Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[benny]

He breaks many other rules; the rules of staying on topic, not posting gibberish, the rule of common courtesy and decency.

Look at yourself!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am in the riding of Westchester/New York.

Wrong country JBG!

Benny, I am in the land of the redneck, Alberta.

[Alta4ever]

Wrong country JBG!

Benny, I am in the land of the redneck, Alberta.

I spent 16 years in that riding.

[myata]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090721/...rael_outposts_2

Correct, Dobbin, and that story too only mentions the plan (with undefined schedule) to remove 23 outposts, not "settlements" in your creative terminology. And the only context in which the number 8,000, which you jump to sell as a fact to "dwarf" the current, real and practical massive development, is attributed to the same Mr. Wallerstein. Thanks for stating it correctly this time, but it only confirms my interpretation of that story.

All of this including the numbers are reported in Hareetz which were the first to report the evacuation of Gaza including the timing and the numbers.

I'll have to see the story to comment on it, but apparently it went missing on the way, hello-ooo?

The fact is that you have not shown me anything to indicate that there is only 100 people in the 23 settlements.

Could it be because by all references, your own inlcuded, these would be outposts and not "settlements" as you like to call them, for increased clarity, no doubt. Try to read it a few more (hundred) times and maybe the difference would finally dawn upon you, all hope is never lost.

Your focus solely on Israel is really breathtaking.

I would have used that term for your inability to admit the obvious facts and to understand and honestly respond to clearly stated arguments written in plain English, but not anymore, because by all obvious indications, attaining truth is not your purpose in this discussion, the sole intent on your part being distracting, confusing and misrepresenting your pseudo peaceful strategy that encourages creeping annexation and doest have anything to do with a genuine mediation for peace.

No, you didn't answer it. Your focus has been pretty much on Israel.

You only have to repeat it something like 955 more times, and according to the manual you're following, it could just become true.

Hamas isn't part of any peace agenda. Israel has come to the table. Your Hamas has now.

What "table", Dobbin? Can one negotiate in good faith, all the while illegally appropriating massive amounts of occupied land? Can one mediate in good faith, pretending not even noticing these abuses, and certainly doing nothing about them?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Why is there such an uproar about this issue? We are talking about a terrorist organization that is trying very hard to blackmail a nation into giving up their sovereignty.

If the Palestinians give up violence, they are worthy of diplomatic relations, if not they are worthy of extinction, which is what they have been saying of Israel. Let them reap what they sew and solve their own problems. It is not as if you could expect any other nation to react in any other way.

[myata]

I'd like to think that at issue here is not that somebody else does or does not (all people may have their own and different ideas), but how we see it, and what we do about it. At this time, looking with a grain of objectivity, one simply cannot say that any one side behaves in a truly peaceful manner. Palestinian factions attack Israel, Israel appropriates Palestinian land in massive and accelerating amounts. In such situation, an honest outsided would insist on both parties to stop acts that go against peace, no matter where their private sympathies may lie.

Failing that, I believe the right thing to do would be to withdraw all practical influence from the area of conflict (including massive financial and military donations to either side) and wait for the parties to find some approaches to settlement on their own.

That is not what we're doing there though. We want to continue to support one particular side in the conflict, and by our prounounced principles that would require us to believe that they are the superior side (morally, democratically, and so on). Therefore we would have to ignore the obvious transgressions by our fiendly side, pretend what they don't exist, don't matter don't count and so on. Just as some posters here are so clearly demonstrating. What is the worth of such position? It wouldn't fool anybody with a grain of critical thinking, and it certainly doesn't help in bringing in genuine lasting peace. That makes it quite worthless in my view.

[benny]

Why is there such an uproar about this issue? We are talking about a terrorist organization that is trying very hard to blackmail a nation into giving up their sovereignty.

If the Palestinians give up violence, they are worthy of diplomatic relations, if not they are worthy of extinction, which is what they have been saying of Israel. Let them reap what they sew and solve their own problems. It is not as if you could expect any other nation to react in any other way.

There is a conflict because there is conflicting reactions.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I'd like to think that at issue here is not that somebody else does or does not (all people may have their own and different ideas), but how we see it, and what we do about it. At this time, looking with a grain of objectivity, one simply cannot say that any one side behaves in a truly peaceful manner. Palestinian factions attack Israel, Israel appropriates Palestinian land in massive and accelerating amounts. In such situation, an honest outsided would insist on both parties to stop acts that go against peace, no matter where their private sympathies may lie.

Failing that, I believe the right thing to do would be to withdraw all practical influence from the area of conflict (including massive financial and military donations to either side) and wait for the parties to find some approaches to settlement on their own.

