Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[benny]

And you're clearly showing that there isn't anyone who could work within your narrow focus.

The next election is also a narrow focus.

[myata]

No need to aplogize for your inability to actually read what I posted.

OK, despite all obvious and glaring odds you still insist that there's been no wrong with that referencing? How about this simple way to resolve this thorny issue once and for all:

1) You post a direct unaltered quote from the references you posted earlier to support your statement that schedule exists, that clearly and unambiguosly state that it (the schedule for removal of 23 outposts) has been defined. In such case I'd obviously apologise for "inability to read what you posted".

OR

2) You admit that posting of these references in support of your ungrounded statement has been a fraud.

So 1) or 2), let's go. Direct unaltered quote or admission of fraud, please no more pointless words.

It is related to the topic since how you reply is full over the top ferocity and anger.

Oh I see, you're implying that it's I and I alone am responsible for the fatal logical and factual deficiency of your argumentation?

And you're clearly showing that there isn't anyone who could work within your narrow focus.

As we already established, being in a gang doesn't make one rigth. Take Iraq for example. But thank you for defining position based on our own proclaimed principles (fair and just mediation for peace) as "narrow". It just makes it so very clear that your words shouldn't really count for much, and your real "focus" should be found in your act. Which so far has been square on ignoring massive violations of peace, and excusing ongoing agression in the form of creeping annexation by your friendly party.

Edited August 4, 2009 by myata

[benny]

You can also try to help Canadian politicians get the support of Canadians from Africa by solving the conflict coming out of the oil-rich Ogaden region of Ethiopia.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Makhtal+...6569/story.html

[jdobbin]

OK, despite all obvious and glaring odds you still insist that there's been no wrong with that referencing? How about this simple way to resolve this thorny issue once and for all:

1) You post a direct unaltered quote from the references you posted earlier to support your statement that schedule exists, that clearly and unambiguosly state that it (the schedule for removal of 23 outposts) has been defined. In such case I'd obviously apologise for "inability to read what you posted".

The link is there for anyone to read. The schedule has been defined. Your inability to read in the weeks ahead which I said myself seems to evade you.

OR

2) You admit that posting of these references in support of your ungrounded statement has been a fraud.

Once again you wrong. As you've always been wrong. As you continue to be wrong.

So 1) or 2), let's go. Direct unaltered quote or admission of fraud, please no more pointless words.

I can't help if you can't read from information I posted right from the beginning.

Oh I see, you're implying that it's I and I alone am responsible for the fatal logical and factual deficiency of your argumentation?

I am saying you haven't or didn't read the post. Or worse, that you did but and are misdirecting with your angry responses.

As we already established, being in a gang doesn't make one rigth. Take Iraq for example. But thank you for defining position based on our own proclaimed principles (fair and just mediation for peace) as "narrow". It just makes it so very clear that your words shouldn't really count for much, and your real "focus" should be found in your act. Which so far has been square on ignoring massive violations of peace, and excusing ongoing agression in the form of creeping annexation by your friendly party.

I'm saying your unilateralism is narrow. Canada has been about multilateralism for more than a generation.

[benny]

I'm saying your unilateralism is narrow. Canada has been about multilateralism for more than a generation.

Here Ignatieff's pitiful "multilateralism":

"My party will never claim to be the only genuine defenders of Israel in Canadian politics because I don't want my party to be alone in the defence of Israel -- I want all parties to be genuine defenders of Israel."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...28?hub=Politics

[jdobbin]

Here Ignatieff's pitiful "multilateralism":

"My party will never claim to be the only genuine defenders of Israel in Canadian politics because I don't want my party to be alone in the defence of Israel -- I want all parties to be genuine defenders of Israel."

So you believe that Israel should be subject to violent attack?

[benny]

So you believe that Israel should be subject to violent attack?

Watch your deductions!

Edited August 4, 2009 by benny

[myata]

Here Ignatieff's pitiful "multilateralism":

"My party will never claim to be the only genuine defenders of Israel in Canadian politics because I don't want my party to be alone in the defence of Israel -- I want all parties to be genuine defenders of Israel."

But of course he wouldn't stick his neck out for any reason. Good makeup and all embracing polemics is a lot safer bet.

Edited August 5, 2009 by myata

[myata]

The link is there for anyone to read. The schedule has been defined. Your inability to read in the weeks ahead which I said myself seems to evade you.

