Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[benny]

Don't be fool; the word "peace" is an ideological warfare's tool.

[myata]

Or it's a very practical notion of absense of war.

[Moonbox]

Benny is just spamming. He hasn't added an intelligent post longer than 1 sentence in this whole thread as far as I can tell.

[myata]

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

No, it's right there, in plain English, and I can do no more for you if you simply can't see it, it's outside of my domain of professional competence.

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.

Many things seem and sound to you that have never been said, or have no reference in reality. It must be clear by now that your position can only be held by efemerial subjective biases, assumptions and deductions based or justified by coin phrased references in you mind. It simply has no relation to facts or reality as it has nothing to do with real approaches to peace.

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

No, I answered, and you did not (on the coined phrase's meaning of the day). But as always, you're free to take you misinterpretation to any level of irrationality. I think it's pretty clear there can be no visible limit in that.

[jdobbin]

No, it's right there, in plain English, and I can do no more for you if you simply can't see it, it's outside of my domain of professional competence.

It isn't. It is as clear as mud and everyone else can see that too.

Many things seem and sound to you that have never been said, or have no reference in reality. It must be clear by now that your position can only be held by efemerial subjective biases, assumptions and deductions based or justified by coin phrased references in you mind. It simply has no relation to facts or reality as it has nothing to do with real approaches to peace.

You haven't said anything. In fact you refuse to say yes or no.

No, I answered, and you did not (on the coined phrase's meaning of the day). But as always, you're free to take you misinterpretation to any level of irrationality. I think it's pretty clear there can be no visible limit in that.

You did not answer. You are afraid to answer yes or no.

[Oleg Bach]

Israel is just a captive out post, used to creep out the surrounding Arab states and keep them hating..as long as you cause them to hate - they do not think clearly...hence they are weakened. I am sure the average Jew really does not like getting used...nor do they like being burned alive as scapgoats when things go bad..nor do they like to be blamed for using nukes - if that time ever comes - Because the reality will be - It will not be a jewish finger that presses the button - But it will be some power crazed anglo with a few secularist jewish advisors..that burn the place down.

[benny]

absense of war.

Naively written to say the least.

[Oleg Bach]

Naively written to say the least.

That's not naive - it's Orwellian in nature. Instead of saying peace - they leave the possibilty open to continued warfare when it suits their cause. To insert the word "war" - into a phrase representing the word PEACE..is very dishonest..so it's not naive - it's cunning.

[benny]

That's not naive - it's Orwellian in nature. Instead of saying peace - they leave the possibilty open to continued warfare when it suits their cause. To insert the word "war" - into a phrase representing the word PEACE..is very dishonest..so it's not naive - it's cunning.

"absence" is the careful spelling.

[Oleg Bach]

"absence" is the careful spelling.

"absent" is the careful spelling.

[benny]

Peace is not absence of war and conflicts because one can go to war (to his death) with a strange peace of mind.

Edited August 17, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

Peace is not absence of war and conflicts because one can go to war (to his death) with a strange peace of mind.

It a "strange" peace of mind- because you are boardering on enterning the realm of the dead - which is oblivion - oblivion equals death - not peace - You must be alive to experience peace..My older brother and I used to laugh at terms like " He's gone to a better place" or "rest in peace" - dellusionary to say the least. Even old testimonnial writings state - "the dead they sleep they know nothing" - Those that resign themselves to peace in death are fools.

[benny]

It a "strange" peace of mind- because you are boardering on enterning the realm of the dead - which is oblivion - oblivion equals death - not peace -

All to the contrary, voluntary death makes gods out of men.

[Oleg Bach]

All to the contrary, voluntary death makes gods out of men.

You're silly-- ever considered becoming a Mulah? You are more godly while you live - you see benny - I am with the immortals - with the living God - not the dead one.

[benny]

You're silly--

Watch out with your insults!

[Moonbox]

No, I answered, and you did not (on the coined phrase's meaning of the day). But as always, you're free to take you misinterpretation to any level of irrationality. I think it's pretty clear there can be no visible limit in that.

Go back to page 69 of this thread.

I asked you a few very clear, very practical questions that simply cannot be ignored in this discussion. I've asked them more than once in this thread.

Maybe you missed them....several times....but before you even TRY to criticize dobbin for misrepresentation maybe you could get your head out of your fairyland and come up with some REAL and practical answers to the questions we've been talking about.

[benny]

Go back to page 69 of this thread.

I asked you a few very clear, very practical questions that simply cannot be ignored in this discussion. I've asked them more than once in this thread.

I have answered to these questions in my post #1028.

[Moonbox]

I have answered to these questions in my post #1028.

No, you responded with another stupid one-liner. You haven't made a valid point as long as I've been following this thread.

