Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[benny]

What sort of moral restitution is Israel supposed to offer? I can just see it now,

"Hey ummm...sorry that after thousands of years we are returning to our natural native homeland that was taken away from us in the first place. Umm...we feel really bad for being here." ??????

For Jews, a just restitution is easy to accept because their land remains a promised land.

[jbg]

Ah, here is the crux of the matter for you. Israel is to blame merely for existing. If peace is to be had, they have to end the state of Israel. Is that it?

Myata, care to answer this one?

[jdobbin]

What sort of moral restitution is Israel supposed to offer? I can just see it now,

I am wondering about that as well. If the mere fact is Israel existing means moral restitution is needed, what does that mean? It doesn't seem that Hamas wants that. They want Israel gone.

Israel has made VERY meaningful concessions in the past and it did nothing to appease its enemies. The Gaza strip withdrawl did nothing.

I think the argument we get from that quarter it is meaningless. It is all or nothing. And even that is sounding like it won't be accepted because Israel as a state is an act of aggression.

[jbg]

I think the argument we get from that quarter it is meaningless. It is all or nothing. And even that is sounding like it won't be accepted because Israel as a state is an act of aggression.

So true. Just read Dub's posts to learn that.

[benny]

I think the argument we get from that quarter it is meaningless. It is all or nothing. And even that is sounding like it won't be accepted because Israel as a state is an act of aggression.

Israel as a state is a fading echo of a European, mainly German, act of aggression on Jews.

[myata]

I am wondering about that as well. If the mere fact is Israel existing means moral restitution is needed, what does that mean? It doesn't seem that Hamas wants that. They want Israel gone.

We get so obtuse perchance... when it suits us... how about an apology? For taking other peoples land without their permission or negotiated agreement?

Anyways, Dobbin and the Co has certainly found their iron clad argument in the coined statements that are supposed (but dont' really stretch far enough) to hide the dirty affairs of the past, which they want with all powers of their combined imaginations to wish out of existence. A much more noble and rewarding position than to actually seek the approaches to peace, which would require courage to see and admit the reality and will and open mind to work persistently to reduce and stop all hostilities, regardless of which side is involved.

No Dobbin, it's you who want "all or nothing". You want to pretend that nothing has happened, and everybody should just cheer and pray by your script, and won't ever admit, or god forbid, own it, that some wrongs could have been committed by your friendly side as well. Of course, there's nothing at all peaceful about this approach, it's cave age old "us or them", "see no evil from mine" gang mentality, and of course you're making it as clear as can be with every statement you post.

[Moonbox]

Israel as a state is a fading echo of a European, mainly German, act of aggression on Jews.

Mainly German? Try about 5000 years of aggression against Jews from the Egyptians, to the Romans, to feudal Europe ending only when they were given a place to call home....their traditional native home.

[benny]

A much more noble and rewarding position than to actually seek the approaches to peace, which would require courage to see and admit the reality and will and open mind to work persistently to reduce and stop all hostilities, regardless of which side is involved.

Peace, peace, peace on both sides, sides, sides: you have no idea how Middle East problems are deep.

[myata]

I may have an idea, but what would need to be done about it is the real question: stick with the friendly gang and keep pointing fingers, or begin to unravel it one knot at a time? The second is impossible without being able to actually see all the knots and blocks in this complicated problem.

Of course, we can decide to not get involved at all, and that would be by far a more honest option than the one we're exercising now, ostensibly pretending to be working for peace, while behind doors supporting and propping one side in whatever they do.

[benny]

I may have an idea, but what would need to be done about it is the real question: stick with the friendly gang and keep pointing fingers, or begin to unravel it one knot at a time?

Since Solomon dilemma, confronted with knots, Jews are used to slice them.

[myata]

I don't think that strategy pertains exclusively to any one nation, and so the slicing will continue, until alternative paths are sought (genuinely and in good faith).

[benny]

I don't think that strategy pertains exclusively to any one nation, and so the slicing will continue, until alternative paths are sought (genuinely and in good faith).