As has been pointed out already, those words do not appear in the two references you posted in support of your statement that schedule has been defined, so once again, Dobbin:

1) The quote; OR

2) The admission of deliberate fraud

I'll make sure that we'll see one or the other here, because no sane discussion is possible if (alleged) facts are made out of thin air.

Once again you wrong. As you've always been wrong. As you continue to be wrong.

And I thought that you exceeded yourself in your power of persuasion couple posts back, but looks like you can still find brilliant "successes" up your sleeve.

I'm saying your unilateralism is narrow. Canada has been about multilateralism for more than a generation.

Oh really? You've discovered multilateralism by lending exclusive support to one side in the conflict? If not, i.e. your words are anything more than just another bunch of empty meaningless (in all practical sense) words here, you would be able to point to example where you actually acted on that "multi" part, i.e. reacted (in some meaningful way) to massive ongoing violations of peace agenda by your friendly side. And so?

[jdobbin]

As has been pointed out already, those words do not appear in the two references you posted in support of your statement that schedule has been defined, so once again, Dobbin:

As I already said, they were in a post even earlier than those. I'm sorry if you can't keep up with that.

And I thought that you exceeded yourself in your power of persuasion couple posts back, but looks like you can still find brilliant "successes" up your sleeve.

I'm glad you are finally coming around to that fact.

Oh really? You've discovered multilateralism by lending exclusive support to one side in the conflict? If not, i.e. your words are anything more than just another bunch of empty meaningless (in all practical sense) words here, you would be able to point to example where you actually acted on that "multi" part, i.e. reacted (in some meaningful way) to massive ongoing violations of peace agenda by your friendly side. And so?

We have gone over this time and time again. Canada has not just given support to one side.

[benny]

Canada has not just given support to one side.

Indistinctness as an escape!?

[myata]

As I already said, they were in a post even earlier than those. I'm sorry if you can't keep up with that.

You posted this reference (Washington post):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9072100213.html

and this (CSM):

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

and this (Reuters):

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

and this (some Russian agency):

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

and none of the above contains any indication of a schedule for the plan, but quite a few denials and explicit statements that the schedule has not been reported. So Dobbin, if I really missed something (and I freely admit that possibility, scouring this entire thread being beyond possible at this time for me), you'll kindly oblige the forum by reposting a direct, unaltered quote from the earlier posted reference, that would inambiguosly substantiate your statement that schedule for the reported project has been defined. In the absence of such quote, I'm afraid we'll have no choice but to consider your posting these references in support of your statement as deliberately misleading and deceitful, i.e. a fraud. So, Dobbin, we're still at Square 1:

1) The quote; OR

2) The admission of deliberate misleading referencing in support of your groundless statement

I'm glad you are finally coming around to that fact

Mea culpa, and I promise to never again underestime your power of logical argumentation (take that earlier classic that should go into the golden book of all time), or will (to see only the things you desire to see), or magical dexterity (of making things out of thin air), or perseverence (in denying obvious, plain facts), and any of the other great talents that I didn't mention.

We have gone over this time and time again. Canada has not just given support to one side.

And you just forgot, as happens, and yet again, ... and again, ... and again .. to point to an example where persistent, ongoing and massive violation of peace agenda by your friendly side has resulted in any one real, practical act on your side? But given your easy attitudes to the reality, certainly your just stating that should magically change the world around us?

[benny]

Dobbin is learning the hard way that it is easier to open threads than to conclude them.

[jdobbin]

You posted this reference (Washington post):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9072100213.html

and this (CSM):

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

and this (Reuters):

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

and this (some Russian agency):

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

And none of those are the links I am talking about.

and none of the above contains any indication of a schedule for the plan, but quite a few denials and explicit statements that the schedule has not been reported. So Dobbin, if I really missed something (and I freely admit that possibility, scouring this entire thread being beyond possible at this time for me), you'll kindly oblige the forum by reposting a direct, unaltered quote from the earlier posted reference, that would inambiguosly substantiate your statement that schedule for the reported project has been defined. In the absence of such quote, I'm afraid we'll have no choice but to consider your posting these references in support of your statement as deliberately misleading and deceitful, i.e. a fraud. So, Dobbin, we're still at Square 1:

The link is there and you responded to it. It is in this thread. Scour away. I can't help if you forget what you have already seen. I didn't post think the link but commented on it.

