove that you mean what you're saying. And the record being as it is, we simply have to assume that it's the former, i.e. your position has nothing to do with genuine, honest mediation for peace. There's simply no factual records to support it, and words, they are just that, words.

The derailment was the fact that Hamas was elected and decided to go the route of violent attacks to push all Israelis out of the Middle East.

Your focus has been on settlements only.

After settlements ended in Gaza, the violence from that area directed at Israel was to stop as part of the process. Instead, it became the launching pad for attacks.

You seem to simply love to speak, think and believe for me, but here's what I and everybody here knows, because it's a proven fact: Canada had no problem placing sanctions on one side for its violations of the peace agenda, so what would be so terribly wrong with applying the same principle to the other side?

There you go again. What sanctions against the Palestinians? Canada continued aid throughout. We just didn't deal with Hamas that wanted to drive all Israelis out of the Middle East by violent means.

You seem to support dealing with them and ergo, not recognizing they are a terrorist organization for suicide attacks.

Finding anything is certainly one of your democratic rights.

It is why I believe that what you do on these forums is some sort of tongue and cheek game. I don't believe you act this way in public because you know how it would go over with people if they knew who you really were.

[benny]

You focus on the Israelis mostly in your discussion and then complain about identifying Hamas as a terrorist organization. Yes, you complained about that. You were the one that said there was something wrong with that. I've asked repeatedly if you feel suicide bombing is a terrorist act and you refuse to answer.

You said you believed there was something wrong with the sanctions against Hamas being a terrorist organization.

I told you that Canada was not going to deal with them if they continued to carry out terrorism but that Canada would continue aid. We did. $300 million if aid went to the Palestinian people.

The derailment was the fact that Hamas was elected and decided to go the route of violent attacks to push all Israelis out of the Middle East.

Hamas was elected democratically, you are therefore terrorized by democracy!

[jdobbin]

Hamas was elected democratically, you are therefore terrorized by democracy!

It didn't matter that they were elected as long as they continued to support suicide attacks.

[benny]

It didn't matter that they were elected as long as they continued to support suicide attacks.

About non-suicidal attacks!? Your fascination about suicides is self-defeating.

[jdobbin]

About non-suicidal attacks!? Your fascination about suicides is self-defeating.

Your dismissal of terrorism attacks is revealing.

[myata]

It didn't matter that they were elected as long as they continued to support suicide attacks.

But it instantly begins to matter (and matter very, very much) as Dobbin's own democratic friend "continued" and is continuing as we speak, its creeping annexation of the occupied land. That's Dobbin's beautiful peace strategy in action: one set of "rules" and "standards" - for them; another (and totally different one, like absolutely opposite) - for the friendies. And it does achieve many wonderful "successes", not so sure for the genuine peace, but most certainly for Dobbin's great friends. Correct Dobbin? Got rid of useless chunk of land, massively increased settlements (by 70% overall and more, 2.5 times in their most cherished part of the occupied land) and got a praise from Dobbin for the great "success", all in one quick masterstroke.

Quit pretending Dobbin, really, words hardly fool anybody anymore. Your process has very little to do with "peace" and everyting - with propping your friendy, that outpost of light and democracy and "our" culture, as somebody here spilled recently. If you say that plainly, we'll have no further argument here, and I'll respect your honesty. Otherwise, till you explain why nothing real and practical has, is, and will be ever done about continuous and massive violations of peace agenda by your friendy, we'll have no choice to assume it being the case anyways, as the most logical explanation to your act (and inact too). Despite all what you have to say, because words, Dobbin, won't ever describe fully and correctly what you mean, only your acts do.

[jdobbin]

But it instantly begins to matter (and matter very, very much) as Dobbin's own democratic friend "continued" and is continuing as we speak, its creeping annexation of the occupied land.

I think you forget that Israel agreed to the process of peace talks to end violence and begin ending settlements elsewhere. Hamas didn't. They want all the land and were prepared to use terrorism to get it.

Quit pretending Dobbin, really, words hardly fool anybody anymore. Your process has very little to do with "peace" and everyting - with propping your friendy, that outpost of light and democracy and "our" culture, as somebody here spilled recently. If you say that plainly, we'll have no further argument here, and I'll respect your honesty. Otherwise, till you explain why nothing real and practical has, is, and will be ever done about continuous and massive violations of peace agenda by your friendy, we'll have no choice to assume it being the case anyways, as the most logical explanation to your act (and inact too). Despite all what you have to say, because words, Dobbin, won't ever describe fully and correctly what you mean, only your acts do.

Quit pretending that you don't know where you stand on terrorism and if you believe Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Edited July 18, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

I think you forget that Israel agreed to the process of peace talks to end violence and begin ending settlements elsewhere. Hamas didn't. They want all the land and were prepared to use terrorism to get it.

Dobbin, you surely understand plain English? You, yourself said that reduction of settlements is an important peace agenda. So why nothing has been done in real, practical terms, by you, and your allies in this ostensibly peace process, against ongoing expansion of settlements as you and they had no problem acting against militant attacks?

Is it because you cannot control your act? Or because you don't actually mean what you're saying, i.e. all this peace terminology is just a guise to cover the actual goal - to prop and promote the friendy at all cost? Because remember, words will never explain fully and correctly what one really means, but the acts (and inactions) do.

Quit pretending that you don't know where you stand on terrorism and if you believe Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Dobbin, I have no choince but to start ignoring these meaningless repetitions from now on, I stated my position very clearly many many times, in this very conversation, and if you couldn't read and understand what's written in plain English, or refrain from misrepresenting it, it's your own problem, just as your selective vision, and selective standards, and creative definitons of successes, and my job here is only to expose it to the maximum extent possible.

[benny]

Your dismissal of terrorism attacks is revealing.

You dismiss, I confront.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The war will continue, in name and deed until terrorists no longer attack Israel.

[benny]

The war will continue, in name and deed until terrorists no longer attack Israel.

Of course, the war will continue until it ends!

[punked]

The war will continue, in name and deed until terrorists no longer attack Israel.

I bet the war will continue after that it will just make it easier for Israel to move onto land that isn't theirs drive the Palestinians our of their land.