Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[jdobbin]

And building of settlements has happened since Day 1, is going on as we speak, and for all we know "will happen again this time" (and the next time and in forever time, till someone finally finds the courage to notice it and act). Yet, Liberal MPs have no issues visiting Isreal. Why so, Dobbin?

Because in the new Liberal ideology (which looks, smells and quacks every single bit like its Conservative counterpart), one kind of agression is better than another? Because its ideologically closer to what the new Liberals are?

Vote NDP next time if it suits you.

If Liberals tried to negotiate the "freedom of movement", I would believe you, as it stands thought, it's nothing more than a lame excuse to cover your obvious reluctance to act caused by clear ideological biases. BTW how much "freedom of movement" MPs have to go to the settlement cites on their all too common visits to Israel, official and otherwise?

There was plenty of negotiation for freedom of movement in Gaza. It just wasn't happening. Hamas controls everything there.

The West Bank didn't have restrictions on where the Parliamentarians went as even Libby Davies mentioned in her blog.

But they don't appear at all "concerned" that their ever friendly visits to Israel would be used as "propaganda tool" to excuse and justify continuing, ongoing and massive expansion of illegal settlemetns, from Day 1? Why such a difference of attitudes to acts that are both obvious and clear examples of agression? Because, in the new Liberal ideology, would one kind of agression be better, because it's perpetrated by the friendly side?

That question has been following you for a long time in this discussion, and you have yet to present a rational answer to it.

Exactly how were any of them used as propaganda tools for Israel?

High five, you did it again! (reading other individual's mind). Just demo it to a bunch of scientists, and you may yet get a Nobel. With which you could hire a bunch of writers and lawyers who would attempt something that's still eluding you, i.e. the proof that stinky deed committed by your buddy actually smells like poisies and rosies and should be cheered and praised (rather than condemned and acted upon, as per your own oldtime talk).

Your mind is pretty easy to read. It is one note: Israel.

[myata]

Vote NDP next time if it suits you.

I'll certainly vote the way I deem right, but many thanks for a thoughful advice.

There was plenty of negotiation for freedom of movement in Gaza. It just wasn't happening. Hamas controls everything there.

And that's just you saying it. And we should know (by now) the worth of your plain word, unconfirmed by any factual reference.

The West Bank didn't have restrictions on where the Parliamentarians went as even Libby Davies mentioned in her blog.

Does she mention anything about (attempted) inability to negotiate the freedom of movement in Gaza? Unfortunately we simply cannot find that out because the reference to the blog somehow went missing from your earlier post. And where did it go? Everybody's guess.

Exactly how were any of them used as propaganda tools for Israel?

Anywhere there's a picture of a smiling Liberal MP shaking hands with Israeli officials just as those massive expansion projects are rolling ahead full steam. It tells them load and clear that they are on the right track don't mind (really) those half hearted conditional reservations that have to be squeaked out once in while to maintain the claim to "peaceful" position.

Your mind is pretty easy to read. It is one note: Israel.

Congratulation Dobbin, you did it again. Now your chances to get that Nobel are really flying high.

My point though, as should be obvious to anybody caring to read and understand, is not "Israel", but the obvious unmistakable difference in attitudes you display towards acts of agressions perpetrated by the two sides. One deserves isolation and condemnation, another - friendly visits and gentle tap on the shoulder. Why is there such a stark difference of attitudes toward obvious acts of aggression?

Your new Liberal ideology should be able to enlighten us now, and so:

[jdobbin]

I'll certainly vote the way I deem right, but many thanks for a thoughful advice.

Your welcome.

And that's just you saying it. And we should know (by now) the worth of your plain word, unconfirmed by any factual reference.

Actually, it was what the media was reporting.

You couldn't move around at all as there was fighting in the streets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8203713.stm

Entire neighborhoods were sealed off and no one could move around unless escorted by Hamas.

Does she mention anything about (attempted) inability to negotiate the freedom of movement in Gaza? Unfortunately we simply cannot find that out because the reference to the blog somehow went missing from your earlier post. And where did it go? Everybody's guess.

