Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

jdobbin · August 7, 2009

"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.

It is a defined schedule. That is a fact. Sorry about that. Live with it. Grow up. Stop acting like a child.

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

Here is more of the angry child.

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

Focus to you seems to be Israel only.

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

There is another childish outburst.

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

You have said it. Sorry.

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.

You make the moral equivalent all the time.

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 anti-Israel approach is a confirmed fact.

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.

The only bankrupt and childish approach is yours.

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

It is you that ignore facts.

995 to go.

Or what? You'll blow?

Jerry J. Fortin · August 7, 2009

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.

Canada should do nothing it isn't already doing. In other words we take no new position, maintain that terrorists are criminal scum. With all due respect, take a choice here and tell us what is worse. Somebody building on lands that you claim are in dispute, or somebody tossing rockets into school grounds and markets? Take your pick then support that side.

jdobbin · August 7, 2009

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 one part of your logic that you can't deal with is that Israel has come to the table, made agreements, left occupied lands.

Your side Hamas has not come to the table, has not stopped violence and vowed to continue until all of Israel is emptied.

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.

Your side Hamas does not want to stop. Their solution is to destroy Israel.

benny · August 8, 2009

The one part of your logic that you can't deal with is that Israel has come to the table, made agreements, left occupied lands.
Your side Hamas has not come to the table, has not stopped violence and vowed to continue until all of Israel is emptied.

Your side Hamas does not want to stop. Their solution is to destroy Israel.

A state is like a rigged table.

Edited August 8, 2009 by benny

jbg · August 8, 2009

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

Why even bother arguing wigth someone who say unemployment is good and it's OK for others to support him?

benny · August 8, 2009

Why even bother arguing wigth someone who say unemployment is good and it's OK for others to support him?

off topic

Moonbox · August 8, 2009

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.

I can say it honestly because I'm using my brain and following what Israel's enemies are saying and the history of the region, which I am VERY well-versed in. At some point they are going to have to get over the fact that 60 years ago, their long time conquerors and overlords decided that a Jewish homeland was to be created there. This is not something that could be done today, but 60 years ago the world was completely different. Given the fact that the Israeli Jews are NOT going to leave and that it's a political and practical impossibility, any further dialogue and thinking must proceed from there.

Israel's attackers are making their intentions and grievances quite clear. They're not saying, "We will drive the zionists off of illegal settlements." They are saying, "Death to Israel proper." If there was a clear and honest suggestion from Israel's enemies that they WOULD acknowledge the country's right to exist and they WOULD stop attacking if Israel backed out of their settlements then you might have an argument. Unfortunately for your argument Iran and a lot of the clerics and rabid dogs in the region absolutely refuse to do this and thus Israel remains fearful and aggressive/defensive.

How naive and do you have to be to believe that Israel should make concessions on its borders to puppet organizations when the puppetmasters continue to vow violence death and destruction upon them simply for existing?

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.

Again, nope. I'm not justifying anything. Sometimes things like this are just the way they are. I can't really justify the transplantion of an entire nation but that was 60 years ago and not much can be done about it now. We've already both said we don't want to go deep into history with this but there's FAR FAR more than 60 years worth of history to go over with this.

Israel is there. It has defined borders recognized by the world community at large. It's not going anywhere. If there's to be ANY hope of peace then the REAL leaders (religious, political and academic) of the Middle-Eastern Arabic community must agree to sit down and talk with Israel. They're not doing that. They're doing the opposite.

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.

Now THERE's a good an noble idea. I've already gone over the SLIGHT problem with that idea however. Remember the one about Iran and the clerics etc refusing to even acknowledge the Israeli state? They're the only ones that can change the direction of the conflict from the Arab side. They don't seem too inclined to do so however.

The most interesting thing about this is that these guys don't even have a vested interest in a peace process. It's in their interest to foment violence. It's a total clusterfuck.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Moonbox

benny · August 8, 2009

I can say it honestly because I'm using my brain and following what Israel's enemies are saying and the history of the region, which I am VERY well-versed in. At some point they are going to have to get over the fact that 60 years ago, their long time conquerors and overlords decided that a Jewish homeland was to be created there. This is not something that could be done today, but 60 years ago the world was completely different. Given the fact that the Israeli Jews are NOT going to leave and that it's a political and practical impossibility, any further dialogue and thinking must proceed from there.
Israel's attackers are making their intentions and grievances quite clear. They're not saying, "We will drive the zionists off of illegal settlements." They are saying, "Death to Israel proper." If there was a clear and honest suggestion from Israel's enemies that they WOULD acknowledge the country's right to exist and they WOULD stop attacking if Israel backed out of their settlements then you might have an argument. Unfortunately for your argument Iran and a lot of the clerics and rabid dogs in the region absolutely refuse to do this and thus Israel remains fearful and aggressive/defensive.

