Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[myata]

You're just being trite and oversimplifying (rationalizing in a vacuum again). The distinction of different TYPES of aggression has to be made here. You could reasonably argue that people building homes and communities on their own initiative across borders that were never recognized is not really aggression at all.

Of course, and very obviously, it has been made by those who want to excuse and apologise agression by one particular side. It is less clear why and how it has to be made, if the objective is genuine search for peace. It is very clear that somebody knocked over a head with a club would be as much pi.. off as somebody else just kicked out of their house. Undertaking to convince one why the should let it go, while nodding to the other to continue is hardly a plausible avenue to peace. Making all sides to cease all forms of hostilities and agression is a lot sure bet.

A useless argument. The people trying to negotiate peace are in a terrible position to do so. A US, British or even Canadian backed peace effort is laughable because we were the people that parachuted the Jews into Israel. Of course we support them because we made them. You can't have a baby in a den of wolves and then not defend it. It's a completely irrelevant argument.

Then we should be standing on one side of the conflict, and not pretending to be making something called "peace". I'm not sure that would be in the long term interest of any one party (us included), but at least it would be an honest position.

No, it's an bad conclusion that logic, history and the real world do not support whatsoever.

But of course it does. In great majority of major conflicts, cessation of open hostilities precedeed negotiations of peace and settlement (just like in a pub fight). It is simple common sense. What really needs to be discussed, is how the duplicit role of the West, as peace mediators aka allies of Israel actually prolongs and exacerbates the way to the settlement.

One notable exception to that rule is the case of total domination / capitulation (when conqueror makes all rules, and no further negotiation is necessary). I'm not sure if the actual agenda of some pseudo peaceful mediators is to seek that kind of "settlement", and if so I'd fully expect the project to be bound for another spectacular failure.

It's not a starting point. It's the goal. Peace is the goal. That's what we have to assume Israel wants.

Why do we have to assume that (and not e.g. that it wants lot more lands, and then, maybe also, "peace")?

Should we always assume something somebody says to be true, even when it's in a drastic contrast with what they actually do?

Ceasefires and peace are ALWAYS negotiated while fighting is going on and in the past it often took weeks/months for news of a treaty to arrive in an extended conflict.

It helps to lump all things together in the same busket, to help affairs cleared (sorry, mudded). Ceasefires aren't the same as negotiations to achieve lasting, sustainable peace. And indeed, to be meanigful, cesassion of hostilities must apply to all forms of hostilities and agression. It appears that in our peaceful zeal, we're still struggling to realize this very simple axiom.

Utter crap taken from a completely delusional point of view. Your definition of 'aggression' in this conflict is Israeli settlements vs Arab violence. Eliminating one form of 'aggression' would displace hundreds of thousands, cost billions and billions and take months. Eliminating the other form of aggression requires simply not pressing 'launch' buttons. If you want to talk about trust then Israel is in the position to trust less because your proposal has much to lose for them and nothing to lose from the other side. Why should they trust the Arab side would commit to peace, or even peace talks, when the Arabs themselves say they won't?

What you're failing to understand is that any meaningful mediation for peace should rise above partisan level and understand that conflict will exist until any form of hostility and agression remains in place. If you want to cheer for one chosen side, and count the wrongs committed by the other, it's in your right, but it won't do anything to stop the conflict, because, as we already established earlier, wrongs were committed by all sides, and the way to peace lies in cessation, and eventual redemption of all wrongs, regardless of who is involved.

Honestly, there's no point in arguing any further with you. You're not arguing from a practical or rational point of view.

It appears that you're rather running out of rational arguments, to support your point, that despite the admission (of quite obvious fact) that both sides have committed wrongs, the obligation to make real, practical steps in cessation of active hostilities should apply only to one side (of your choice). The obvious cause of that simple paradox is of course the desire to speak from two different positions at the same time, that of an unwavering supporter of certain party in the conflict, and this of someone who's attempting to seek peace. Pick one, and confusions and contraditions would magically clear away.

There's only ONE way that peace can be achieved in this conflict:

Both sides have to want it - PERIOD. They have to indicate they want it and they have to talk about how they are going to achieve a LASTING peace and what would be required to make it happen. If they're not willing to talk about or at least commit to the GOAL of long term peace, the entire process is a sham, which is currently the case.

Before they could start talking about "long term peace" (of course I mean genuine committment to long term peace, because any kind of talking can happen for pretty much of any kind of reasons, not at all having anything to do with actual peace), it would be wise of them to talk about ceasing hitting and clubbing each other, i.e, stopping active hostilities in all forms. Punching and kicking each other, while attending pompous ceremonies and "negotiations" is the real sham. If one cannot be convinced to abandon agression as the first step, what (meaningful) further negotion of "lasting peace" could there be?

You can cry and bleed out of your eyes about how nasty a conclusion this is, but peace is an impossibility unless both sides are willing to commit to the PROCESS.

No, I rather agree with you 100% in that. As soon as you clarify the meaning of "commit to the PROCESS". What process, and who has defined it (unless it's the very obvious process of ceasing all acts of hostility and agression)?

Right now one side is refusing the process outright and the idea of lasting peace they say is not possible while the other side exists.

OK, one faction, not even the whole side, is refusing to make certain declaration, and you call it "refusing the process". While the other side is involved in massive hostilities, persistently and over extended period of time, and it doesn't seemingly create any doubts in your interpretation of their "commitment".

Is it a problem with your definition of the process (certain act, of your choice does not qualify as act of hostility and agression), or your vision (you do not notice certain acts of hostility and agression)? Are you requiring one side to meet all the demands of the other, before that other side would even consider stopping its own acts of agression?

What makes you think that such approach should be called "negotiation", or "settlement", rather than "full submission to my (buddy's) will"?

[myata]

You said it. May as well stop denying it. Stop acting innocent about it because as soon as you wrote it, you were trying to evade it.

You gonna say it again and again, but you simply can't show that quote. That's how we make the alternate reality. Way to go.

I am asking you to answer that question. Remember you are the one that claimed Israel had to apologize for itself.

Nice try, but I never said that also. The alternate reality (of your making) is expanding at an accelerating rate, just like this Universe. There's a certain PhD prospect for you, enjoy!

Stop the evasion. Stop saying it is irrelevant.

The moment you'll come up with one sound logical statement proving that it is.

[jdobbin]

You gonna say it again and again, but you simply can't show that quote. That's how we make the alternate reality. Way to go.

You ignored it the last time I showed it to you, why would this time be any different?