Actually, she mentions the trouble getting approvals from Israel and Hamas. And then they were restricted to 24 hours there.

http://www.libbydavies.ca/blogs/libby-davies

The entire itinerary had to be approved by Hamas at the border because Hamas was fighting other Palestinians in the street.

Anywhere there's a picture of a smiling Liberal MP shaking hands with Israeli officials just as those massive expansion projects are rolling ahead full steam. It tells them load and clear that they are on the right track don't mind (really) those half hearted conditional reservations that have to be squeaked out once in while to maintain the claim to "peaceful" position.

What about those smiling NDP?

Congratulation Dobbin, you did it again. Now your chances to get that Nobel are really flying high.

My point though, as should be obvious to anybody caring to read and understand, is not "Israel", but the obvious unmistakable difference in attitudes you display towards acts of agressions perpetrated by the two sides. One deserves isolation and condemnation, another - friendly visits and gentle tap on the shoulder. Why is there such a stark difference of attitudes toward obvious acts of aggression?

Your new Liberal ideology should be able to enlighten us now, and so:

Your anger really is an amazing thing to watch. I see a lot of bloviating here but you really don't criticize Hamas. You explain them.

Edited August 27, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

Actually, it was what the media was reporting.

You couldn't move around at all as there was fighting in the streets.

The entire itinerary had to be approved by Hamas at the border because Hamas was fighting other Palestinians in the street.

So, your story changes on the fly. Would it mean that there were in fact some valid security considerations, that had to be interpreted by Liberals as "being used for propaganda"?

Actually, she mentions the trouble getting approvals from Israel and Hamas. And then they were restricted to 24 hours there.

Yet despite troubles on both sides, Liberals only seem to have problems visiting Gaza. Wouldn't that prove beyond all doubts that their choices are dictated ideologically, rather than "limitations of freedom of movement"? BTW are there any records of Liberals also visiting settlement sites, or they normally confine themselves to friendly itineraries devised by their hosts?

What about those smiling NDP?

If you prove that their position is one-sided, I would argue with it also. The problem with your position is that it only wants to see only one side of the conflict, and most certainly, its mirror image would be equally wrong. The path leading to peace is that of balance, justice and principle, and that is certainly not your path, we'll have to see about NDP.

Your anger really is an amazing thing to watch. I see a lot of bloviating here but you really don't criticize Hamas. You explain them.

Another pathetic attempt to distract from a clear question that you cannot answer, Dobbin? One more time, why agressive acts by both sides result in starkly different action by you? Diplomatic isolation and condemnation vs oaths of friendship and gentle taps on the shoulder. Could it be because your real position has nothing to do with peace, but with ideological allegiance, gang, that you try to disguise by any means available to you, as some convoluted peace process?

[jdobbin]

So, your story changes on the fly. Would it mean that there were in fact some valid security considerations, that had to be interpreted by Liberals as "being used for propaganda"?

Valid security reasons? The itinerary was set long before by Hamas. They control every aspect of Gaza and don't let people visit their rivals even when they aren't fighting them.

Yet despite troubles on both sides, Liberals only seem to have problems visiting Gaza. Wouldn't that prove beyond all doubts that their choices are dictated ideologically, rather than "limitations of freedom of movement"? BTW are there any records of Liberals also visiting settlement sites, or they normally confine themselves to friendly itineraries devised by their hosts?

The Liberals are not going to be led around by a terrorist organization. The NDP and the BQ lean towards believing that it is Israel that is to blame.

The Liberals had no problems meeting Palestinian organizations in the West Bank.

I just don't think you get what terrorist organization is.

If you prove that their position is one-sided, I would argue with it also. The problem with your position is that it only wants to see only one side of the conflict, and most certainly, its mirror image would be equally wrong. The path leading to peace is that of balance, justice and principle, and that is certainly not your path, we'll

have to see about NDP.

Don't think you have proved that the Liberal position is one sided. You say it is but I find no evidence of it.

The Liberal government was the first to provide aid to Gaza but it doesn't mean that it will deal with Hamas directly as they, like organization such as the IRA, are terrorist organizations.