How naive and do you have to be to believe that Israel should make concessions on its borders to puppet organizations when the puppetmasters continue to vow violence death and destruction upon them simply for existing?

Again, nope. I'm not justifying anything. Sometimes things like this are just the way they are. I can't really justify the transplantion of an entire nation but that was 60 years ago and not much can be done about it now. We've already both said we don't want to go deep into history with this but there's FAR FAR more than 60 years worth of history to go over with this.

Israel is there. It has defined borders recognized by the world community at large. It's not going anywhere. If there's to be ANY hope of peace then the REAL leaders (religious, political and academic) of the Middle-Eastern Arabic community must agree to sit down and talk with Israel. They're not doing that. They're doing the opposite.

Now THERE's a good an noble idea. I've already gone over the SLIGHT problem with that idea however. Remember the one about Iran and the clerics etc refusing to even acknowledge the Israeli state? They're the only ones that can change the direction of the conflict from the Arab side. They don't seem too inclined to do so however.

The most interesting thing about this is that these guys don't even have a vested interest in a peace process. It's in their interest to foment violence. It's a total clusterfuck.

Iran is not going anywhere either.

DogOnPorch · August 8, 2009

Iran is not going anywhere either.

But they did change their name to impress.

benny · August 8, 2009

But they did change their name to impress.

Pressure is the name of the game.

DogOnPorch · August 8, 2009

Pressure is the name of the game.

Ask those whom they sought to impress!

benny · August 8, 2009

Ask those whom they sought to impress!

Let's all bark rather!

DogOnPorch · August 8, 2009

I believe that I am in hell, therefore I am there.

benny · August 8, 2009

I believe that I am in hell, therefore I am there.

This topic is not about a belief but about a very original Judaic unconditional commandment: "You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18)

Oleg Bach · August 8, 2009

I believe that I am in hell, therefore I am there.

I think for therefore-I'm not all there--sometimes blind and crude instinct surpasses thought.

benny · August 9, 2009

I think for therefore-I'm not all there.

This post-Cartesian deduction is radically true, thanks to the very specific kind of reflexivity opened by the original Judaic unconditional commandment: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself”.

jbg · August 9, 2009

Moonbox makes a great, detailed post, and only a series of inane, snide responses?

benny · August 9, 2009

Moonbox makes a great, detailed post, and only a series of inane, snide responses?

Including yours!

myata · August 10, 2009

It is a defined schedule. That is a fact. Sorry about that.
Live with it. Grow up. Stop acting like a child.

It would be that (a fact) if it was present in your references and it very obviously is not, and even more, two of your own references explicitly stated that it has not been reported.

But of course you can live with it and act as a grown up (as you think) because according to you Dobbin, massive increase in settlements is success, non existent evidence is a fact, and war is peace.

Here is more of the angry child.

How thoughtful.. and informative too. There's no stopping your intellectual might

Focus to you seems to be Israel only.

Will you ever get tired of repeating obvious untruths. 992 to go.

There is another childish outburst.

Very thougtful and informative indeed. There's no stopping your intellectual might

You have said it. Sorry.

No need to apologise for your inability to read simple text repeated probably a dozen times as I would have nothing to do with it. The pleasure is entirely yours.

You make the moral equivalent all the time.

Only because you cannot comprehend the meaning of simple argument, repeated in plain English multiple times. And have neither time no desire to do it anymore. But hope never dies.

Your anti-Israel approach is a confirmed fact.

And now you seem to having troubles with understanding "confirmed" because believe it or not, you forgot (yet again) to actually confirm it with any logical arguments or factual evidence. Unless you believe that just your word confirms everything you say, of course you're entitled to that opinion, btw have you checked your bank account today?

The only bankrupt and childish approach is yours.

You can say that, or anything you want, but the bankrupcy of your position is actually confirmed by the fact that it's been a very long while since we had anything even resembling a logical or factual argument from you.

It is you that ignore facts.

