jdobbin Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Hear, Dobbin is making clarification here. Not all settlements are illegal now, only the "new" ones. And because Dobbin is such a great talker, we can expect that the exact meaning of "new" would be open to negotiation, correct, Dobbin?Our great strategy of peace. Just look the right way, and the progress will find itself. You must really be annoying in person. Canada's position on all settlements is that they are illegal. Twenty five hundred (2500) plus, one (23 x 5 = 115) down. Need help with basic arithmetics, Dobbin? Need help telling the truth? The New York Times story is from May. Edited July 8, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 This is utter nonsense. One of my parents immigrated to this country, and my parent never voted in Canada once becoming a citizen based on what was going on in the country of birth. That may have been you but our history is filled with elections where people were moved to vote based on what was happening to places where they still had family and friends. Nor interestingly did political parties specifically pander to this ethnic group based on what was going on in the homeland, real or otherwise.Opening a can of worms here, interests in other nations domestic policies are not Canada's election issues. It has always been in Canada's interests. You can't stop people voting for a party they believe will be involved in matters pertaining to where they still might have friend, family, cultural or religious ties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) You must really be annoying in person.Canada's position on all settlements is that they are illegal. Thank you. And now, with 2,500 new settlers families up, and about a hundred (100) down, btw both in the area of your present focus, are we still talking about great "progress"? Of the same kind we've seen in Gaza? Of the same kind we see always? OK, I think it's about time to round things up. It should be pretty obvious to everybody by now that your peaceful terminology, from all practical perspectives, is at best meaningless and irresponsible talk, and at worst, a smokescreen and deception. You aren't interested in seeing real, actual progress in reduction of illegal settlements from ALL occupied territories. That encourages creeping annexation of occupied land at even accelerating pace (Gaza "success": 4 new settlers for each one removed, this latest one: 25 (twenty five)). Thus compromising, to a fatal and completely pointless extent one of the three main agendas of deescalation. Your advocated strategy is delaying and compromising genuine movement toward peace by ignoring and refusing to do anything real and practical about never ending expansion of illegal settlements. That is the only logical conclusion based on facts, please take time to understand it, and call back when you have a real practical result, ie. the first ever actual reduction in illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories. Edited July 8, 2009 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OK, I think it's about time to round things up. It should be pretty obvious to everybody by now that your peaceful terminology, from all practical perspectives, is at best meaningless and irresponsible talk, and at worst, a smokescreen and deception. You aren't interested in seeing real, actual progress in reduction of illegal settlements from ALL occupied territories. That encourages creeping annexation of occupied land at even accelerating pace (Gaza "success": 4 new settlers for each one removed, this latest one: 25 (twenty five)). Thus compromising, to a fatal and completely pointless extent one of the three main agendas of deescalation. Your advocated strategy is delaying and compromising genuine movement toward peace by ignoring and refusing to do anything real and practical about never ending expansion of illegal settlements. That is the only logical conclusion based on facts, please take time to understand it, and call back when you have a real practical result, ie. the first ever actual reduction in illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories. Why are you such an advocate for the forceful population transfer of Jews from their homes in the West Bank? Proposals to forcefully remove any other ethnicity of people from any other location in the world would be quickly condemned as the worst form of racism and hatred. The settlers have established their livelihoods on that land and have invested time and work to make it prosperous. And now you just want Israel to send in military forces, evict them, demolish their buildings, and leave the land for other peoples (the Palestinians) to settle upon. Negotiations to create a Palestinian state can be done independently of what happens with the settlements. The Palestinian state can even include areas that contain Jewish settlements - the settlers would have the option to stay or leave, up to them. Any that decided to stay would of course be expected to be provided with full citizenship, equal rights, and political representation in the new Palestinian state, just as Arabs that stayed in Israel in 1948 enjoy full citizenship, rights, and representation. And if the Palestinian state turned out to be racist against their Jewish citizens, well, we could just impose international sanctions on Palestine, like we did on say South Africa, until they mend their ways. Apply the same standards to everyone please. Your implicit acceptance and support of the idea that Jews should be forcefully removed from the place where they have built their livelihoods is hateful and racist in the extreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Why are you such an advocate for the forceful population transfer of Jews from their homes in the West