Another pathetic attempt to distract from a clear question that you cannot answer, Dobbin? One more time, why agressive acts by both sides result in starkly different action by you? Diplomatic isolation and condemnation vs oaths of friendship and gentle taps on the shoulder. Could it be because your real position has nothing to do with peace, but with ideological allegiance, gang, that you try to disguise by any means available to you, as some convoluted peace process?

Another pathetic attempt to deflect from your support of Hamas.

[myata]

Valid security reasons? The itinerary was set long before by Hamas. They control every aspect of Gaza and don't let people visit their rivals even when they aren't fighting them.

It's got to be one of the two, "propaganda" or "fighting". Please decide which one (I can't do it for you, unlike yourself I'm missing that capacity to read minds), and post references appropriately. If your concern has been squarely with predefined itinerary, and you had a genuine intent to find out facts first hand, you'd show some evidence of attempting to make this mission work, otherwise it's just an excuse.

The Liberals are not going to be led around by a terrorist organization.

And therefore they cannot claim to have a first hand knowledge from all sides in the conflict, and be true agents for peace. Their concerns are obviously ideological and electoral.

The NDP and the BQ lean towards believing that it is Israel that is to blame.

And now you appear to be reading the beliefs of NDP and BQ?

The Liberals had no problems meeting Palestinian organizations in the West Bank.

It's not the meeting and talking, Dobbin, it's acting. And the act clearly shows where your allegiances lie. You never acted, nor would ever act against obvious acts of agression, which is the expansion of illegal settlements. Everything else is your peaceful smokescreen.

I just don't think you get what terrorist organization is.

I offered to have this discussion awhile back and you weren't interested, so now it's lame and pathetic for you to bring this stale argument back up again.

Don't think you have proved that the Liberal position is one sided. You say it is but I find no evidence of it.

Your memory does not serve you well. It is an established, proven statement now, and it is proven by the absolute, total lack of any real, practical act against acts of agression in the form of illegal annexation of land by your friendly side, that has been going on incessantly for decades, and that you, until very recently, refused to even notice.

The Liberal government was the first to provide aid to Gaza but it doesn't mean that it will deal with Hamas directly as they, like organization such as the IRA, are terrorist organizations.

That's their ideological preferences, obviously, that can be pulled out and put in as needed. They are also the democratically elected government of the land. The first governments of Israel had members of before then terrorist organisations, and few had qualms about that, but of course it's all different now. Why would it be all different? Because our folks can do no wrong, and vice versa, could it be?

Another pathetic attempt to deflect from your support of Hamas.

Noticed your righteous tirade against lying in another thread, Dobbin. Good stuff!

So, why the difference of attitudes toward clear acts of agression? No, you can't answer that, can you?

[jdobbin]

It's got to be one of the two, "propaganda" or "fighting". Please decide which one (I can't do it for you, unlike yourself I'm missing that capacity to read minds), and post references appropriately. If your concern has been squarely with predefined itinerary, and you had a genuine intent to find out facts first hand, you'd show some evidence of attempting to make this mission work, otherwise it's just an excuse.

The fighting only happened the day of the visit. The itinerary was set long before that. Movement was restricted to keep MPs from speaking to anyone opposed to Hamas which there are a few.

And therefore they cannot claim to have a first hand knowledge from all sides in the conflict, and be true agents for peace. Their concerns are obviously ideological and electoral.

How can you have first hand knowledge if your movements are controlled?

And now you appear to be reading the beliefs of NDP and BQ?

Just from Davies blog and comments made by the BQ in regards to their visit.

It's not the meeting and talking, Dobbin, it's acting. And the act clearly shows where your allegiances lie. You never acted, nor would ever act against obvious acts of agression, which is the expansion of illegal settlements. Everything else is your peaceful smokescreen.

Your hostility is to Israel. It has been since you started posting here.

I offered to have this discussion awhile back and you weren't interested, so now it's lame and pathetic for you to bring this stale argument back up again.

You have never answered the question before. You dodge it. You avoid it.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes or no?