Oh why did you stop there, without "confirming" any facts that I ignored? Here's the list on your side:

- ignoring the 70% increase of illegal settlements while your "peace process" has been in place;

- ignoring the fact of actual construction of 2,500 settlements on the grounds of some "approval"

- ignoring the difference between "settlements" and "outposts" in your own referencing;

- ignoring the diffrerence between quoting individual with independent confirmation (in your own reference);

- ignoring the fact that none of your references confirm any schedule, and some explicitly state that it has not been reported.

The list is probably incomplete. BTW that should illustrate the difference between "confirmed" in the common meaning of the term as opposed to "confirmed by Dobbin".

Or what? You'll blow?

I'm sorry that your memory appears to be failing you again, so I'll repeat one last time. According to the manual you seem to be following, a lie, no matter how obvious, repeated a thousand times would become truth. The counters are started evry time you state an obvious untruth and will run until you get them down to zero, or give up repeating obvious untruths, whatever comes first.

jdobbin · August 10, 2009

But of course you can live with it and act as a grown up (as you think) because according to you Dobbin, massive increase in settlements is success, non existent evidence is a fact, and war is peace.

This is all very amusing. And your responses get ever so more angry and childish.

It is obvious you won't be happy with the issue no matter what is said or done.

Take your anger and activism to someone in office if you dare. I doubt it will go far but by all means rant at them if it makes you feel better.

myata · August 10, 2009

Canada should do nothing it isn't already doing. In other words we take no new position, maintain that terrorists are criminal scum. With all due respect, take a choice here and tell us what is worse. Somebody building on lands that you claim are in dispute, or somebody tossing rockets into school grounds and markets? Take your pick then support that side.

I can understand that position, and very obviously it will not lead to any peace. I wouldn't pick a side between two wrongs (and I believe it was demonstrated with facts now that both sides are in the wrong), or "lesser" evil, because it only delays the choice that would still need to be made. If it can't be made by us, it would only mean that we don't have courage, will and principles for it, so we'll have to delegate it to somebody in the future who would.

I can say it honestly because I'm using my brain and following what Israel's enemies are saying and the history of the region, which I am VERY well-versed in. At some point they are going to have to get over the fact that 60 years ago, their long time conquerors and overlords decided that a Jewish homeland was to be created there.
This is not something that could be done today, but 60 years ago the world was completely different. Given the fact that the Israeli Jews are NOT going to leave and that it's a political and practical impossibility, any further dialogue and thinking must proceed from there.

Well yes, if two people have any hope of achieving peace, they'd have to accept the existence of each other. Does it mean that the past injustices should simply be forgotten, without recognition, and some form of restitution?

Israel's attackers are making their intentions and grievances quite clear. They're not saying, "We will drive the zionists off of illegal settlements." They are saying, "Death to Israel proper."

Who do you mean by that term, "Israel's attackers"? All Palestinians? Do you understand that in any diffucult conflict there would be factions and groups entrenched in the destruction and violence? That identifying any one side with such groups is equivalent to saying that peace cannot be achieved?

If there was a clear and honest suggestion from Israel's enemies that they WOULD acknowledge the country's right to exist

Or are just looking for a pretext to excuse Israel's own less than clear record? Because very obviously, that condition will never come true in many lifetimes from ALL those who you call "Israel's enemies"?

and they WOULD stop attacking if Israel backed out of their settlements then you might have an argument. Unfortunately for your argument Iran and a lot of the clerics and rabid dogs in the region absolutely refuse to do this and thus Israel remains fearful and aggressive/defensive.

Well, we can go far and wide into analysing what came first, and what caused what. My only statement is that if genuine peace is to be sought, then no kind of agression from any side side should be excused or encouraged, and a true mediator of peace would focus first and foremost on deescalation of hostilities. That is simply impossible without ignoring ongoing massive annexation of occupied land, which is a kind of agression, and an obviously hostile behaviour. To maintain that in this situation any one side is better than the other, and deserves unconditional support would be unproductive to peace.

How naive and do you have to be to believe that Israel should make concessions on its borders to puppet organizations when the puppetmasters continue to vow violence death and destruction upon them simply for existing?

In the unltimate view, is there a choice? One cannot maintain peaceful nature by exercising violence. Let's remember that settlement has been a persistent, conscious choice from Day 1, not some fluke of temper, so the picture isn't entirely as black and white as some want it to see. What we do speaks for what we are better than any words. If both sides continue to use agression and violence as their options, then maybe that's what they are?