Bank? Proposals to forcefully remove any other ethnicity of people from any other location in the world would be quickly condemned as the worst form of racism and hatred. No, not at all, if those settlers got there through force in the first place and therefore are occupying the place illegally. There's nothing wrong with removing illegal settlers whatever ethnicity they happen to belong to. (Not to mention that of course somebody so interested in "same standards" could have noticed the "forceful removal" of original population to make way to those settlements. But not to worry, selective "seeing" seems to be our perfect answer to any otherwise unanswerable moral inconsistencies and paradoxes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) No, not at all, if those settlers got there through force in the first place and therefore are occupying the place illegally. The specific land those settlers built their homes and other buildings on had no people on it at the time that those settlers chose to do so. The fact that in prior history, some other people may have laid claim to some of those areas, and that now those areas were available for settlement, may have been someone's fault, but certainly was not the fault of those individual settlers. Your desire to punish these specific individuals for the alleged misdeeds of others who happen to share their nationality is a form of racism. There's nothing wrong with removing illegal settlers whatever ethnicity they happen to belong to. Can you provide any other example of the forceful removal of "illegal settlers" that we in the Western world deem acceptable? Do we forcefully remove European settlers from areas that once belonged to the natives? Do we forcefully remove Russian settlers from nations in Eastern Europe? Do we forcefully remove Han Chinese settlers from Tibet or Xianjang province? Do we forcefully remove majority Sri Lankan settlers from Tamil areas? Would we condone such forceful removal were it to take place? (Not to mention that of course somebody so interested in "same standards" could have noticed the "forceful removal" of original population to make way to those settlements. But not to worry, selective "seeing" seems to be our perfect answer to any otherwise unanswerable moral inconsistencies and paradoxes). Most of the Arab population made the choice to leave, at the urging of their leaders, rather than being forcefully removed. Those that chose to stay are now Israeli citizens and enjoy much better living standards than the vast majority of their brothers in the Arab world. Edited July 8, 2009 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) These lands are occupied by Israel and settlement of them is illegal and prohibited by international law. No examples are necessary, only living up by the same laws we claim to support and uphold, but in reality condone and look the other way while they are being massively violated. However if you believe that protecting other people property, including land, is flawed, you're free to apply that original concept to yourself, i.e if somebody maybe of another ethnicity gets hold of your propertly by any way, you certainly shouldn't object to that, and least of all try to return it, because it would violate their ", i.e. the current holder's of you earlier property, rights. Such noble act would certainly qualify as "applying same standard", so when would we be able to see it? Edited July 8, 2009 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Thank you. And now, with 2,500 new settlers families up, and about a hundred (100) down, btw both in the area of your present focus, are we still talking about great "progress"? Of the same kind we've seen in Gaza? Of the same kind we see always? I'm afraid you are just making up numbers now. We should be hearing soon about how many are in the 23 settlements to closed. And Mitchell is briefing the President about the freeze expected to be announced on settlements according to the Israeli and U.S. press. That is the only logical conclusion based on facts, please take time to understand it, and call back when you have a real practical result, ie. the first ever actual reduction in illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories. Your focus has been solely on settlements and not on any other area by what we can see here. And your plan to abandon and disengage and set terms unilaterally from Canada on all of what is happening over there is something no party has agreed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I'm afraid you are just making up numbers now. We should be hearing soon about how many are in the 23 settlements to closed. These aren't settlements. They are outposts, all which have been closed before only to be re-settled. One step froward 100 steps back Dobbin that is how you plan to solve this problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 These aren't settlements. They are outposts, all which have been closed before only to be re-settled. One step froward 100 steps back Dobbin that is how you plan to solve this problem. And you know the numbers involved? The construction of buildings already in progress also came with a freeze and no new expropriation or new building. What is the NDP policy at this time? Sanctions? Pulling the ambassador? If they have no policy, one would assume they support the process in place now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 And you know the numbers involved?The construction of buildings already in progress also came with a freeze and no new expropriation or new building. What is the NDP policy at this time? Sanctions? Pulling the ambassador? If they have no policy, one would assume they support the process in place now. I speak for myself not the party to witch I