Nice try, but I never said that also. The alternate reality (of your making) is expanding at an accelerating rate, just like this Universe. There's a certain PhD prospect for you, enjoy!

Really? Because I wasn't the only one who asked you about it at the time you said it.

The moment you'll come up with one sound logical statement proving that it is.

The moment you stop evading and answer a simple question will likely be the day hell freezes over.

[myata]

You ignored it the last time I showed it to you, why would this time be any different?

And I wouldn't at all be surprised if it happened many more times before that also, in that expanding Universe of yours. Or, you'd be able to show it, exact and unaltered, as requested.

Really? Because I wasn't the only one who asked you about it at the time you said it.

OK.... but what you're saying I said still does not exist, regardless of who asked it, what they were reading at the time and what was the colour of their shoes.

The moment you stop evading and answer a simple question will likely be the day hell freezes over.

Good try, but unfortunately, no, still not good enough. Keep trying!

[GostHacked]

Almost 85 pages??? Holy crap. I asked this a few pages ago : Why is there a need to battle for Jewish support, when we need Canadian support in the next election.

This should be the question that is to be asked.

Compared to other threads in the Canadian politics section, this one is getting a lot of attention. This one thread has more pages than the other top 10 threads combined !!!

[jdobbin]

And I wouldn't at all be surprised if it happened many more times before that also, in that expanding Universe of yours. Or, you'd be able to show it, exact and unaltered, as requested.

Where you ignored it? Probably numerous times.

OK.... but what you're saying I said still does not exist, regardless of who asked it, what they were reading at the time and what was the colour of their shoes.

Think they asked you at the same time and you did the same evasion as you are now.

Good try, but unfortunately, no, still not good enough. Keep trying!

Just answer the question. Does Israel have a right to exist?

Is Israel as a nation an act of aggresion?

Clear it up. The question is not irrelevant. Some opposed to Israel believe it is indeed an act of agression and has no right to exist. I want to know what you think on that. Your answer either way would have you pick a side.

Edited September 15, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

Where you ignored it? Probably numerous times.

I'd never dream of it, but my hands were ties because I couldn't get access to your very own, private version of reality. Can you help?

Think they asked you at the same time and you did the same evasion as you are now.

Just answer the question. Does Israel have a right to exist?

Is Israel as a nation an act of aggresion?

Most certainly, glad you noticed. What makes you think that the same (opposite of smart) question would cause a different answer, depending on who is asking it?

Clear it up. The question is not irrelevant. Some opposed to Israel believe it is indeed an act of agression and has no right to exist.

Thanks for a very informative news about "some", still doesn't explain in what way the question is relevant to this topic though.

I want to know what you think on that. Your answer either way would have you pick a side.

I'm not sure if this thread is really a proper place for private curiousities, but I'll tell you this, expressing one's honest and principled opinion does not, and does not have to mean taking sides. For a very obvious reason that principled position allows one to see and point out mistakes and violations no matter who is involved, while "sided" position very often relegates one to the need to excuse inexcusable and deny undeniable. With a very obvious illustration of this simple point in this very thread.

[Oleg Bach]

"Tories battle for Jewish support" ? Why is this block of voters important? It can't be the numbers. So what is it? Is the world really run by a dark group of clever Zionists? Are the banks controled by the Joooooos? Do they all have Allan Greenspans personal home number? I really don't get it...maybe the private school graduates that are anglos still adhere to what their fathers taught them ..."get a Jewish lawyer" ......or.....Them Jews are very intelligent and crafty..got to get on the good side of them son if you want to be a success in the buisness" - WHAT'S SO DAMN IMPORTANT ABOUT GETTING JEWISH SUPPORT? I think those that seek it are in dream land...How about getting the gay vote? Or maybe the Muslim vote? Or perhaps the support of a couple of 70 year old Bay Street bankers who just use the highly orgainized tribe of Jews to do their dirty work - that would make more sense to me...go for the top of the food chain...but maybe your average politician is not in the loop and actually believe the Joooooooos are in control.

[jdobbin]

I'm not sure if this thread is really a proper place for private curiousities, but I'll tell you this, expressing one's honest and principled opinion does not, and does not have to mean taking sides. For a very obvious reason that principled position allows one to see and point out mistakes and violations no matter who is involved, while "sided" position very often relegates one to the need to excuse inexcusable and deny undeniable. With a very obvious illustration of this simple point in this very thread.

Sorry. That didn't cut it. If pointing out mistakes and violations is your goal, you should at least be sable to say if Israel's existence is a violation of peace for merely existing.

[Moonbox]

But of course it does. In great majority of major conflicts, cessation of open hostilities precedeed negotiations of peace and settlement (just like in a pub fight).

First of all, that's not true and second of all in most of those 'major conflicts' the hostilities in question were actually people shooting each other rather than settlers deciding where and how they want to live outside of VERY questionable

legal borders.

It is simple common sense. What really needs to be discussed, is how the duplicit role of the West, as peace mediators aka allies of Israel actually prolongs and exacerbates the way to the settlement.

Ignore the west. Israel and its neighbours need to talk about long term peace. They don't need an impartial West to mediate. There's nothing stopping these two sides from talking.

Why do we have to assume that (and not e.g. that it wants lot more lands, and then, maybe also, "peace")?

Should we always assume something somebody says to be true, even when it's in a drastic contrast with what they actually do?

We have to assume that if there's any hope for peace. I will CERTAINLY put more belief in their proposed 'desire' for peace than in the Arab's side refusal for long term peace.

It helps to lump all things together in the same busket, to help affairs cleared (sorry, mudded). Ceasefires aren't the same as negotiations to achieve lasting, sustainable peace.

I doesn't help lumping things together. All it does is dumb the argument down to unreasonable and unrealistic levels. Also ceasefires have to be NEGOTIATED in the first place. A simple, "I'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at me" is generally all that takes place. I'll agree ceasefires generally come before lasting peace, but I'll absolutely refuse the massive withdrawl of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes as a pre-requisite for a ceasefire.

And indeed, to be meanigful, cesassion of hostilities must apply to all forms of hostilities and agression. It appears that in our peaceful zeal, we're still struggling to realize this very simple axiom.

The only person failing to realize anything is you. For any meaningful negotiations for peace, first the DESIRE for it has to be officially expressed. The DESIRE for peace comes first, then the negotiation, then agreements and concessions and THEN peace.

You've decided that (whether it's because you don't like Israel or whatever I don't know) that the logical process of peace needs to be flipped over and reversed. First withdrawls and concessions then they can talk and THEN maybe the Arab side will express its desire for peace. It doesn't make any sense.