It started here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/2...s_n_227580.html

And I pointed out this which was in the article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/07/2...o_n_227015.html

Barak told Israel's Army Radio that 23 illegal outposts will be subject to evacuation in the near future. According to the Jerusalem Post, the time frame Barak gave--of weeks or months, as opposed to years--is significant as a sign of goodwill to neighboring Arab states, with whom the United States is also involving in the process.

I said the schedule was set according to Israeli sources and I said it was in the weeks ahead.

You have been trying to say there is no schedule because a specific day is not menntioned. I responded that the day would not be revealed to forestall settlers pulling another Amona.

This is in this thread. I referenced the link. You are not happy. I can't help if you want the actual day. I never said an actual day. I said the timeframe was set.

1) The quote; OR

2) The admission of deliberate misleading referencing in support of your groundless statement

How about it is that you can't remember what was already posted.

Mea culpa, and I promise to never again underestime your power of logical argumentation (take that earlier classic that should go into the golden book of all time), or will (to see only the things you desire to see), or magical dexterity (of making things out of thin air), or perseverence (in denying obvious, plain facts), and any of the other great talents that I didn't mention.

The only one who seems to be in denial is yourself.

And you just forgot, as happens, and yet again, ... and again, ... and again .. to point to an example where persistent, ongoing and massive violation of peace agenda by your friendly side has resulted in any one real, practical act on your side? But given your easy attitudes to the reality, certainly your just stating that should magically change the world around us?

Israel has made progress on settler issues in two evacuations. You are not happy with it. They are still involved in talks now on the issue.

Maybe your side will come to the table for once. Hamas is not part of any peace process.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin is learning the hard way that it is easier to open threads than to conclude them.

I will be hear for long time make you happy.

[Moonbox]

Maybe your side will come to the table for once. Hamas is not part of any peace process.

Benny and Myata maybe you two could respond to this very simple point before you say anything else. This is what EVERYTHING boils down to. If you can't acknowledge this then maybe you should shut up because it's idiotic not to.

Israel HAS made concessions and has engaged in talks. Unfortunately they're dealing with a organizations that operates outside the boundaries of nations/laws etc and who have ZERO vested interest in a peace process.

Perhaps the gargantuan mental effort of grasping this simple fact is beyond you, but it's really something you should at least try to understand.

[punked]

Benny and Myata maybe you two could respond to this very simple point before you say anything else. This is what EVERYTHING boils down to. If you can't acknowledge this then maybe you should shut up because it's idiotic not to.

Israel HAS made concessions and has engaged in talks. Unfortunately they're dealing with a organizations that operates outside the boundaries of nations/laws etc and who have ZERO vested interest in a peace process.

Perhaps the gargantuan mental effort of grasping this simple fact is beyond you, but it's really something you should at least try to understand.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124899975954495435.html

[Moonbox]

You're reinforcing my point. Included in the article is:

That pledge falls short of recognizing Israel, a necessary step for Hamas to be included in peace talks, but many Middle East diplomats said it could mark an important step toward that goal.

So basically this nut is saying, "Ya we're totally cool with a Palestinian state and we'll TALK peace but we're still not acknowledging Israel's right to exist."

Like I've said before, that's the crux of the whole argument. Peace negotiations with hamas and groups like it are generally worth less than the words uttered. They have NOTHING to lose or give up in the peace talks because they're being financed by foreign countries. They're not the ones who have to give up concessions and if they later break the peace agreements (which they usually do) they'll come up with some bull crap reason for it.

Of course they'll talk peace and arrange for Israel to make concessions. That's one small step in their ultimate objective: Eliminate Israel. If a few words will accomplish a smaller Israel then a few words can be spoken.

The word of a foreign funded terrorist group means nothing. The problem is the vehement denial of Arab states that Israel has the right to even exist and until they acknowledge that there's no point in Israel making concessions. It just makes them more vulnerable and weaker to attacks that will inevitably happen.

It doesn't ever really occur to anyone here that Israel by itself could curb stomp the whole region and make Israel 10x bigger all by itself with nobody able to resist them. It doesn't occur to people that Israel does NOT respond with the heavy hand it carries.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Moonbox

[myata]

Benny and Myata maybe you two could respond to this very simple point before you say anything else. This is what EVERYTHING boils down to. If you can't acknowledge this then maybe you should shut up because it's idiotic not to.

Israel HAS made concessions and has engaged in talks. Unfortunately they're dealing with a organizations that operates outside the boundaries of nations/laws etc and who have ZERO vested interest in a peace process.

