Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[jdobbin]

Does it matter to you!?

Does it not matter to you?

[benny]

Does it not matter to you?

yes

[jdobbin]

yes

Yes, it matters not that it means it makes you happy about Iran's stance?

Edited July 24, 2009 by jdobbin

[benny]

I'm happy when I solve problem.

[jdobbin]

I'm happy when I solve problem.

Is Iran a problem that you are happy to solve?

[benny]

Is Iran a problem that you are happy to solve?

very

[jdobbin]

very

I'm sure the world is happy for you.

[benny]

I'm sure the world is happy for you.

How can you be sure of that!?

[jdobbin]

How can you be sure of that!?

Because we are the world.

[benny]

Because we are the world.

How can you be sure of that!?

[jdobbin]

How can you be sure of that!?

How can you be sure that we aren't?

[benny]

How can you be sure that we aren't?

Because your "we" includes me.

[jdobbin]

Because your "we" includes me.

Then welcome to the party.

[benny]

Then welcome to the party.

I abhor torture.

[jdobbin]

I abhor torture.

But support Iran?

[benny]

But support Iran?

Again, Iran is a problem.

[jdobbin]

Again, Iran is a problem.

That you support?

[myata]

Good to hear a step in the right direction. Hopefully they don't let them come back like they did the last two times they did this PR stunt.

Except of course, Dobbin forgot to mention that "Wallerstain" mentioned in his reference is no other than the leader of settlers and he still quotes his numbers as some kind of well known confirmed source. While on the other hand, previously quoted international news source, TV New Zealand, described an outpost (Dobbin simply insists on using confusing terminology here, correct, Dobbin, everything goes?) as a handful of makeshift cabins with a handful of families, nothing unlike that massive 2,500 unit project that is confirmed as being built right now, along with smaller quoted developments in East Jerusalem. That's our successful a la Dobbin peace statistics:

- take 2,500 settler homes being built here and now;

- subtract 23 * 8 families maybe and in the future as a confirmed fact;

- declare a great success.

Since the end of Cold War in the early 90-s, illegal settlements more than doubled, adding in absolute numbers over 250,000 and counting more each and every day of this "peaceful" process. What can be really added to these facts and numbers that would make them look anything different and obvious than they already are?

This of course is as far from any genuine peace mediation as anything could possibly get. Just too bad that at one time long time ago this country had some claim to credibility as an honest, fair, and principled agent of peace. This is all but gone now, and certainly Iggy has nothing to add to this sad, but accomplished fact.

[jdobbin]

Except of course, Dobbin forgot to mention that "Wallerstain" mentioned in his reference is no other than the leader of settlers and he still quotes his numbers as some kind of well known confirmed source. While on the other hand, previously quoted international news source, TV New Zealand, described an outpost (Dobbin simply insists on using confusing terminology here, correct, Dobbin, everything goes?) as a handful of makeshift cabins with a handful of families, nothing unlike that massive 2,500 unit project that is confirmed as being built right now, along with smaller quoted developments in East Jerusalem. That's our successful a la Dobbin peace statistics:

The 23 settlements have around 8000 people living in them. That number comes from a couple of sources.

[jbg]

I'm not Iranian.

What are you then, a Simian?

[jbg]

Again, Iran is a problem.

I thought Iran made you happy.

[benny]

That you support?

Again, a problem that I solve.

[jdobbin]

Again, a problem that I solve.

By going to Iran?

[myata]

The 23 settlements have around 8000 people living in them. That number comes from a couple of sources.

And despite all the earlier assurances and promises, you simply forgot to provide them? Again? Is it a sign of poor memory, or something else?

I'll bet on the latter Dobbin, because as you yourself know there's nothing you can show that will change that very obvious by now conclusion that your strategy has nothing to do with genuine mediation for peace, and everything - with supporting the interests of your friendly party. Indeed, what "table" do you mean? Can one negotiate in good faith, all the while grabbing more and more of the land they occupy? Can one pretend to mediate in good faith, never ever noticing that glaring fact? You are simply grasping for any excuses to explain your own so obviously biased approach, to which there can be no logical excuses except the obvious one, that it's not about the peace, but supporting and propping your friendy in whatever and however they do.

That is a very likely the real source of all the episodes of lost memories, strange visions, confusions of simple words, denials of obvious facts and such. You want your strategy to appear something it is not, and the ploys are the only way to achieve it, because in reality, in obvious plain facts, it is does not look like a peace strategy at all, because of its obvious, glaring idelogical bias.

The genuine, principled approach is possible. Yet it isn't something that either of the political behemoth parties in this country appear to be interested in. Quite possibly because the days when we could actually show courage and independency to have our own voice are now in the past, and by now it's all but changed into smallscale shortterm political gains, tradeoffs, calculations and compromises.

[jdobbin]

And despite all the earlier assurances and promises, you simply forgot to provide them? Again? Is it a sign of poor memory, or something else?

I provided you the Washington Post story and that information is repeated all over the media this week.

The same numbers are stated a few times.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20090721/155573384.html

The newspaper said the military was preparing "to forcibly evacuate 23 illegal outposts in one day."

Hareetz said proposed dates for the evacuation were being kept under wraps, but noted that the plan had the backing of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Last week, the Israeli military held an evacuation exercise in preparation.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has given no indication as to which settlements are due to be evacuated to maintain an element of surprise. The army, however, is expecting fierce resistance from the estimated 8,000 hardline settlers, who live in the West Bank.

It was an Hareetz who first reported that number.

You insist that there is but 100 or so people being talked about and provided an old NZ story that doesn't even refer to the settlements in question.

I'll bet on the latter Dobbin, because as you yourself know there's nothing you can show that will change that very obvious by now conclusion that your strategy has nothing to do with genuine mediation for peace, and everything - with supporting the interests of your friendly party. Indeed, what "table" do you mean? Can one negotiate in good faith, all the while grabbing more and more of the land they occupy? Can one pretend to mediate in good faith, never ever noticing that glaring fact? You are simply grasping for any excuses to explain your own so obviously biased approach, to which there can be no logical excuses except the obvious one, that it's not about the peace, but supporting and propping your friendy in whatever and however they do.

That is a very likely the real source of all the episodes of lost memories, strange visions, confusions of simple words, denials of obvious facts and such. You want your strategy to appear something it is not, and the ploys are the only way to achieve it, because in reality, in obvious plain facts, it is does not look like a peace strategy at all, because of its obvious, glaring idelogical bias.

Your support of Hamas and not being able to admit they are a terrorist group colours your entire view, it seems.

The genuine, principled approach is possible. Yet it isn't something that either of the political behemoth parties in this country appear to be interested in. Quite possibly because the days when we could actually show courage and independency to have our own voice are now in the past, and by now it's all but changed into smallscale shortterm political gains, tradeoffs, calculations and compromises.

Your party Hamas is not up for any of that. They are not even at the table.