What you're failing to understand is that any meaningful mediation for peace should rise above partisan level and understand that conflict will exist until any form of hostility and agression remains in place.

I'm not failing to realize anything. I'd hate to see how you'd do as a negotiatior because you don't seem to have a clue how the process works.

"HEY GUYS! STOP FIGHTING SO THAT WE CAN GET DOWN TO NEGOTIATING ABOUT NOT FIGHTING ANYMORE"

I understand that maybe you need to put the fists down for a moment or two to get talking, but evacuating hundreds of thousands of settlers is another matter entirely. You've completely refused to acknowledge the logistical and practical consequences in your claim that 'both sides need to stop all hostilities'.

If you want to cheer for one chosen side, and count the wrongs committed by the other, it's in your right, but it won't do anything to stop the conflict, because, as we already established earlier, wrongs were committed by all sides, and the way to peace lies in cessation, and eventual redemption of all wrongs, regardless of who is involved.

Here's an interesting statement. The redemption of all wrongs is a necessary step for peace? Really? Seriously? Take a history lesson. Off the top of my head I could probably name you about 20 wars and conflicts that were ended with no redemption of wrongs offered.

It appears that you're rather running out of rational arguments, to support your point, that despite the admission (of quite obvious fact) that both sides have committed wrongs, the obligation to make real, practical steps in cessation of active hostilities should apply only to one side (of your choice).

No that's what I'm saying about you. You've indicated Israel needs to make IMMENSE and costly steps towards peace, and in return the Arab side doesn't have to offer anything, not even words. One sided indeed.

If one cannot be convinced to abandon agression as the first step, what (meaningful) further negotion of "lasting peace" could there be?

Oh I don't know. Maybe they could negotiate things like, "We'll withdraw if you recognize our right to exist and will agree to stop attacking us." Nothing to difficult about that.

No, I rather agree with you 100% in that. As soon as you clarify the meaning of "commit to the PROCESS". What process, and who has defined it (unless it's the very obvious process of ceasing all acts of hostility and agression)?

The anti-Israeli Arab movement has to commit to the process. They have to indicate they WANT peace and that they are willing to peacefully co-exist with Israel. If they won't indicate they WANT this then you can't meaningfull negotiate it.

OK, one faction, not even the whole side, is refusing to make certain declaration, and you call it "refusing the process". While the other side is involved in massive hostilities, persistently and over extended period of time, and it doesn't seemingly create any doubts in your interpretation of their "commitment".

I do doubt their commitment. I don't think that they believe peace is going to be achieved anytime soon. Given the rhetoric from the other side, I think this a reasonable belief. Israel is a small Jewish island in an Arab sea. The Israelis are resigned to live with this reality and there's nothing they can do about it. They HAVE to co-exist. The Arabs, on the other hand, have convinced themselves that Israel can and will be removed and that this is a goal worthy of conflict. They don't WANT long term peace with Israel and they are SAYING they don't.

You can pretend this is only 'one faction', but it is in fact pretty much the entire Middle East (with a few exceptions) that don't and the violence in Israel is supported and encouraged within Palestine, Israel's neighbours and even nations far from Israel's borders. Palestine and neighbouring countries have to indicate they want peace and have to make steps to curb and discourage militants otherwise they are more or less condoning it.

Is it a problem with your definition of the process (certain act, of your choice does not qualify as act of hostility and agression), or your vision (you do not notice certain acts of hostility and agression)? Are you requiring one side to meet all the demands of the other, before that other side would even consider stopping its own acts of agression?

None of the above. I'm saying that if one side wants something from the other, they have to offer something in return. Only an idiot would expect Israel to withdraw hundreds of thousands of people in exchange for nothing. It wouldn't improve their situation and the other side is saying it won't. You've decided for them that it would.

What makes you think that such approach should be called "negotiation", or "settlement", rather than "full submission to my (buddy's) will"?

You're asking Israel to submit to Arab demands in exchange for nothing. Are you making fun of yourself?

[myata]

First of all, that's not true and second of all in most of those 'major conflicts' the hostilities in question were actually people shooting each other rather than settlers deciding where and how they want to live outside of VERY questionable legal borders.

Some people, even in this very country, could start shooting is somebody started "settling" their property without their permission, perhaps finding their ownership of the land"doubtful". Such an act (of agressive settlement) wouldn't be any less illegal, then settlement of the occupied territories internationally, I already posted references to that. In any case, apologising one kind of violence and agression ahead of another is a road to nowhere, because peace needs two sides and you can't convince anybody to stop their violence while insisting that violence against them should be tolerated.

Ignore the west. Israel and its neighbours need to talk about long term peace. They don't need an impartial West to mediate. There's nothing stopping these two sides from talking.

Sure, I only said that talking by itself won't solve anything till the act of abandoning hostilities and agression, in all forms.

We have to assume that if there's any hope for peace. I will CERTAINLY put more belief in their proposed 'desire' for peace than in the Arab's side refusal for long term peace.

That can certainly be your belief, I just don't see in what way it relates to achieving peace, as in any event it would need two sides, i.e both sides to move anywhere.

I doesn't help lumping things together. All it does is dumb the argument down to unreasonable and unrealistic levels. Also ceasefires have to be NEGOTIATED in the first place. A simple, "I'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at me" is generally all that takes place. I'll agree ceasefires generally come before lasting peace, but I'll absolutely refuse the massive withdrawl of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes as a pre-requisite for a ceasefire.

Let's remember that buildup of settlements is not coincidental, and has happened over the course of all previous ceasefires (feel free to find numbers posted in this very thread), and at this point could only be perceived as a deliberate policy of agression. I find it very doubtful that any meaningful progress toward peace would be possible, while one side continues to perpetrate persistent, massive acts of agression. As things stand now, freezing and evacuation of illegal settlements should be as much a part of deescalation of hostilities, as cessation of active fighting, or it'll achieve nothing as ongoing creeping agression would almost certainly cause a flare up of violence as it always did up till now.

The only person failing to realize anything is you. For any meaningful negotiations for peace, first the DESIRE for it has to be officially expressed. The DESIRE for peace comes first, then the negotiation, then agreements and concessions and THEN peace.

No, what kind of DESIRE are we talking about, when settlements are expanding daily? The talk of "peace" is very different from the act of hostility and agression, and you have yet to explain why it's the talk, and not the hostile act that we have to believe in this case.

You've decided that (whether it's because you don't like Israel or whatever I don't know) that the logical process of peace needs to be flipped over and reversed. First withdrawls and concessions then they can talk and THEN maybe the Arab side will express its desire for peace. It doesn't make any sense.