Ignoring the obvious dupe of "your side", the response has been given long time ago, if only you cared to read and understand it. What kind of "peace" and "concessions" could one talk about in good faith, if Israel has increased its illegal settlements by more than 70%, and none of the presumably peaceful mediators bothers to as much as notice, not to say actually do anything about it.

If one retains a bit of open mind and independent thinking on this issue, one could not deny that no genuine, in good faith negotiations is possible while any one side still perpetrates ongoing massive agression against the other. Illegal expropriation and settlement of occupied lands is a form of agression. By refusing to act against this ongoing agression, we tacitly encourage it, and thus relinquish any claims to genuine mediation for peace.

[Moonbox]

Ignoring the obvious dupe of "your side", the response has been given long time ago, if only you cared to read and understand it. What kind of "peace" and "concessions" could one talk about in good faith, if Israel has increased its illegal settlements by more than 70%, and none of the presumably peaceful mediators bothers to as much as notice, not to say actually do anything about it.

Who are the Israelis supposed to negotiate with in good faith? Why make any sort of concessions to people vehemently opposed your right to exist in your now native land and vowing to wipe you off the planet? The whole peace process is a freaking joke until the area acknowledges that basic right to exist.

If one retains a bit of open mind and independent thinking on this issue, one could not deny that no genuine, in good faith negotiations is possible while any one side still perpetrates ongoing massive agression against the other.

Illegal expropriation and settlement of occupied lands is a form of agression. By refusing to act against this ongoing agression, we tacitly encourage it, and thus relinquish any claims to genuine mediation for peace.

I certainly can't argue that. If bombs and rockets were going off around your home, however, I wonder how you'd feel about the situation. Would you meekly hide in your homes if the people across the border were vowing your destruction and denying your right to exist? What would you do Myata? We're not dealing with defined nation vs nation politics here. We're dealing with Nation A vs shadowy extremist organizations funded by angry Nation B vowing

to destroy Nation A.

You can negotiate all you want with whoever the balogna figurehead of the day is, but the underlying problem is the entire freaking region is violently hostile to Israel and unless their rabid clerics progress beyond archaic 1400-1500 AD thinking Israel has no reason whatsoever to make any concessions to anyone. The fact that their borders have barely moved in 50 years is a testament to their restraint.

Israel has always been willing to talk. If the hostile Arabs in the area would make the TINY concession of acknowledging the Israeli State and to stop vowing its destruction, then the peace talks can FINALLY begin. Until that happens the whole process is idiotic.

[GostHacked]

Israel HAS made concessions and has engaged in talks. Unfortunately they're dealing with a organizations that operates outside the boundaries of nations/laws etc and who have ZERO vested interest in a peace process.

I don't think you are going to win the argument about laws/boundries. Israel has been in violation of it's own laws and international laws. I would even bet it disregarded international laws purposefully. Israel has not even solidified it's borders, and will not untill 2010.

Almost every single resolution that has been brought up against Israel since it's rebirth has been axed by mostly the USA. But almost all of the resolutions against Hamas/Palestine has been implemented. It sure seems like a one sided war to me.

I guess if you really don't have rules, then you can't break them.

Moonbox

Who are the Israelis supposed to negotiate with in good faith? Why make any sort of concessions to people vehemently opposed your right to exist in your now native land and vowing to wipe you off the planet? The whole peace process is a freaking joke until the area acknowledges that basic right to exist.

Thing is, it's been a long running joke for about 50 years now. It will either be the Jews, or the Arabs that will rule that land. Not both. One or the other will get pushed into the sea.

[myata]

Who are the Israelis supposed to negotiate with in good faith? Why make any sort of concessions to people vehemently opposed your right to exist in your now native land and vowing to wipe you off the planet? The whole peace process is a freaking joke until the area acknowledges that basic right to exist.

No, I'm not going to get into hypothetical shoes of these and that and advise what they should do. I'm only commenting on credibility of our position as proclaimed mediators of peace. Such mediation, in good faith, is not possible if one only notices transgressions and violations by one side, and completely ignores those by another. Such position has nothing to do with genuine mediation for peace, much more with gang style apology of whatever a member of the gang is doing.

Israel has always been willing to talk. If the hostile Arabs in the area would make the TINY concession of acknowledging the Israeli State and to stop vowing its destruction, then the peace talks can FINALLY begin. Until that happens the whole process is idiotic.