[benny]

No, you responded with another stupid one-liner. You haven't made a valid point as long as I've been following this thread.

with a link rather

[myata]

1) Do you think that if Israel completely stops settlement encroachment and lets up on their security restrictions in Gaza and the West Bank that they will largely stop being attacked and their major and identifiable enemies will offer any sort of guarantees to stop the violence?

No it's been answered many times already, please do not follow the example of certain posters here and read the posts carefully, for the discussion to have any meaning. One wrong does not justify another in any way, other than maybe as a pretense and sought reason to continue the wrong. Two blockes hack each other one with a stick another - with a spade, this timeless argument could only be interpreted as "I can't stop hitting him, because he won't stop fighting me", and the fight will go on forever.

2) If no, then would you say that security restrictions and settlement buffers offer at least some measure of protection to Israeli centres of population? (I can explain why they do if you want to try and say no)

"Security buffers" settled by civilians? Interesting concept from the side that only recently benmoaned the use of human shields by its opposition. Strangle parallels will we start falling into, if we begin (or continue, in all practical sense) to seek justifications for obviously illegal and agressive practices.

3) If your answer to 1) is 'no', and your answer to 2) is 'yes', why would Israel have any desire/incentive to offer concessions to its enemies? Should they be giving away/back land, loosening security etc all as gestures of 'good faith'? Does that seem wise to you? Would you want to make 'gestures' of good faith that potentially could result in dead citizens?

We already know from the answer to #1, that once the justifications to continue illegal and agressive practices are sought, the hostilities would continue. It does not need the intermediate step because each side will provide you with an ample evidence of hostilities by the other side, and the rationale to continue its hostilities until the other side ceases theirs. What is telling is not so much intellectual incapacity to grasp this simple equation of human nature, but rather that implicit readiness to jump into the shoes of one side, and justify its acts from its postion. From all rational, objective view, we see two sides at perpetual hostilities with each other, following already discussed event, so let me ask you now, what rational, logical, factual reason do you see to treat any one particular side, as the better one in this conflict? Because all of your arguments above are centered around this implicit assertion, and of course, once you've already decided who and what is wrong, the rationalization will not be long to follow.

I'm not saying Israel is blameless. They've commited their own share of violence and aggression but the formation of the state of Israel CANNOT be the issue anymore. The past is the past and we can ONLY look now at things we can change. Israel is not going anywhere. There's no possibility that Israel is going to apologize for being there because all it does is validate its enemies. The suggestion itself is incredibly pompous and naive.

OK, they've committed violence and they aren't going to apologise for an obvious injustice, so what makes you believe that they are still the better side in the conflict? Let spend some time on that

"Hey umm...we're sorry our parents moved here 60 years ago. It was wrong. Really sorry. We cool now?"

You're trying to ridicule owning up and redeeming the injustices of the past? Well, that tells us all what you would have to contribute to any real agenda of peace, does it? Have it my way, or no way. Nothing original or new, really.

Your position is exactly the reason WHY peace isn't going to be achieved. If we're going to dwell on what happened 60 years ago and insist that the people currently living there did something 'wrong' by fleeing what was literally millenia of persecution to settle in the only homeland they EVER had, you cannot move forward.

Wow, it has not even been tried yet, and you're already blaming it for the failures of its alternative. Be careful how far you want to follow in Dobbin's steps, before loosing all contact with the reality.

[benny]

You're trying to ridicule owning up and redeeming the injustices of the past? Well, that tells us all what you would have to contribute to any real agenda of peace, does it? Have it my way, or no way. Nothing original or new, really.

Moonbox's solution for peace: collective amnesia forced upon others!

[myata]

Some seek solutions to problems, others - problems for already known and prepared solutions.

[benny]

Forgiveness or turning the other cheek can be a solution but only if we understand that it is the most violent one.

[Moonbox]

Two blockes hack each other one with a stick another - with a spade, this timeless argument could only be interpreted as "I can't stop hitting him, because he won't stop fighting me", and the fight will go on forever.

That's exactly how it is. The thing is that one side is largely content to live inside its borders (aside from tiny settlements here and there) and the other side is determined to wipe the other off the face of the planet.

"Security buffers" settled by civilians? Interesting concept from the side that only recently benmoaned the use of human shields by its opposition. Strangle parallels will we start falling into, if we begin (or continue, in all practical sense) to seek justifications for obviously illegal and agressive practices.

Think about it. If you have outlying settlements they can basically act as security outposts for you. It pushes friendly territory outwards and makes certain that any rocket attacks on big Jewish population centres have to be conducted further away than if the settlements were not there. The settlements themselves are not really in danger of rocket attacks. It would be a waste of rockets to fire salvos at villages and hamlets. It's not a human shield at all.

It does not need the intermediate step because each side will provide you with an ample evidence of hostilities by the other side, and the rationale to continue its hostilities until the other side ceases theirs.