It does though. Once you start seeing all acts of hostility for what they are, and call it "illegal occupation" rather than "concession" all things would fall into their places. Militant attacks need to be stopped, as well as illegal occupation and expropriation of land.

On the other hand, you can of course say that my buddy are entitled to whatever they want (and do). And things wuld also fall into their places, because everything my buddy does would be right, by definition. Just do not mix the two radically different approaches, that's all.

I'm not failing to realize anything. I'd hate to see how you'd do as a negotiatior because you don't seem to have a clue how the process works.

"HEY GUYS! STOP FIGHTING SO THAT WE CAN GET DOWN TO NEGOTIATING ABOUT NOT FIGHTING ANYMORE"

Well, we can clearly see the results of this current negotiations strategy so far. Shouting won't change it one bit.

I understand that maybe you need to put the fists down for a moment or two to get talking, but evacuating hundreds of thousands of settlers is another matter entirely. You've completely refused to acknowledge the logistical and practical consequences in your claim that 'both sides need to stop all hostilities'.

Admitting logistics, they could start by calling immediate and unconditional freeze on expansion of settlements, as well as committment to remove them as a condition of the lasting settlement.

Here's an interesting statement. The redemption of all wrongs is a necessary step for peace? Really? Seriously? Take a history lesson. Off the top of my head I could probably name you about 20 wars and conflicts that were ended with no redemption of wrongs offered.

I said "eventual" and of "lasting" peace. I'm sure you can find examples redemption in most cases you mentioned, where a lasting peace have been achieved.

No that's what I'm saying about you. You've indicated Israel needs to make IMMENSE and costly steps towards peace, and in return the Arab side doesn't have to offer anything, not even words. One sided indeed.

That is only because you don't see the "investment" of Israel into aggressive policies over all the long decades as such. Israel occupied more land - it'll have to abandon more land as a condition of lasting settlement, anything else is apologising of illegal occupation, not so?

Oh I don't know. Maybe they could negotiate things like, "We'll withdraw if you recognize our right to exist and will agree to stop attacking us." Nothing to difficult about that.

Yeah, something like that. Plus of course, immediate and unconditional freeze on all settlements. And militant attacks.

[Moonbox]

In any case, apologising one kind of violence and agression ahead of another is a road to nowhere, because peace needs two sides and you can't convince anybody to stop their violence while insisting that violence against them should be tolerated.

I didn't apologize for anyone. Don't mistake 'violence' with settlement incursion either. They are VERY different things. One act can be reversed. The other can't.

Sure, I only said that talking by itself won't solve anything till the act of abandoning hostilities and agression, in all forms.

and I said that talking must come before that. It's easier to talk than it is to act. If you're not willing to even talk about peace, it's difficult to believe that you're going to be receptive to the next steps.

That can certainly be your belief, I just don't see in what way it relates to achieving peace, as in any event it would need two sides, i.e both sides to move anywhere.

Well if neither side will SAY they want peace then there's really no hope for it at all is there? I'm more optimistic about the side that fights but SAYS it wants to stop fighting than I am about the side who fights and says they want to keep fighting. It's a pretty logical conclusion, regardless of what action backs up the claim.

Let's remember that buildup of settlements is not coincidental, and has happened over the course of all previous ceasefires (feel free to find numbers posted in this very thread), and at this point could only be perceived as a deliberate policy of agression. I find it very doubtful that any meaningful progress toward peace would be possible, while one side continues to perpetrate persistent, massive acts of agression.

Hey this is something I can almost agree on. The only problem is that the whole time the other side has also continued massive acts and threats of aggression. If it was me there, and the other side promised to attack me regardless of what I did, I'd probably fight dirty myself.

As things stand now, freezing and evacuation of illegal settlements should be as much a part of deescalation of hostilities, as cessation of active fighting, or it'll achieve nothing as ongoing creeping agression would almost certainly cause a flare up of violence as it always did up till now.

Okay now we're talking. How long would this last? Would a freeze on settlements cause violence to halt? For how long? Once the violence starts again, should Israel sit back and take it?

No, what kind of DESIRE are we talking about, when settlements are expanding daily? The talk of "peace" is very different from the act of hostility and agression, and you have yet to explain why it's the talk, and not the hostile act that we have to believe in this case.

Because it's a lot easier to reconcile the idea that one side might want peace because they say they do but they constantly feel threatened. You might see their aggression as response generated by fear or a sense of futility (damned if you do damned if you don't so you might as well). It's impossible to reconcile the claim that the other side wants peace when they act out violently and promise that they'll never want peaceful co-existence with Israel. The very idea is anathema to them.

It does though. Once you start seeing all acts of hostility for what they are, and call it "illegal occupation" rather than "concession" all things would fall into their places. Militant attacks need to be stopped, as well as illegal occupation and expropriation of land.

Fair enough. Let's make a deal.

We'll promise to recognize that Israel has a right to exist and stop attacking if Israel withdraws from all its settlements. We'll make sure to curb our militants and officially and actually commit to upholding peace as long as Israel leaves the settlements and doesn't come back.

How does that sound? Wait. The anti-Israeli side wants NOTHING to with this and have promised as such.

Well, we can clearly see the results of this current negotiations strategy so far. Shouting won't change it one bit.

It's because they're a farce.

I said "eventual" and of "lasting" peace. I'm sure you can find examples redemption in most cases you mentioned, where a lasting peace have been achieved.

No normally these conflicts were ended because both sides eventually decided they were better off giving up on the conflict than they were with continuing. They decided it was beneficial to both to forget the past and move forward amicably because long term fighting accomplished NOTHING. The War of 1812, The USSR vs Nazi Germany, Japan vs China, Japan vs Russia, the US vs Japan, the Napoleonic Wars, the USSR vs Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, the Falklands, India and Pakistan is something like 10 right there where the closest thing to 'redemption' might have been a rare and hollow apology. They all stopped fighting because they were better off not fighting.

Yeah, something like that. Plus of course, immediate and unconditional freeze on all settlements. And militant attacks.

We agree on something???

[myata]

Sorry. That didn't cut it. If pointing out mistakes and violations is your goal, you should at least be sable to say if Israel's existence is a violation of peace for merely existing.

No, I still see no logical connection between the two, because those violations are established facts, my (and yours, btw) saying anything, are only our private opinions and beliefs.

But most certainly, the right to existence could not, and should not be used as justification or excuse for massive violations of its own, that you seem to be trying to imply, and therefore, discount and ignore (these massive violations).