However we're talking about walk (pun intended). Talking while grabbing more and more of the occupied land is a hostile act, and cannot be considered as genuine participation in a peace dialogue. Just as talking while continuing violent attacks, to make it 100% clear. Any honest peace mediator should insist on cessation of all hostilities by all sides, only that position would be credible, consistent with principles of peace, and actually help in achieving a just and lasting settlement of conflict. Obviously, that has not been our postion by any stretch.

[myata]

And none of those are the links I am talking about.

....

I said the schedule was set according to Israeli sources and I said it was in the weeks ahead.

Yet those were the links you provided in support of the statement. But even in that story that has been discussed in a completely different context, there's no confirmation to your statement that the schedule has been defined. Barak makes a reference to "of weeks or months, as opposed to years" (not "weeks ahead" in another of your creative representations), and that is hardly a schedule, only an indication of such plan being considered in the near future.

You have to learn to report the references without misinterpretation, and till such time you'll be called on every single creative interpretation that does not correspond to the actual facts.

You have been trying to say there is no schedule because a specific day is not menntioned. I responded that the day would not be revealed to forestall settlers pulling another Amona.

No, Dobbin, I said and continue to say that there's no evidence provided by you that the schedule in fact exists and you can speculate to your hearts' desire why you haven't posted it, but I'll only accept its existence after you confirm it with factual evidence, that still has not been provided.

How about it is that you can't remember what was already posted.

Not really, that was a link within another reference discussed in a totally different context. Even then it does not state what you are saying, namely that the schedule for execution of this plan has been defined, so it must be another of deceits and misrepresentations you like to employ to hide by now quite obvious emptiness and bankrupcy of your position as a mediator of peace in any meaningful sense of the word.

Israel has made progress on settler issues in two evacuations. You are not happy with it. They are still involved in talks now on the issue.

Relocations with massive additions you meant to say. The overall settlements are 70% up, more than double in some areas, and counting every single day, while you're busy looking (or pretending?) for those peanuts in you know what.

Maybe your side will come to the table for once.

No you'll never get tired repeating those obvious little untruths, will you? Could it be because there isn't anything of substance you can say, that would support you obvioulsly bankrupt position?

[Moonbox]

No, I'm not going to get into hypothetical shoes of these and that and advise what they should do. I'm only commenting on credibility of our position as proclaimed mediators of peace. Such mediation, in good faith, is not possible if one only notices transgressions and violations by one side, and completely ignores those by another. Such position has nothing to do with genuine mediation for peace, much more with gang style apology of whatever a member of the gang is doing.

It's pretty silly to expect Israel to say, "We'll stop building our settlements if you stop rocketing and bombing our people." It's not like the Israelis are ants. The settlements don't get built up in a week or two. The attacks on Israel happen constantly. Even while the Israelis are promising to dismantle the settlements over the next little while you have the Fatah calling for violence agaisnt Israel.

However we're talking about walk (pun intended). Talking while grabbing more and more of the occupied land is a hostile act, and cannot be considered as genuine participation in a peace dialogue. Just as talking while continuing violent attacks, to make it 100% clear. Any honest peace mediator should insist on cessation of all hostilities by all sides, only that position would be credible, consistent with principles of peace, and actually help in achieving a just and lasting settlement of conflict. Obviously, that has not been our postion by any stretch.

What I'm trying to say is that there is that the whole negotiation process is a joke. Nobody can mediate this mess, credibly or none-credibly because there's no legitimate second party to negotiate with. Israel can negotiate all it wants with Hamas and Hezbollah or Fatah but they're not a legitimate authority and any treaty the Israelis sign won't be recognized by the next nut job faction to emerge. Who knows what they'd be called.

The main problem here is the fundamentalist culture as a whole. Until, as I said, they evolve beyond their small-minded medieval politics NOTHING will change here. How do you negotiate with an entire culture that wants you dead and that's spread out over the entire Middle East and more?

[benny]

Benny and Myata maybe you two could respond to this very simple point before you say anything else. This is what EVERYTHING boils down to. If you can't acknowledge this then maybe you should shut up because it's idiotic not to.

Israel HAS made concessions and has engaged in talks. Unfortunately they're dealing with a organizations that operates outside the boundaries of nations/laws etc and who have ZERO vested interest in a peace process.

Perhaps the gargantuan mental effort of grasping this simple fact is beyond you, but it's really something you should at least try to understand.

You have fallen in the trap like all others! Canadian politicians have to ask to Canadian Jews: why is there anything else than Israel that captivate you!?