Now THERE's a good an noble idea. I've already gone over the SLIGHT problem with that idea however. Remember the one about Iran and the clerics etc refusing to even acknowledge the Israeli state? They're the only ones that can change the direction of the conflict from the Arab side. They don't seem too inclined to do so however.

If we wanted a real advance rather than look for excuses, I don't think there's much choice but to keep trying the acts of good will. Again, I'm not going to advise people what they should be doing, but outsiders could certainly try to develop the climate of trust between the parties in both camps that are looking for approaches to peace. We can do it by maintaining a clear and principled position for peace. Position that would encourage steps toward it, and react to any counterproductive moves, no matter which side is involved. We don't have it now. If we don't get it, the results in another two decades may be no different from what we have now.

benny · August 10, 2009

Again, I'm not going to advise people what they should be doing, but outsiders could certainly try to develop the climate of trust between the parties in both camps that are looking for approaches to peace. We can do it by maintaining a clear and principled position for peace. Position that would encourage steps toward it, and react to any counterproductive moves, no matter which side is involved.

How can outsiders try to develop the climate of trust between the parties in both camps that are looking for approaches to peace when getting the electoral support of Canadian Jews seems so much more important than getting the Canadian Muslims support!?

Moonbox · August 10, 2009

Well yes, if two people have any hope of achieving peace, they'd have to accept the existence of each other. Does it mean that the past injustices should simply be forgotten, without recognition, and some form of restitution?

The question is how far back do you go in claiming restitution? What do give in terms of restitution? Would Israel's enemies even accept reasonable restitution (they wouldn't)? If there is ANY hope of peace, the ball is entirely in Iran and the Arab leaders' court. They have to recognize Israel and its right to exist, OFFICIALLY. If they don't do that, Israel has no reason to believe there is any intention for peace and therefore they are going to continue to act like there is no hope for peace.

Who do you mean by that term, "Israel's attackers"? All Palestinians? Do you understand that in any diffucult conflict there would be factions and groups entrenched in the destruction and violence? That identifying any one side with such groups is equivalent to saying that peace cannot be achieved?

I don't mean Palestine. If Palestinians were the only people committing violence, then Israel could bargain with thenm in good faith because they have an ACTUAL vested interest in peace. The people of Palestine LIVE there and as such would conceivably not want to worry about getting killed. These are not even the real offenders though. Israel is contending with shadows financed by foreign governments who don't want to negotiate and only want to see Israel gone. They have no interest in peace because they have nothing to gain by it. They do, on the other hand, have a vested interest in destabilizing Israel.

Or are just looking for a pretext to excuse Israel's own less than clear record? Because very obviously, that condition will never come true in many lifetimes from ALL those who you call "Israel's enemies"?

When I'm talking about Israel's enemies, let's start with the big ones like the leaders of Iran who finance anti-Israeli militias for billions and publicly and internationally call for Israel's downfall. I realize you can't get EVERYONE to give up violence but the above would be a good start :blink:

To maintain that in this situation any one side is better than the other, and deserves unconditional support would be unproductive to peace.

The west does criticize Israeli settlement encroachment. They do get pissy when Israel starts launching campaigns into Lebanon and Gaza etc. The main difference here is that Israel's aggression is generally not deliberate acts of violence against innocent civilians and as such it's a lot more reasonable to sympathize and relate to their position.

If we wanted a real advance rather than look for excuses, I don't think there's much choice but to keep trying the acts of good will. Again, I'm not going to advise people what they should be doing, but outsiders could certainly try to develop the climate of trust between the parties in both camps that are looking for approaches to peace.

I would agree with that but BOTH sides have to come to the table and agree on that. Hamas is mostly foreign-funded and foreign-supported and one of its main objectives in its charter is the elimination of the state of Israel. If the major parties would agree to actually speak to one another, agree to recognize each other, and agree to end violence and stop any further aggressions, we might have something to work with. As I said before, there are a few things that people aren't willing to budge on, namely the acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

benny · August 10, 2009

As I said before, there are a few things that people aren't willing to budge on, namely the acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

Look at the Vatican, a state can be as tiny as a city.

Oleg Bach · August 10, 2009

Isreal should never be even the slightest defining factor in a Canadian election - If it does - then there will be a backlash of anti-semitism - this is not the nice Christian Judiac culture of the 60s - we have people from all over the world the live and vote in Canada - sucking up to the "jewish" vote is a non-starter and a dated version of Canadian back room power politics - it's over - Our politicians had better kiss all the asses - not just a select few.