Judeo-Christianity is unique in teaching that only a death wish allows good faith to express itself.

[Moonbox]

No Dobbin, it's you who want "all or nothing". You want to pretend that nothing has happened, and everybody should just cheer and pray by your script, and won't ever admit, or god forbid, own it, that some wrongs could have been committed by your friendly side as well. Of course, there's nothing at all peaceful about this approach, it's cave age old "us or them", "see no evil from mine" gang mentality, and of course you're making it as clear as can be with every statement you post.

It's not a see no evil approach. It's a "Don't blame the Israelis for being born in Israel" approach. It's also a "don't be be an idiot and don't be naive" approach to the peace process.

You can't negotiate peace with someone who has no desire for peace. That would be Iran and the outsiders participating in and encouraging/financing the violence in Israel. You can't negotiate with them because they're simply not interested and have made it clear they are not interested.

Israel and Palestine are ready and willing to talk/negotiate. There are unfortunately outsiders stirring the pot who benefit from instability in the area.

It's idiotic to propose that the Israelis apologize for being there because all that does is make their position officially illegitimate. Officially acknowledging this is in fact the same as agreeing with Iran and Co. that Israel does not have the 'right' to exist, which would thus encourage more violence against them.

It's not gang mentality. It's not turning a blind eye. It's realistically looking at the current situation and understanding how bad it really is.

I'm not blind to the grievances of the Palestinian people there. I sympathize with them. I understand the history of the region VERY well. The problem is that the Jewish nation was transplanted there by British overlords over 60 years ago and there's NOTHING you or I can do about that now.

A lot of the violence in Palestine and Israel right now is less about grievances of Palestinians and more about Iran and militant Islamics and their efforts to destabilize the region. The Palestinians are helpless, Israel has no idea how to keep its people safe and consequently you have hurt feelings and dead people on both sides.

The justification for the attacks on Israel are akin to Christian Europe's Crusades. THEY'RE IN OUR HOLY LAND. GOD WILLS IT. THEY MUST DIE! For Iran and its friends, it's about building influence, building power and removing hostile western influence in the area. It's not about the downtrodden Palestinians, although they are easy pawns given their plight.

[myata]

It's not a see no evil approach. It's a "Don't blame the Israelis for being born in Israel" approach. It's also a "don't be be an idiot and don't be naive" approach to the peace process.

You can't negotiate peace with someone who has no desire for peace. That would be Iran and the outsiders participating in and encouraging/financing the violence in Israel. You can't negotiate with them because they're simply not interested and have made it clear they are not interested.

But you can't really state that because neither side has attempted to negotiate in good faith yet. You're saying that either not understanding the fact (previous negotiations, resulting in massive increases in illegal settlements, and resurgence of violence, cannot be considered genuine dialogue), or as an excuse for your friendly side to continue to be involved in hostile practices, and avoid genuine dialogue for peace.

I already pointed out that there's no need to press the artificial agenda of recognition by all and everybody. The priority at this stage should be on deescalation of all hostilities and build up of trust.

Edited August 13, 2009 by myata

[benny]

The priority at this stage should be on deescalation of all hostilities and build up of trust.

More of your same empty rosy words.

[jdobbin]

We get so obtuse perchance... when it suits us... how about an apology? For taking other peoples land without their permission or negotiated agreement?

What makes you think a apology is even wanted? It is the the end of the Israelis state that is wanted? You are siding with the Israeli "gang" for staying in the Middle East?

Anyways, Dobbin and the Co has certainly found their iron clad argument in the coined statements that are supposed (but dont' really stretch far enough) to hide the dirty affairs of the past, which they want with all powers of their combined imaginations to wish out of existence. A much more noble and rewarding position than to actually seek the approaches to peace, which would require courage to see and admit the reality and will and open mind to work persistently to reduce and stop all hostilities, regardless of which side is involved.

It was you who said the state of Israel was an act of aggression and this is why there was a war in 1967. If Israel is an act of aggression then there can be no peace. That is, unless you side with Israel's right to exist.

