Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[benny]

I agree with you for once (though no doubt you're not reading this since you childishly have me on "ignore").

The violence, in the view of the he/she/it that you are responding to, will end when Israel gives up the ghost and disappears.

1. That's not likely to happen;and
   
2. The animals returning Gazans and West Bankers will waste little time in finding some ancient grievance over which to butcher each other.
   

Look what's going on in Pakistan these days. Or Afghanistan. Or Sudan.

Arid lands give arid peoples.

[jbg]

Arid lands give arid peoples.

Except when the Zionists made arid lands bloom and produce crops.

[jdobbin]

Arid lands give arid peoples.

Or airhead responses.

[benny]

Except when the Zionists made arid lands bloom and produce crops.

Stolen lands give stolen soft water.

[Moonbox]

Benny if you have nothing intelligent to say here then just abandon the thread please. Your natterings and one-liners aren't at all contributing to the discussion.

Back to Myata:

You keep saying that we need to play fair and negotiate fairly and mediate fairly.

The bottom line is that Israel has NOBODY to negotiate WITH. There's no central or representative body on the Arab side that is going be able to negotiate on behalf of all of Israel's attackers. We're not dealing with state vs state politics, as I've said before. Israel is dealing with shadowy foreign-supported militant groups, composed a lot of the time with a good number of foreigners, and the goal of these groups is the destruction of Israel.

If Israel negotiates a ceasfire and makes concessions to Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah or whoever, all they'll be doing is making concessions, making themselves weaker and paving the way for the NEXT militant group/leader.

It's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to even TRY to negotiate peace when the major grievance of the other side is the right of Israel to even exist and the position is supported and financed by one of the area's most powerful nations (hello Iran).

As far as Israel is concerned they don't even have the OPTION of peace. You can naively say we should be "seriously trying" but there remains one very CRITICAL point that prevents the entire process. Until all of Israel's neighbours and the fundamentalist/militant Islamic culture actually acknowledges the state of Israel and stops vowing its destruction, it's incredibly foolish, naive and hypocritical to be blaming them for the violence there. A solid end to violence has NEVER been offered by the Arab nation and I don't see it happening.

Give it a few generations, maybe that will be long enough for them to figure out Israel isn't going anywhere. Won't happen in my lifetime or yours.

[benny]

Benny if you have nothing intelligent to say here then just abandon the thread please. Your natterings and one-liners aren't at all contributing to the discussion.

Back to Myata:

You keep saying that we need to play fair and negotiate fairly and mediate fairly.

The bottom line is that Israel has NOBODY to negotiate WITH. There's no central or representative body on the Arab side that is going be able to negotiate on behalf of all of Israel's attackers. We're not dealing with state vs state politics, as I've said before. Israel is dealing with shadowy foreign-supported militant groups, composed a lot of the time with a good number of foreigners, and the goal of these groups is the destruction of Israel.

If Israel negotiates a ceasfire and makes concessions to Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah or whoever, all they'll be doing is making concessions, making themselves weaker and paving the way for the NEXT militant group/leader.

It's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to even TRY to negotiate peace when the major grievance of the other side is the right of Israel to even exist and the position is supported and financed by one of the area's most powerful nations (hello Iran).

As far as Israel is concerned they don't even have the OPTION of peace. You can naively say we should be "seriously trying" but there remains one very CRITICAL point that prevents the entire process. Until all of Israel's neighbours and the fundamentalist/militant Islamic culture actually acknowledges the state of Israel and stops vowing its destruction, it's incredibly foolish, naive and hypocritical to be blaming them for the violence there. A solid end to violence has NEVER been offered by the Arab nation and I don't see it happening.

Give it a few generations, maybe that will be long enough for them to figure out Israel isn't going anywhere. Won't happen in my lifetime or yours.

Israel is not the topic.

[Moonbox]

Israel is not the topic.

The thread evolved for 60 pages. Here we are now. Stop posting unless you have something to add to the discussion because all you're doing now is nattering one-liners at us.

And why did you quote that whole block of text just to say that?

Edited August 7, 2009 by Moonbox

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Israel is not the topic, just Jewish support for governments in other nations? I think you need to review that concept a little further.

[benny]

The thread evolved for 60 pages. Here we are now. Stop posting unless you have something to add to the discussion because all you're doing now is nattering one-liners at us.

And why did you quote that whole block of text just to say that?

The thread has lost its way.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The thread has lost its way.

Yep.

[benny]

Yep.

Let's get back to the opening post!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Let's get back to the opening post!