The whole point, however, is that one side is not interested in an end to hostilities by their OWN ADMISSION until the other side no longer exists.

From all rational, objective view, we see two sides at perpetual hostilities with each other, following already discussed event, so let me ask you now, what rational, logical, factual reason do you see to treat any one particular side, as the better one in this conflict?

Easy. Of the two sides, Israel seems largely content to be left alone in peace within its own borders. Israel's aggression has been highly reactive rather than proactive (it has the means to vastly expand its territories but doesn't)

and of the two sides it is the one NOT calling for the overall death and destruction of the other side. It is NOT advocating the murder of innocents and it is NOT refusing to acknowledge the other side's right to exist. Finally, Israel, being the area/country in question, is a very real entity with a very real interest in the peace process. It's Israel's territory and people that get killed during attacks. Iran and the frothing clerics calling for the death of Israel have ZERO interest in the peace process. It's their overall GOAL to foment violence and instability in the area.

Because all of your arguments above are centered around this implicit assertion, and of course, once you've already decided who and what is wrong, the rationalization will not be long to follow.

My position is quite explicit. This, however, does not exclude the possibility that my rationalization is sound.

OK, they've committed violence and they aren't going to apologise for an obvious injustice, so what makes you believe that they are still the better side in the conflict? Let spend some time on that

I've already eplained why the side engaging at least in the dialogue of peace and the side restraining its aggression is on the better side of the conflict.

You're trying to ridicule owning up and redeeming the injustices of the past? Well, that tells us all what you would have to contribute to any real agenda of peace, does it? Have it my way, or no way. Nothing original or new, really.

I'm ridiculing how moronically naive your suggestion is. The world 60 years ago was very different than today. Palestine was divied up and handed to the Jews in the same sort of way conquerors and imperialists had been doing for thousands of years. That SPECICIC area has been conquered and reconquered more than anywhere in the world since the beginning of civilization. Back then, that sort of thing was commonplace. Today however, with a vastly more educated and engaged world at large, it would not be permitted.

It was an injustice in today's (and my own) moral sense. Having said that, it is not an injustice that can now be reversed. The bottom line is that there are 5-6 million Jews living in Israel right now that are simply not going anywhere. Most of these were born in Israel and have lived there all their lives.

Similarly, this is not an injustice that can be realistically redeemed. What sort of restitution do you think would be acceptable for an area of land populated by 7+ million people? Do you believe that the Israelis can buy their enemies off? At what price? What do you feel an apology would accomplish? The reason Israel was chosen as a homeland for the Jews was because they at least have ancient ancestral ties there which give them at at least SOME legitimacy for being there. When the sticking point for Israel's enemies being the elimination of Israel proper and a refusal to acknowledge its right to exist, it's idiotic to suggest Israeli born Jews apologize for their ancestors and apologize for existing, thus erasing any shred of legitimacy they feel they have.

Wow, it has not even been tried yet, and you're already blaming it for the failures of its alternative. Be careful how far you want to follow in Dobbin's steps, before loosing all contact with the reality.

My arguments here are based on about 3000 years of world history and a firm grip on reality, which is clearly evading you. You don't seem to understand how deep the fears, anger and hurts run over there. You're not the sage, level headed and neutral philosopher you're pretending to be. Your notion of 'fair dealings' and 'good faith' is incredibly twisted and based on 'injustices' approaching a century old.

Israel's enemies (their real ones, meaning not just the people of Lebanon/Palestine etc, but rather Iran, its allies, and the rabid clerics calling for Israel's destruction), are simply NOT interested in peace. If they were interested in peace, and there was something they actually felt would be WORTH an end to hostilities, it's reasonable to assume they would ask for it. They're not doing this.

With this in mind, your suggestion that Israel makes apologies and concessions for the land it currently occupies is brainless. All it does is weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies. You're saying that it would be a good idea for Israel to further endanger itself in 'gestures of good faith' with the knowledge that they'd be receiving nothing good in return. It's like dropping your gun to offer a candy bar to a starving lion in the hopes that it will leave you alone.

As far as we in the West are concerned, it's not like we're condoning Israeli aggression. Things like the Lebanese war and the Gaza offensive were criticized HEAVILY. The West also supplies large amounts of aid etc to Palestinians. The main problem the west has with Israel's enemies, however, is that they're operating in shadows and the only dialogue they're offering is one of violence.

[benny]

The world 60 years ago was very different than today. Palestine was divied up and handed to the Jews in the same sort of way conquerors and imperialists had been doing for thousands of years. That SPECICIC area has been conquered and reconquered more than anywhere in the world since the beginning of civilization. Back then, that sort of thing was commonplace. Today however, with a vastly more educated and engaged world at large, it would not be permitted.

The imperative of retroactive justice comes from owing this education to the cumulative effect of monotheism.