Edited September 16, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

No, I still see no logical connection between the two, because those violations are established facts, my (and yours, btw) saying anything, are only our private opinions and beliefs.

Private opinions? They are considered established facts by some Arab countries. You don't consider them facts?

But most certainly, the right to existence could not, and should not be used as justification or excuse for massive violations of its own, that you seem to be trying to imply, and therefore, discount and ignore (these massive violations).

That is not what I'm saying. I am saying that some countries consider Israel as a state to be the problem and say no peace can happen as long as it is a state.

What you won't say is if you believe Israel should even have the right to exist as a state or if the Arab countries are right that it mere exietence even within 1967 borders is an act of aggression.

If your goal to is to end all acts of aggression, you can at least say whether you believe that Israel within its 1967 borders is an act of aggression.

Edited September 16, 2009 by jdobbin

[Bonam]

Almost 85 pages??? Holy crap. I asked this a few pages ago : Why is there a need to battle for Jewish support, when we need Canadian support in the next election.

This should be the question that is to be asked.

Compared to other threads in the Canadian politics section, this one is getting a lot of attention.

No, it isn't. 90+ % of the thread is the same two posters (myata and jdobbin) going back and forth in an endless circular argument.

[myata]

Private opinions? They are considered established facts by some Arab countries. You don't consider them facts?

This may be essential to understanding your statements. Do you really not comprehend the difference between an opinion, and a fact?

That is not what I'm saying. I am saying that some countries consider Israel as a state to be the problem and say no peace can happen as long as it is a state.

First of all, I already pointed out several times, that considering, saying something does not necessarily mean a hostility, or agression by itself. There're several examples right now, where countries, regions etc would not recognise each other without developing into open hostilities.

Secondly, attacking somebody by arms is certainly an act of hostility and agression. No peace is possible while such attacks are being perpetrated on a massive scale. Just as taking somebody's propertly, lands, by force is also an act of agression. And again, perpetrating these acts also has nothing to do with peace.

What you're ready to point out, condemn, and react to some acts of agression, and not interested at all to even notice, not to say, act, on the others, makes your position so obviously hypocritical and useless for any real development of peace.

What you won't say is if you believe Israel should even have the right to exist as a state or if the Arab countries are right that it mere exietence even within 1967 borders is an act of aggression.

Correct, I won't say that. Because, no matter I could believe in private, my position of open, based on principle mediation could still lead to peace. That of selective condemnation of some violence, and tacit support for another, only results in escalation of hostilities, even if you'll pray to all gods of holy peace multiple times a day at that. So, you see, it's not my belief but my act that matters, and therefore the questions is obviously irrelevant.

If your goal to is to end all acts of aggression, you can at least say whether you believe that Israel within its 1967 borders is an act of aggression.

I described very clearly and multiple times in this very thread what exactly I mean by deescalation of hostilities. Your formula has nothing to do with what I said, and I have no comments about it. My position is presented very clearly. My private beliefs is my own business. I can't see how else I could satisfy your curiousity.

[jdobbin]

This may be essential to understanding your statements. Do you really not comprehend the difference between an opinion, and a fact?

Do you mean you don't consider it a fact that some Arab countries don't believe Israel should exist as a state?

First of all, I already pointed out several times, that considering, saying something does not necessarily mean a hostility, or agression by itself. There're several examples right now, where countries, regions etc would not recognise each other without developing into open hostilities.

Secondly, attacking somebody by arms is certainly an act of hostility and agression. No peace is possible while such attacks are being perpetrated on a massive scale. Just as taking somebody's propertly, lands, by force is also an act of agression. And again, perpetrating these acts also has nothing to do with peace.

So you think the establishment of Israel the way it was founded is an act of hostility and aggression? Do you think their continued continued defence even within 1967 borders is an act of hostility and aggression?

This is what many Arab countries say is a fact and as such, they have used it as a basis for belligerence against Israel's and the world's oppression.

Hamas has not been interested in a two state solution. This isn't just an example of saying something and not meaning it. They assert the Israel's mere existence is an act of hostility and violence.

Now you have said all violence stop but do you mean that Israel as a state is an act of violence? Do you believe that their existence even within 1967 borders is violent hostility?

What you're ready to point out, condemn, and react to some acts of agression, and not interested at all to even notice, not to say, act, on the others, makes your position so obviously hypocritical and useless for any real development of peace.

Your position is pretty hypocritical if you think that all aggression should be stopped including Israel as a state.

Correct, I won't say that. Because, no matter I could believe in private, my position of open, based on principle mediation could still lead to peace. That of selective condemnation of some violence, and tacit support for another, only results in escalation of hostilities, even if you'll pray to all gods of holy peace multiple times a day at that. So, you see, it's not my belief but my act that matters, and therefore the questions is obviously irrelevan

t.

If you are not prepared to even accept Israel as a state, it really does show that a side has been picked. It isn't principled if it gives tacit support to the idea that the aggression and violence will only end if Israel ceases to exist.

I described very clearly and multiple times in this very thread what exactly I mean by deescalation of hostilities. Your formula has nothing to do with what I said, and I have no comments about it. My position is presented very clearly. My private beliefs is my own business. I can't see how else I could satisfy your curiousity.

You have given your answer. It is one that states you won't state your view of whether Israel has a right to exist.

[myata]

I didn't apologize for anyone. Don't mistake 'violence' with settlement incursion either. They are VERY different things. One act can be reversed. The other can't.

I wouldn't want to go into great depths here. But being kicked out of one's own house / land not an example of violence and agression? I doubt any end would be served by this kind of differentiation. Perpetrating side could take it as tacit encouragement and continue even more determined. The opposite side would see it as a bias, and radical elements would receive a boost, very likely leading to another flare up of violence as it happened over and again.

All policies of agression, hostility stop regardless of who's involved - a very obvious and the only logical starting point to any meaningful peace negotiations.

and I said that talking must come before that. It's easier to talk than it is to act. If you're not willing to even talk about peace, it's difficult to believe that you're going to be receptive to the next steps.

No, it depends on what kind of talk it would be. The talk intended to hide and extend agressive policy would have nothing to do with peace. In other word, committment to peace should come before talking. And certainly, such committment includes ceasing acts of hostility and agression that are already in progress, and not starting any new ones.

Well if neither side will SAY they want peace then there's really no hope for it at all is there? I'm more optimistic about the side that fights but SAYS it wants to stop fighting than I am about the side who fights and says they want to keep fighting. It's a pretty logical conclusion, regardless of what action backs up the claim.