Why the entire subject is beat too death. There are two camps, neither willing to listen to the other just like in the middle east. Then there is the fools that think peace can be achieved.........

[benny]

Why the entire subject is beat too death. There are two camps, neither willing to listen to the other just like in the middle east. Then there is the fools that think peace can be achieved.........

Again the subject is not the Middle East, it is about Canadian politicians seeking the support of a small and very specific portion of their electorate.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Again the subject is not the Middle East, it is about Canadian politicians seeking the support of a small and very specific portion of their electorate.

You are missing the point Benny. Entrenched opinions......think about it.

[benny]

You are missing the point Benny. Entrenched opinions......think about it.

Entrenched opinions by Canadian Jews are not acceptable to Canadian politicians.

Edited August 7, 2009 by benny

[jdobbin]

You are missing the point Benny. Entrenched opinions......think about it.

I'm not sure he has one. It don't know that we should encourage the one liners anymore. I won't reply to any posting from him from here on in as ignoring him seems a better response.

[benny]

I'm not sure he has one. It don't know that we should encourage the one liners anymore. I won't reply to any posting from him from here on in as ignoring him seems a better response.

This topic is not about me either!

[myata]

Barak saying weeks and months is a schedule. It is a defined time. The Jerusalem Post said timeframe and gave the timeframe but no, you think in your creative way that it means nothing.

"Weeks and months" is not a defined time or schedule. You can go ahead with your lexical charades for all you want, but the fact remains that none of your own references confirmed any schedule, and two explicitly stated that it has not been reported. That is a fact, as is a fact that you're constantly misreporting, misrepresenting and misinterpreting factual material, and you can be sure that every such creative instance will be exposed.

I am right. You are wrong.

That would be #3. You have about 997 more to go before you fully convince yourself (can't guarantee about the others).

And now the focus is on the West Bank. However, you want to break off the present talks and introduce sanctions immediately.

"Focus" cannot be confused with the dismal result, other that in your mental melee where facts and ideas intermix and replace each other freely.

When Israel starts using children as bombs, I won't be shy about the same treatment.

You mean to say that stealing lands, and everything else is OK with you, thanks for an honest admission, finally.

Hamas didn't violate any agreement for peace. They aren't part of the peace. They are at war.

And I said nothing about "agreement". Read one more time if you can and stop making things up.

Hamas's terrorism using children and bombings is not the equivalent.

And I said nothing about "equivalent". Read one more time if you can and stop making things up. I said that both are wrong, and both would acted against by an honest agent of peace, which your supported agenda is very obviously not, because in all the years that policy of creeping agression has been going on, it never once acted against it, as you are making every effort here to ignore and apologise it.

Your blindness to terrorism by Hamas is by far the biggest example of an impediment to peace.

Except it does not exist in reality, as probably a dozen of statements here can prove, while your blindness to creeping annexation is an established truth, confirmed by the fact that in all the years that policy has been going on, you never once acted against it, and are making every effort to ignore and apologise it.

Your focus is solely on Israel.

And that is another obvious untruth. You could have stopped repeating those obvious falcifications, except you can't because there would be nothing else you could defend your fully bankrupt position with.

Ho hum. More of the same.

Of course, and it will be always, as long as you're trying to ignore obvious facts.

It is true. You can't be honest with yourself about that.

995 to go.

[Moonbox]

Except it does not exist in reality, as probably a dozen of statements here can prove, while your blindness to creeping annexation is an established truth, confirmed by the fact that in all the years that policy has been going on, you never once acted against it, and are making every effort to ignore and apologise it.

Myata ask yourself this:

If Israel were to stop its expansion and withdraw all illegal settlements and prevent any further settlements from being built, would violence against Israel stop?

This is the ONLY question that matters because unless the answer is yes Israel has ZERO reason to stop it and International Law shows just how impotent it really is in this area.

[myata]

If you saying that one wrong (militant attacks) somehow justifies another (appropriation of occupied lands), then logically extending your point to the initial cause of conflict one would have to conclude that attacks against Israel would be justified too, from certain point of view. Even more, with both sides having a grudge against the other, theere would be no resolution ever in that framework of thinking.

The only viable option is for the sides to start searching for a solution acceptable to them. That would necessarily require to stop all major hostilities (no in good faith dialogue is possible while major hostilities are going on), by whatever side and of whatever kind. That would be the only credible position of a genuine mediator for peace, and the only one that could actually lead to a lasting peace.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If you saying that one wrong (militant attacks) somehow justifies another (appropriation of occupied lands), then logically extending your point to the initial cause of conflict one would have to conclude that attacks against Israel would be justified too, from certain point of view. Even more, with both sides having a grudge against the other, theere would be no resolution ever in that framework of thinking.