No Dobbin, it's you who want "all or nothing". You want to pretend that nothing has happened, and everybody should just cheer and pray by your script, and won't ever admit, or god forbid, own it, that some wrongs could have been committed by your friendly side as well. Of course, there's nothing at all peaceful about this approach, it's cave age old "us or them", "see no evil from mine" gang mentality, and of course you're making it as clear as can be with every statement you post.

I don't pretend anything. We have seen Israel leave lands and remove settlers in exchanges for peace. In some cases, it has worked. In others, it hasn't. And the reason it hasn't for Gaza is because Hamas believes all Israel has to end.

[benny]

What makes you think a apology is even wanted?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1095615.html

[myata]

What makes you think a apology is even wanted? It is the the end of the Israelis state that is wanted? You are siding with the Israeli "gang" for staying in the Middle East?

You're finding something to obfuscate even in this obvious sentence? What's "wanted" have to do with "justly deserved"? Siding here are only you. I stated from start that I do not side with any one party in the conflict.

It was you who said the state of Israel was an act of aggression and this is why there was a war in 1967. If Israel is an act of aggression then there can be no peace. That is, unless you side with Israel's right to exist.

Most certainly, in your cave age "us against them" eye for an eye ideology it would be exactly like that. Civilized people, on the other hand, sometimes try to find ways to redeem and repair the injustices of the past with their acts today. Very obviously, by clear examples in this very thread, has not been our standing in this conflict so far.

I don't pretend anything. We have seen Israel leave lands and remove settlers in exchanges for peace. In some cases, it has worked. In others, it hasn't. And the reason it hasn't for Gaza is because Hamas believes all Israel has to end.

We have yet to see it work in the territories Israel deems within its direct sphere of interest. That double vision / double speak approach, that refuses to even notice these major violations which were taking place all throghout the past decades, in calmer times, as in more violent times alike, is certainly not helping to bring such time any closer, and therefore is not an example of genuine mediation for peace.

Edited August 13, 2009 by myata

[jbg]

Mainly German? Try about 5000 years of aggression against Jews from the Egyptians, to the Romans, to feudal Europe ending only when they were given a place to call home....their traditional native home.

To be fair, the U.S., Canada and Australia haven't taken part in the aggression. But your point is well-taken and "national self-determination" is not a right confined to basket-case, Islamic dictatorships.

[benny]

To be fair, the U.S., Canada and Australia haven't taken part in the aggression. But your point is well-taken and "national self-determination" is not a right confined to basket-case, Islamic dictatorships.

Jews have amply proven through out history that they don't need land to exercise a right to "national self-determination".

[jdobbin]

You're finding something to obfuscate even in this obvious sentence? What's "wanted" have to do with "justly deserved"? Siding here are only you. I stated from start that I do not side with any one party in the conflict.

You are clear as mud. You expect the Israelis to apologize for the right to exist?

Do you even believe in an Israeli state? Or do you not pick a side in that regard?

Most certainly, in your cave age "us against them" eye for an eye ideology it would be exactly like that. Civilized people, on the other hand, sometimes try to find ways to redeem and repair the injustices of the past with their acts today. Very obviously, by clear examples in this very thread, has not been our standing in this conflict so far.

Answer the question: Do you support Israel's right to exist?

We have yet to see it work in the territories Israel deems within its direct sphere of interest. That double vision / double speak approach, that refuses to even notice these major violations which were taking place all throghout the past decades, in calmer times, as in more violent times alike, is certainly not helping to bring such time any closer, and therefore is not an example of genuine mediation for peace.

And you expect that peace to happen when Israel is out of the territories? How? The goal is Israel's end as a state. You ignore this time and time again.

[jbg]

Jews have amply proven through out history that they don't need land to exercise a right to "national self-determination".

Except between about 100 BCE and 1948.

[benny]

Except between about 100 BCE and 1948.

Jews are not Christians.

[myata]

You are clear as mud. You expect the Israelis to apologize for the right to exist?