I wouldn't be as optimistic about that side's committment to geniune peace, because its act is quite obviously different from what it says. But maybe it's just a matter of character, and perhaps we should simply be more trusting to people e.g. believe Iran that they'd use nukes exclusively for peaceful means, etc? Not to mention, in our private lives as well?

Hey this is something I can almost agree on. The only problem is that the whole time the other side has also continued massive acts and threats of aggression. If it was me there, and the other side promised to attack me regardless of what I did, I'd probably fight dirty myself.

You'd want to unroll it all the way to the origins of the conflict? Or admit that at this time it's not the matter of who started what, but that all agressive acts and policies should come to end, to allow a chance for meaningful peace negotiations?

Okay now we're talking. How long would this last? Would a freeze on settlements cause violence to halt? For how long? Once the violence starts again, should Israel sit back and take it?

Obviously, in the conflict with this history, it's hard to expect that things would go by orchestration and violence would cease at once. Yet ceasing major acts of hostility would eventually bring results. We should concentrate our influence on bringing all incidents and instances of violence to halt, rather than judging who should be doing what.

BTW it's being awhile since I heard reports of any serious militant violence in the area, but news of continuing construction of settlements keep coming (I keep an eye on a few trusted sources, and would notice either). Which only proves that there's no angels and demons in this affair, and the way to go is to stop appointing the right and wrong ones, but to insist on termination of all forms of violence and agression.

Because it's a lot easier to reconcile the idea that one side might want peace because they say they do but they constantly feel threatened. You might see their aggression as response generated by fear or a sense of futility (damned if you do damned if you don't so you might as well). It's impossible to reconcile the claim that the other side wants peace when they act out violently and promise that they'll never want peaceful co-existence with Israel. The very idea is anathema to them.

Yes you might see, excuse and justify what you want, but would it lead to any progress toward peace? Both sides acted, and continue to act violently, and both should understand that it's not in their interests, at least not their children's. We could help them in that understanding.. or in determination to continue hostilities. Which one would lead to peace?

Fair enough. Let's make a deal.

We'll promise to recognize that Israel has a right to exist and stop attacking if Israel withdraws from all its settlements. We'll make sure to curb our militants and officially and actually commit to upholding peace as long as Israel leaves the settlements and doesn't come back.

How does that sound? Wait. The anti-Israeli side wants NOTHING to with this and have promised as such.

Again, I wouldn't attempt to speak for anybody, but I think you may not have current information. I believe your proposal is pretty much the same as the one introduced by a group of Arab countries recently (in essence, peace and recognition in exchange for Israel's complete withdrawal to its proper borders), and most Arab, including Palestinian leaders, acknowledged it. Again I wouldn't appoint right and wrongs here, but incessant and continuing insistence by any one side on continuation of clearly hostile and agressive policies sends a very obvious message that it's committment to peace is less than certain. I'm not sure it'd be wise to pretend to ignore this message any longer.

No normally these conflicts were ended because both sides eventually decided they were better off giving up on the conflict than they were with continuing. They decided it was beneficial to both to forget the past and move forward amicably because long term fighting accomplished NOTHING. The War of 1812, The USSR vs Nazi Germany, Japan vs China, Japan vs Russia, the US vs Japan, the Napoleonic Wars, the USSR vs Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, the Falklands, India and Pakistan is something like 10 right there where the closest thing to 'redemption' might have been a rare and hollow apology. They all stopped fighting because they were better off not fighting.

We agree on something???

True. Perhaps both sides (or much more precisely: hostile factions on both sides) still have hopes that they could achieve something more than lasting peace. This is exactly why outside world should focus its efforts on explaining (inlcuding practical means) that such views are wrong in each and every instance where agressive acts are committed, regardless of who's involved, and for what reason.

Edited September 18, 2009 by myata

[Moonbox]

I wouldn't want to go into great depths here. But being kicked out of one's own house / land not an example of violence and agression?

I think being kicked out of your house is different from killing, and I don't think you can lump them together.

No, it depends on what kind of talk it would be. The talk intended to hide and extend agressive policy would have nothing to do with peace. In other word, committment to peace should come before talking. And certainly, such committment includes ceasing acts of hostility and agression that are already in progress, and not starting any new ones.

I think this is something you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on. Agreeing to talk needs to come first and then they can arrange to halt aggression. That's how it has always been done in the past, and simple logic would dictate that talking about mutual concessions should precede actually making concessions. Those concessions could include, but are not limited to, withdrawing from settlements, vowing to stop violence and enforce the end of violence, and mutually recognizing each other's right to exist.

I wouldn't be as optimistic about that side's committment to geniune peace, because its act is quite obviously different from what it says. But maybe it's just a matter of character, and perhaps we should simply be more trusting to people e.g. believe Iran that they'd use nukes exclusively for peaceful means, etc? Not to mention, in our private lives as well?

In this I see a very genuine bias in your writing. You're attacking Israel's commitment to peace, which is admittedly in question given their expansionism, but at the same time you're ignoring that the other side has made an official and vocal commitment to violence. It wouldn't be hard for someone to argue that Israel continues its 'aggression' simply because they're going to be surrounded by enemies regardless.

You'd want to unroll it all the way to the origins of the conflict? Or admit that at this time it's not the matter of who started what, but that all agressive acts and policies should come to end, to allow a chance for meaningful peace negotiations?

No, like I said before, and which you (or perhaps someone else) argued against, was that the past needs to be forgotten and the two sides need to focus on what would be an agreeable peace. To say that Israel needs to remove all settlements to even start talking about peace is absolutely false. I'd agree maybe that if they want to talk peace they could maybe stop expansionism and freeze settlement growth, but I'd also suggest it's equally necessary that the other side make some commitments to stop the violence and violent rhetoric.

Obviously, in the conflict with this history, it's hard to expect that things would go by orchestration and violence would cease at once. Yet

Again, I wouldn't attempt to speak for anybody, but I think you may not have current information. I believe your proposal is pretty much the same as the one introduced by a group of Arab countries recently (in essence, peace and recognition in exchange for Israel's complete withdrawal to its proper borders), and most Arab, including Palestinian leaders, acknowledged it.

In order for this proposal to be worthwhile, we'd have to see who would ratify it. If a lot of the big players refused (ie Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria etc) then it would be fairly pointless. Also I think it's worthwhile to mention that withdrawl to 1967 borders (which none of them realized at the time) is a slightly ironic request. I'm not sure that Israel would be receptive to giving up half of Jerusalem, for example, and to declare that this is a prerequisite for peace is also false. The peace negotiations, and any mediation, have to focus on something that, overall, benefits both groups.