The only viable option is for the sides to start searching for a solution acceptable to them. That would necessarily require to stop all major hostilities (no in good faith dialogue is possible while major hostilities are going on), by whatever side and of whatever kind. That would be the only credible position of a genuine mediator for peace, and the only one that could actually lead to a lasting peace.

Why don't you move there. Argue for peace from there. Pick a spot to live in Israel, and agitate for peaceful solutions while you fear to go to the market.

Unless you are willing to go there and do that, your points mean nothing to me. Your convictions are your own problem. How many suicide bombing would it take in your neighborhood before you would advocate action now? How many rockets can land in your local school yard before you would decide that since you knew where they came from and the government knew where they came from, why are they still coming from there?

[benny]

If you saying that one wrong (militant attacks) somehow justifies another (appropriation of occupied lands), then logically extending your point to the initial cause of conflict one would have to conclude that attacks against Israel would be justified too, from certain point of view. Even more, with both sides having a grudge against the other, theere would be no resolution ever in that framework of thinking.

The only viable option is for the sides to start searching for a solution acceptable to them. That would necessarily require to stop all major hostilities (no in good faith dialogue is possible while major hostilities are going on), by whatever side and of whatever kind. That would be the only credible position of a genuine mediator for peace, and the only one that could actually lead to a lasting peace.

What you need to understand is that Dobbin, by opening this thread, makes this kind of symmetric logic unnecessary. This thread opens a debate on what kind of promises our political representatives should make to Canadian Jews to get their support (in the next election). Let's try not to chew too much at once and then, we will find solutions!

[Moonbox]

If you saying that one wrong (militant attacks) somehow justifies another (appropriation of occupied lands), then logically extending your point to the initial cause of conflict one would have to conclude that attacks against Israel would be justified too, from certain point of view.

Nope, not at all. The settlement encroachment is not the cause of violence against Israel. That is not why militants blow themselves up in packed buses and shoot rockets into Tel Aviv. That's something that might upset them, but they kill and threaten Israel simply because Israel exists.

Your point would make sense if Islamic militants in the area agreed, "If Israel stopped encroaching we'd stop attacking altogether." Unfortunately, a long term agreement like this has never been offered and unless the big boys (prominent radical clerics/Iran etc) stopped funding the attacks and conceded that Israel should be allowed to EXIST, condemning Israel for not rolling over like a meek dog is pure hubris.

The militants are asking for concessions but they and their supporters are offering nothing solid in return because the people ultimately responsible for the violence aren't even interested in the negotiations. What you're proposing is a strategy of appeasement that may make a few people less rabid and angry but nothing else.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Moonbox

[myata]

Why don't you move there. Argue for peace from there. Pick a spot to live in Israel, and agitate for peaceful solutions while you fear to go to the market.

As I already pointed out, I'm not trying to advise Palestine or Israel what they should do, although I certainly have my views about what would be positive things to do in this situation. At this time I only want to discuss what position should Canada take in this conflict. By any objective measure, both sides were and are actively involved in hostilities against each other, and to take sides in this situation would mean 1) possibility of getting involved in the conflict and 2) compromising our role as a genuine agent for peace. It's highly doubtful that either outcome would benefit Canada and the sides involved in the conflict in the long run.

[myata]

Nope, not at all. The settlement encroachment is not the cause of violence against Israel.

But how can you tell that, in honesty? The "encroachement" has been happening from Day 1 of this conflict, so there never been a time to test your theory.

Your point would make sense if Islamic militants in the area agreed, "If Israel stopped encroaching we'd stop attacking altogether." Unfortunately, a long term agreement like this has never been offered and unless the big boys (prominent radical clerics/Iran etc) stopped funding the attacks and conceded that Israel should be allowed to EXIST, condemning Israel for not rolling over like a meek dog is pure hubris.

And so, one wrong indeed makes the other right? The attacks on Israel justify the encroachement, that in turn would justify the attacks and so on, to Day 1, to the original encroachement. Everybody's justified, hostilities never stop, peace is impossible. The only possible outcome with that frame of mind, I'm afraid.

Approaching the peace would ask for something different. Hostilities should stop on both sides without preconditions. Genuine agents of peace should demand from all sides to cease violence and hostilities, in all forms. That is the only way to deescalation of conflict and beginning of a genuine dialogue.