That is not what we're doing there though. We want to continue to support one particular side in the conflict, and by our prounounced principles that would require us to believe that they are the superior side (morally, democratically, and so on). Therefore we would have to ignore the obvious transgressions by our fiendly side, pretend what they don't exist, don't matter don't count and so on. Just as some posters here are so clearly demonstrating. What is the worth of such position? It wouldn't fool anybody with a grain of critical thinking, and it certainly doesn't help in bringing in genuine lasting peace. That makes it quite worthless in my view.

I could agree with a national policy of shunning other nations who do not meet our standards of behavior.

[benny]

I could agree with a national policy of shunning other nations who do not meet our standards of behavior.

Closing your mind to others can hardly become a standard of behavior.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Closing your mind to others can hardly become a standard of behavior.

Yet to do anything else is to take take sides in a domestic dispute. Minding your own business is a virtue worth considering in terms of international relations.

[benny]

Yet to do anything else is to take take sides in a domestic dispute. Minding your own business is a virtue worth considering in terms of international relations.

Extending one's sphere of (moral) influence is obviously the best option for any individual and any nation.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Extending one's sphere of (moral) influence is obviously the best option for any individual and any nation.

Why?

[benny]

Why?

Because you don't want to be taken by surprise by a nasty group of invaders.

[jdobbin]

Correct, Dobbin, and that story too only mentions the plan (with undefined schedule) to remove 23 outposts, not "settlements" in your creative terminology. And the only context in which the number 8,000, which you jump to sell as a fact to "dwarf" the current, real and practical massive development, is attributed to the same Mr. Wallerstein. Thanks for stating it correctly this time, but it only confirms my interpretation of that story.

The schedule has been defined, the exact day is not to ensure that supporters don't martial even larger protests. That has also been reported in the the various links.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0721/p06s01-wome.html

A reported Israeli plan to forcibly evacuate 23 unauthorized settler outposts in a single day could finally fulfill a promise that successive Israeli governments have made to Washington, while minimizing the violence and bad public relations that have marred previous evacuations.

Israel's efforts to rein in these mushrooming do-it-yourself settlements, established without government approval, hit a roadblock in 2006 with the evacuation of an outpost known as Amona. Days ahead of time, ultranationalist protesters streamed in from all over the country. More than 300 were injured, including two members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. The Knesset concluded later that the police had used excessive brutality. No major dismantling has been attempted since.

This time around, it seems, the government is trying to prevent a repeat of Amona by simultaneously dismantling the outposts and thus minimizing resistance from protesters.

Wallerstein's organization is the one that runs the various unauthorized settlements that the story details. Both the Washington Post and Reuters have reported the 8000 number.

Some of the outposts number 300 to 500 people in them. The definition of outpost was not based on the population but the geographic location from other settlements and whether the government authorized it. That was detailed in the Sasson Report.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/L...a%20Sason%20Adv

A. There was no government decision to establish it, and in any case no authorized political echelon approved its establishment.

B. The outpost was established with no legal planning status. Meaning, with no valid detailed plan governing the area it was established upon, which can support a building permit.

C. An unauthorized outpost is not attached to an existing settlement, but rather at least a few hundred meters distant from it as the crow flies.

D. The outpost was established in the nineties, mostly from the mid nineties and on.

From the Washington Post.

Wallerstein said some 8,000 people live at the outposts.

Wallerstein heads the council that organizes settlers. His own groups has 42 settlements, some of them quite large. They have become communal settlements but are still outposts since they were not planned.

Until I hear figures that are different, Wallerstein's number appears to be current number being talked about. Even if the smallest of the settlement are being talked about, it still amounts to 1200 people. And that is just using Wikipedia numbers.

I'll have to see the story to comment on it, but apparently it went missing on the way, hello-ooo?

You have already seen that story since I have posted it already. You already commented on it a ways back as well.

Could it be because by all references, your own inlcuded, these would be outposts and not "settlements" as you like to call them, for increased clarity, no doubt. Try to read it a few more (hundred) times and maybe the difference would finally dawn upon you, all hope is never lost.

Try to read the numbers that give the population that Wallerstein says presently live in those settlements. He didn't say 100 people live in the 23 locations. He said 8000.

I know you don't believe him but he was the one that also gave the exact numbers of settlers moved from Gaza as well.

I would have used that term for your inability to admit the obvious facts and to understand and honestly respond to clearly stated arguments written in plain English, but not anymore, because by all obvious indications, attaining truth is not your purpose in this discussion, the sole intent on your part being distracting, confusing and misrepresenting your pseudo peaceful strategy that encourages creeping annexation and doest have anything to do with a genuine mediation for peace.