belong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I speak for myself not the party to witch I belong. So you believe in withdrawing from Israel, pulling our ambassador and full sanctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 So you believe in withdrawing from Israel, pulling our ambassador and full sanctions. I certainly don't support Canada sitting back and seeing what the US does until we make our policy like Iggy does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I certainly don't support Canada sitting back and seeing what the US does until we make our policy like Iggy does. We haven't. We have sent aid to Palestine even when other nations didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 We haven't. We have sent aid to Palestine even when other nations didn't. Accept now you have a new leader and this seems to be his position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 These lands are occupied by Israel and settlement of them is illegal and prohibited by international law. No examples are necessary, only living up by the same laws we claim to support and uphold, but in reality condone and look the other way while they are being massively violated. So you basically refuse to provide any supporting evidence for your statements. Why is Jewish settlement of said lands considered prohibited under this international law of yours and the other examples I mentioned not prohibited? Why is forceful removal of Jewish settlers considered acceptable and yet forceful removal of any other types of settlers in any other context considered unacceptable? International law is and has been applied and interpreted very selectively, to favor one group or another, or not to antagonize nations that we don't at the moment feel like antagonizing. You (and dub) keep referring to international law, as interpreted by the UN, as some kind of gospel. It isn't, it's a man-made, imperfect system, and it is interpreted whichever way is convenient for the interpreters. When it's the security council doing such interpreting, it's generally controlled by Western interests, and when it's the general assembly doing such interpreting, it's usually controlled by Arab and Third World interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Accept now you have a new leader and this seems to be his position. And that leader says settlements are illegal, accepts two states as a solution and believes in the process of the roadmap. Tell me the NDP is different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 And that leader says settlements are illegal, accepts two states as a solution and believes in the process of the roadmap.Tell me the NDP is different. The NDP does not believe you must send troops into enforce our will in other countries including Israel as your leader does no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 The NDP does not believe you must send troops into enforce our will in other countries including Israel as your leader does no. Of course it does. The NDP wanted to send troops to Darfur. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60507/20060508/ The federal New Democrats want Canada to take a lead role in any UN mission to stop the bloodshed in Sudan's Darfur province, even if that means scaling back its commitment in Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Israel is a sovereign nation. It makes its own laws and has a voice and a seat at the UN. Their government does not support terrorism, but that cannot be said about the folks in Gaza or the West Bank now can it. As long as people choose to support terrorism they will remain targets for the rest of the world to hunt down and destroy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Of course it does. The NDP wanted to send troops to Darfur.http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60507/20060508/ OMG not sending peace keepers to a place who needs it. Ohhhhhh nooooo please no not that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OMG not sending peace keepers to a place who needs it. Ohhhhhh nooooo please no not that. They wouldn't have been peace keepers. Peace keepers are sent to places where there is a peace to keep, where both sides want to disengage...In the Sudan they would be killing african-africans. The NDP are either very cynical knowing that no soldiers would go or very stupid to think we could impose peace with hugs. Probaly they are cynically stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OMG not sending peace keepers to a place who needs it. Ohhhhhh nooooo please no not that. You're changing your story. You said Canada should not be sending troops to enforce our will. Now, since it is a NDP policy, it is brilliant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 The NDP does not believe you must send troops into enforce our will in other countries including Israel as your leader does no. As I recall, the NDP initially supported Canadian participation in the NATO-led bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 And you know the numbers involved? Numbers were posted for everybody (but apparently not yourself) to see. According to TV New Zealand, dismantled outpost (not "settlement", Dobbin - even in Israel's government own terminology - so why use these confusing and misleading words? to promote agenda of peace? genuine misunderstanding? having quite above normal measure of those lately, i.e. in this particular thread;; or something else? i.e. a pattern.. you know which one and I'm not gonna repeat myself anymore, it's been discussed at length): Outpost = seven makeshift cabins and five (5) families. 23 outposts = 5 x 23 = 115 give or take a few. Each of the 2,500 approved homes would house a settler family. Do the Grade 3 math, our peaceful genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.