Again I wouldn't appoint right and wrongs here, but incessant and continuing insistence by any one side on continuation of clearly hostile and agressive policies sends a very obvious message that it's committment to peace is less than certain. I'm not sure it'd be wise to pretend to ignore this message any longer.

It works both ways.

True. Perhaps both sides (or much more precisely: hostile factions on both sides) still have hopes that they could achieve something more than lasting peace. This is exactly why outside world should focus its efforts on explaining (inlcuding practical means) that such views are wrong in each and every instance where agressive acts are committed, regardless of who's involved, and for what reason.

but again, you have to communicate this to both sides. Part of the problem with negotiating with the Arab side is that it's an EXTREMELY different and some might say politically backwards culture. As they are not democratically elected they're a fair bit less interested in the best interest of their people than the West (and Israel) are. What you and I think might be a good idea might hold no interest to Khamenei and others of his kind.

I can't say I'm an expert on what makes people like him tick, but it's worth mentioning that there may be very conflicting goals and viewpoints in the area. That's part of the problem.

[myata]

Do you mean you don't consider it a fact that some Arab countries don't believe Israel should exist as a state?

If we start talking about the facts of beliefs, there would be any number of countries that may believe that their adversary should not exist. E.g. Turkish Cyprus, Kurds country, Abhasia, and so on. So I'm not sure what makes you take one particular such situation so close to your heart?

When we observe the facts of acts though, it becomes clear as day that both sides are complicit in violations of peace, hostile and agressive acts against each other. Wherein you only allow yourself to see one half of the picture, the one that fits the forgone conclusion that your chosen ally could do no wrong. That is the essence of that peace plan with very unclear relation to genuine peace.

So you think the establishment of Israel the way it was founded is an act of hostility and aggression? Do you think their continued continued defence even within 1967 borders is an act of hostility and aggression?

This is what many Arab countries say is a fact and as such, they have used it as a basis for belligerence against Israel's and the world's oppression.

You made this conclusion because I am an Arab country (of many)? Because I see no other possibility of logical connection between two parts of that statement.

Hamas has not been interested in a two state solution. This isn't just an example of saying something and not meaning it. They assert the Israel's mere existence is an act of hostility and violence.

And Israel isn't showing much committment to such solution either, both in word, and more importantly, in its act of incessant, ongoing policy of creeping annexation. You condemned Hamas, and cheer for Israel, so what should it tell us about worth of your position as anything to do with genuine peace?

Now you have said all violence stop but do you mean that Israel as a state is an act of violence? Do you believe that their existence even within 1967 borders is violent hostility?

Your position is pretty hypocritical if you think that all aggression should be stopped including Israel as a state.

If you are not prepared to even accept Israel as a state, it really does show that a side has been picked. It isn't principled if it gives tacit support to the idea that the aggression and violence will only end if Israel ceases to exist.

Again you seem to be hypothesising, taking your own thoughts for my position (which obviosly has nothing to do with them).

You have given your answer. It is one that states you won't state your view of whether Israel has a right to exist.

You just can't go without dropping something important in this discussion, so I'll do it for you (again): indeed, I won't state it because it has no relevance to the topic of this discussion. We could discuss my position on Canada's role in deescalation of conflict and seeking lasting settlement though, of course if you were interested.

[jdobbin]

If we start talking about the facts of beliefs, there would be any number of countries that may believe that their adversary should not exist. E.g. Turkish Cyprus, Kurds country, Abhasia, and so on. So I'm not sure what makes you take one particular such situation so close to your heart?

If you believe all aggression should end, then you should know that some countries take it as a fact that another country or people are sometime in and of themselves a hostile act.

When we observe the facts of acts though, it becomes clear as day that both sides are complicit in violations of peace, hostile and agressive acts against each other. Wherein you only allow yourself to see one half of the picture, the one that fits the forgone conclusion that your chosen ally could do no wrong. That is the essence of that peace plan with very unclear relation to genuine peace.

How can Israel stop being a violation of peace if their existence as a country is regarded as the problem? No apology can or will be accepted. Only a complete withdrawal is the answer for some.

You made this conclusion because I am an Arab country (of many)? Because I see no other possibility of logical connection between two parts of that statement.

I made the conclusion because you said all hostile acts should end. Is Israel as a state a hostile act. You have said that Canada should make these type of decision and not take sides with one or the other. So what should be our view of Israel? A hostile and aggressive act than can only be rectified with the end of the state?

And Israel isn't showing much committment to such solution either, both in word, and more importantly, in its act of incessant, ongoing policy of creeping annexation. You condemned Hamas, and cheer for Israel, so what should it tell us about worth of your position as anything to do with genuine peace?

Can't recall cheering for Israel. I said Israel has said it favours a two state solution and has made moves in that direction. Hamas does not favour a two state solution and does not want to talk.

Again you seem to be hypothesising, taking your own thoughts for my position (which obviosly has nothing to do with them).

I am asking you to clear up what could be a fundamental flaw in finding a solution to the problem with your method. If all acts of aggression should stop then Israel as a state could fall into that category.

You just can't go without dropping something important in this discussion, so I'll do it for you (again): indeed, I won't state it because it has no relevance to the topic of this discussion. We could discuss my position on Canada's role in deescalation of conflict and seeking lasting settlement though, of course if you were interested.

I'm afraid that is a cop out. Your position is that all acts of aggression should be stopped. If we follow that line of thinking, Israel can be categorized as an act of aggression and the only way it should be stopped should be to end it.

Can you at least admit that is where your method could lead?

[myata]

If you believe all aggression should end, then you should know that some countries take it as a fact that another country or people are sometime in and of themselves a hostile act.

Yes sometimes people have strange beliefs. Those (beliefs) though, no matter how strange and bizzare, by themselves would not yet constitute an agression. I thought it should be obvious to everybody except maybe those who seek any reason to justify their own dirty business. And who could that be?

How can Israel stop being a violation of peace if their existence as a country is regarded as the problem? No apology can or will be accepted. Only a complete withdrawal is the answer for some.

I referred to very obvious "violation of peace" that is persistent and ongoing expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Assuming that it could not have been made any clearer, did you mean that they should be allowed to go ahead full steam with their own acts of agression, because somebody wouldn't agree that everything they (and us, as their obvious sponsor) did, was nice, proper and hush-hush?

In other words, some acts of agression should be excused, tolerated, and maybe even considered good? "progress"? if they are committed with a "right" justification?

Would that be a more or less correct summary of your peaceful position?

Can't recall cheering for Israel. I said Israel has said it favours a two state solution and has made moves in that direction. Hamas does not favour a two state solution and does not want to talk.