That's because you seem to only understand statements that agree with your position. You demonstrated it numerous times throughout this thread. And this is nothing to do with me because it was stated very clearly what the apology should be made for. That you aren't able to comprehend it, says better than anything about your position and its actual vs proclaimed relation to true peace.

Answer the question: Do you support Israel's right to exist?

Here we go, the ultimate moment of truth: a coined statement as beginning and the end of all argument.

Guess what, Dobbin, because one will never know what precise meaning you put into it (out of a miriad of possibilities, e.g.:

- the taking of land and unilateral creation of state was entirely legitimate and friendly act, that by all civilized standards should have only inspired hugs and kisses, if it weren't for incurably hostile nature of aboriginals;

- it may have the right to exist in all or some - to its free discretion - of its "historic" lands - to its free interpretation;

- it has the right to respond to any resistance to its ongoing expansion with overwhelming and disproportionate force, and so on),

it is impossible to answer honestly and in good faith. Or are you really asking everybody to line up after you and shout big and loud "yes" to whatever you do (and don't)?

And you expect that peace to happen when Israel is out of the territories? How? The goal is Israel's end as a state. You ignore this time and time again.

See how freely you move, as a proclaimed broker of peace, between talking for Israel and talking for (presumed) peace? Is it because you've already identified that (presumed) peace with fulfillment of aspiration of your friendly side in the conflict?

But let's try to not shift the "focus" for an instant, can we? You admitted, some posts back, that Israel presence in the territories is a serious obstacle to peace. So what exactly have been done, by you, to show that it's not just another of many empty words that you said here? Or could it be that you didn't really mean it?

Understand, you absolutely can be a part of Israel's cheering band, it's an established and respectful position (us, the light of humanity against them, we all know who). What you can't do, is to pretend to be a part of the cheering band, and a great agent of peace all at the same time. So, pick one, or rather, admit the obvious, and this discussion will be over in a flash.

[jdobbin]

That's because you seem to only understand statements that agree with your position. You demonstrated it numerous times throughout this thread. And this is nothing to do with me because it was stated very clearly what the apology should be made for. That you aren't able to comprehend it, says better than anything about your position and its actual vs proclaimed relation to true peace.

You have not explained your position. You have not explained why Israel should apologize and what you expect it to achieve.

Here we go, the ultimate moment of truth: a coined statement as beginning and the end of all argument.

Guess what, Dobbin, because one will never know what precise meaning you put into it (out of a miriad of possibilities, e.g.:

- the taking of land and unilateral creation of state was entirely legitimate and friendly act, that by all civilized standards should have only inspired hugs and kisses, if it weren't for incurably hostile nature of aboriginals;

- it may have the right to exist in all or some - to its free discretion - of its "historic" lands - to its free interpretation;

- it has the right to respond to any resistance to its ongoing expansion with overwhelming and disproportionate force, and so on),

it is impossible to answer honestly and in good faith. Or are you really asking everybody to line up after you and shout big and loud "yes" to whatever you do (and don't)?

That answer sounds like no. You don't think Israel has a right to exist. That is the moment of truth we have been seeing you lead up to all this time.

See how freely you move, as a proclaimed broker of peace, between talking for Israel and talking for (presumed) peace? Is it because you've already identified that (presumed) peace with fulfillment of aspiration of your friendly side in the conflict?

But let's try to not shift the "focus" for an instant, can we? You admitted, some posts back, that Israel presence in the territories is a serious obstacle to peace. So what exactly have been done, by you, to show that it's not just another of many empty words that you said here? Or could it be that you didn't really mean it?

Understand, you absolutely can be a part of Israel's cheering band, it's an established and respectful position (us, the light of humanity against them, we all know who). What you can't do, is to pretend to be a part of the cheering band, and a great agent of peace all at the same time. So, pick one, or rather, admit the obvious, and this discussion will be over in a flash.

You are just deflecting. You just won't answer directly if Israel has a right to exist. By all account it is no.