And your policy focusing on Israel and pretty much ignoring Hamas is pretty much rejected by anyone supporting the peace process.

You only have to repeat it something like 955 more times, and according to the manual you're following, it could just become true.

It is true. You seem to think that Israel is the main problem although they have come to the table. Hamas hasn't.

What "table", Dobbin? Can one negotiate in good faith, all the while illegally appropriating massive amounts of occupied land? Can one mediate in good faith, pretending not even noticing these abuses, and certainly doing nothing about them?

You see: there is that focus on Israel again.

Hamas is not interested in just settlers. They want all the land the back and all Israelis gone. Until you recognize that, you can't even make a good faith argument. Hamas has rejected all entreaties to this point about Israel even having the right to exist.

Edited July 28, 2009 by jdobbin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The schedule has been defined, the exact day is not to ensure that supporters don't martial even larger protests. That has also been reported in the the various links.

Wallerstein's organization is the one that runs the various unauthorized settlements that the story details. Both the Washington Post and Reuters have reported the 8000 number.

From the Washington Post.

Wallerstein heads the council that organizes settlers.

Until I hear figures that are different, Wallerstein's number appears to be current number being talked about.

You have already seen that story since I have posted it already.

Try to read the numbers that give the population that Wallerstein says presently live in those settlements. He didn't say 100 people live in the 23 locations. He said 8000.

I know you don't believe him but he was the one that also gave the exact numbers of settlers moved from Gaza as well.

And your policy focusing on Israel and pretty much ignoring Hamas is pretty much rejected by anyone supporting the peace process.

It is true. You seem to think that Israel is the main problem although they have come to the table. Hamas hasn't.

You see: there is that focus on Israel again.

Hamas is not interested in just settlers. They want all the land the back and all Israelis gone. Until you recognize that, you can't even make a good faith argument. Hamas has rejected all entreaties to this point about Israel even having the right to exist.

Which is why Hamas should not be considered legitimate in the first place.

[jdobbin]

Which is why Hamas should not be considered legitimate in the first place.

If they do decide to come to the table and state that they believe in the two state process and Israel's right to exist, it will go a long way to meeting the basic goals of the roadmap.

However, only an end to suicide and rocket attacks is going to get Hamas off the terrorist watch list.

[benny]

If they do decide to come to the table and state that they believe in the two state process and Israel's right to exist, it will go a long way to meeting the basic goals of the roadmap.

However, only an end to suicide and rocket attacks is going to get Hamas off the terrorist watch list.

Are you entitled to speak on the behalf of Canadian Jews!?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No, and I will bet that you are not either, as I am not. The fact of the matter is that terrorists have no place at the table. Give up the violence and many things are possible.

[benny]

No, and I will bet that you are not either, as I am not. The fact of the matter is that terrorists have no place at the table. Give up the violence and many things are possible.

Old-time terrorists sit around the proverbial table (i.e. the UN Security Council) and you now dictate that late-comer terrorists should be excluded!?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Old-time terrorists sit around the proverbial table (i.e. the UN Security Council) and you now dictate that late-comer terrorists should be excluded!?

Not at all. Once violence has been foresaken and peace has been embraced then go ahead and sit at the table with the adults.

[benny]

Not at all. Once violence has been foresaken and peace has been embraced then go ahead and sit at the table with the adults.

On the international scene, being adult means being able to use nuclear power.

[Moonbox]

Hamas is not interested in just settlers. They want all the land the back and all Israelis gone. Until you recognize that, you can't even make a good faith argument. Hamas has rejected all entreaties to this point about Israel even having the right to exist.

and this is really the crux of the whole argument. What does Israel have to gain by giving up settlements and land? Hamas will attack regardless because their argument isn't one about settlements, it's about Israel being there at all.

Israel has been there now for 60+ years. It has the means and capability to vastly and easily increase its territory, yet it stays its hand. If Hamas and other organizations would lay off for a significant period of time, and negotiate to NOT attack at all providing recently appropriated land was given back, you might have an argument. As far as I know, however, they don't do that. Hamas and Hezbollah etc are financed in large part by foreign nations who have no interest with peace in Israel/Palestine. Hamas will continue attacks regardless and thus Israel, while not completely blameless, has no reason to make concessions.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

On the international scene, being adult means being able to use nuclear power.

No it doesn't. Being adult means not to react like children on any level.

[benny]

No it doesn't. Being adult means not to react like children on any level.

Children cannot terrorize adults.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Children cannot terrorize adults.

You mistake actions from intentions, and behaviors from emotions. I speak of child like behavior on the part of terrorists. Adults use logic and experience to mitigate their emotions from their behaviors and actions. They think before they speak. The speak instead of lashing out. They control themselves.

Do you see the difference?