Yes we already know that talk is pretty much all you are prepared to (capable of?) notice. As you couldn't seem to notice ever continuing agression, in the form of illegal occupation, perpetrated right in front of your eyes. But, rephrasing another great teacher, "if a fact points to a problem, remove the fact, and the problem will go away".

I made the conclusion because you said all hostile acts should end. Is Israel as a state a hostile act. You have said that Canada should make these type of decision and not take sides with one or the other. So what should be our view of Israel? A hostile and aggressive act than can only be rectified with the end of the state?

I am asking you to clear up what could be a fundamental flaw in finding a solution to the problem with your method. If all acts of aggression should stop then Israel as a state could fall into that category.

I'm afraid that is a cop out. Your position is that all acts of aggression should be stopped. If we follow that line of thinking, Israel can be categorized as an act of aggression and the only way it should be stopped should be to end it.

Can you at least admit that is where your method could lead?

A very thoughful monologue, but I'm afraid that I can't (and won't) comment on your internal musings anymore.

BTW this problem has nothing to do with "my method", it is entirely of your own, exclusive creation.

[GostHacked]

If we give the Palestinians a state using Israeli real estate, how long until the Frankenstinians or some other group wants one for themselves?

Define Israeli real estate? Is Gaza and the West Bank considered Israeli land/real estate? If so, how so. Please explain.

[jdobbin]

Yes sometimes people have strange beliefs. Those (beliefs) though, no matter how strange and bizzare, by themselves would not yet constitute an agression. I thought it should be obvious to everybody except maybe those who seek any reason to justify their own dirty business. And who could that be?

So you believe that the Arab countries have a strange belief. It sounds like you have taken a side. Because that "strange belief" they have manifests itself in hostile acts.

I referred to very obvious "violation of peace" that is persistent and ongoing expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Assuming that it could not have been made any clearer, did you mean that they should be allowed to go ahead full steam with their own acts of agression, because somebody wouldn't agree that everything they (and us, as their obvious sponsor) did, was nice, proper and hush-hush?

In other words, some acts of agression should be excused, tolerated, and maybe even considered good?

Sorry, you keep avoiding what some Arab countries are at their heart against. You want to focus on territories. They want to focus on all of Israel. All of Israel. The continued expansion of building within 1967 borders is a continued a violation of peace and only the withdrawal of all Jews from the area will satisfy.

Do you consider that strange? Or do you wish to avoid that topic? For some Arab countries, is the while country.

"progress"? if they are committed with a "right" justification?

Would that be a more or less correct summary of your peaceful position?

Are you excusing the state of Israel from being and avoiding talking about it because it will show you have taken a side?

Yes we already know that talk is pretty much all you are prepared to (capable of?) notice. As you couldn't seem to notice ever continuing agression, in the form of illegal occupation, perpetrated right in front of your eyes. But, rephrasing another great teacher, "if a fact points to a problem, remove the fact, and the problem will go away".

Seems you are prepared to ignore Israel "occupying" Arab land in pre-1967 borders. That is a violation of peace for some, an aggressive act.

A very thoughful monologue, but I'm afraid that I can't (and won't) comment on your internal musings anymore.

BTW this problem has nothing to do with "my method", it is entirely of your own, exclusive creation.

I'll keep pointing out the large flaws in your thinking and you keep avoiding answering. Think most people here know what you are made of.

[myata]

I think being kicked out of your house is different from killing, and I don't think you can lump them together.

I'm lumping anything together. Only pointing out that both are clear cases of hostile behaviour and agression. It isn't sane to expect that any form of peace could ensue if any one side continues hostile agressive policy on a massive scale, other than the total domination / submission scenario.

I think this is something you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on. Agreeing to talk needs to come first and then they can arrange to halt aggression. That's how it has always been done in the past, and simple logic would dictate that talking about mutual concessions should precede actually making concessions. Those concessions could include, but are not limited to, withdrawing from settlements, vowing to stop violence and enforce the end of violence, and mutually recognizing each other's right to exist.

It's probably only a misunderstanding. My statement only applied only to preconditions for the final settlement negotiations. Dialogues around achieving ceasefire (in the sense of stopping all forms of massive hostilities) can go ahead anytime - as long as both parties actually seek practical results, i.e. achieving reduction or cessation of hostilities, rather than minute political gains, as it mostly has been the case till now.

In this I see a very genuine bias in your writing. You're attacking Israel's commitment to peace, which is admittedly in question given their expansionism, but at the same time you're ignoring that the other side has made an official and vocal commitment to violence.

That bias does not exist. I already pointed out many times that militant attacks constitute obvious form of hostility and agression, and only argue that Israels' own policy of expansion should be qualified as such, clearly and without reservations.

It wouldn't be hard for someone to argue that Israel continues its 'aggression' simply because they're going to be surrounded by enemies regardless.

However if we differentiate legitimate defence activities within proper borders (and/or clearly defined and limited security perimeter) from obvious acts of agression, and call the latter as such clearly and unconditionally, the difficulty may not be as hard to resolve.

In order for this proposal to be worthwhile, we'd have to see who would ratify it. If a lot of the big players refused (ie Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria etc) then it would be fairly pointless.

Agree, raising the level of demands would certainly increase the risk of failure. Why couldn't it be limited to the sides, immediately involved in the conflict, at least as the first step toward all-encompassing settlement?

Also I think it's worthwhile to mention that withdrawl to 1967 borders (which none of them realized at the time) is a slightly ironic request.

Indeed, history is oftentimes ironic, and prone to move in circles.

I'm not sure that Israel would be receptive to giving up half of Jerusalem, for example, and to declare that this is a prerequisite for peace is also false. The peace negotiations, and any mediation, have to focus on something that, overall, benefits both groups.

I agree that it should be a matter for negotiations, yet, any substantial deviation from commonly recognised "fair" grounds (of which the condition to share Jerusalem is obviously one, in the light of all the history) would greatly undermine the chance of achieving lasting peace.

Part of the problem with negotiating with the Arab side is that it's an EXTREMELY different and some might say politically backwards culture. As they are not democratically elected they're a fair bit less interested in the best interest of their people than the West (and Israel) are. What you and I think might be a good idea might hold no interest to Khamenei and others of his kind.

Was not that ostensible "backwardness" one of the reasons the project has been created there in the first place? Could such project happen anywhere within the "democracy" domain?

Now, there're only two alternatives, to seek ways to peace with whoever was chosen (by us ourselves, decades back) to be our adversary / partner, or continue with the status quo, of mutual hostility and agression.