Your memory does not serve you well. It is an established, proven statement now, and it is proven by the absolute, total lack of any real, practical act against acts of agression in the form of illegal annexation of land by your friendly side, that has been going on incessantly for decades, and that you, until very recently, refused to even notice.

Which for you means sanctions and isolation.

That's their ideological preferences, obviously, that can be pulled out and put in as needed. They are also the democratically elected government of the land. The first governments of Israel had members of before then terrorist organisations, and few had qualms about that, but of course it's all different now. Why would it be all different? Because our folks can do no wrong, and vice versa, could it be?

Canada has been there for aid and recognition for both sides. Practical action.

Noticed your righteous tirade against lying in another thread, Dobbin. Good stuff!

So, why the difference of attitudes toward clear acts of agression? No, you can't answer that, can you?

We have gone over this many times before. You just ignore them.

You can never admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

[Moonbox]

And therefore they cannot claim to have a first hand knowledge from all sides in the conflict, and be true agents for peace. Their concerns are obviously ideological and electoral.

The point is that it's pretty hard to get a clear and fair perspective from the Gazan side when all movement, speech and actions are controlled by Hamas.

It's not the meeting and talking, Dobbin, it's acting. And the act clearly shows where your allegiances lie. You never acted, nor would ever act against obvious acts of agression, which is the expansion of illegal settlements. Everything else is your peaceful smokescreen.

Talking and meeting is a necessary first step in any peace process. You can't expect 'actions' or 'concessions' without talk. 'Talk' obviously needs to eventually be backed by action but if one side refuses to enter even basic dialogue all your natterings about 'action' and 'aggression' start to look pretty inane.

Your memory does not serve you well. It is an established, proven statement now, and it is proven by the absolute, total lack of any real, practical act against acts of agression in the form of illegal annexation of land by your friendly side, that has been going on incessantly for decades, and that you, until very recently, refused to even notice.

The 'illegal annexation' is a pretty shaky claim at best. I won't get into it again unless we need to, but why should it matter what the international community established as the 'legal' borders when these were never accepted by the Arab side in the first place? The Arab side is refusing to acknowledge the borders outright on the one hand, but then crying about illegal settlements on the other. You can't refuse the borders but then also demand the other side to abide by them.

[jdobbin]

Talking and meeting is a necessary first step in any peace process. You can't expect 'actions' or 'concessions' without talk. 'Talk' obviously needs to eventually be backed by action but if one side refuses to enter even basic dialogue all your natterings about 'action' and 'aggression' start to look pretty inane.

And Hamas refuses to talk with Israel. They refuse people going into Gaza talking to those opposed to Hamas.

Anyone being led around by Hamas has no freedom to move around or see for themselves what is happening.

[Bonam]

The Arab side is refusing to acknowledge the borders outright on the one hand, but then crying about illegal settlements on the other. You can't refuse the borders but then also demand the other side to abide by them.

Well said. I haven't seen it put quite so concisely and clearly before.

[myata]

The fighting only happened the day of the visit. The itinerary was set long before that. Movement was restricted to keep MPs from speaking to anyone opposed to Hamas which there are a few.

How can you have first hand knowledge if your movements are controlled?

I thought your principal objection was "propaganda by Hamas"? If it was the genuine concern for the efficiency of the mission, then there would be some evidence of attempts to make it work, e.g by insisting on visiting certain sites (from the blog, I don't see any restriction on who to talk with, or particulars of itinerary). However your party has summarily refused the opportunity to find out facts for themselves, and therefore a credible position as an agent of peace. Just like your only ally in this decision, Harper's Conservatives. And I don't think it to be a coincidence.

Just from Davies blog and comments made by the BQ in regards to their visit.

I noticed a lot of facts, and one MP does not speak for the party, so how should we call this yet another little misinterpretation?

Your hostility is to Israel. It has been since you started posting here.

Pointing out obvious facts, "hostility"? Seeing only what you want to see, peace? Truth is lie? War is peace?

Way to go. Now you're fully conditioned to vote the new Liberals!

You have never answered the question before. You dodge it. You avoid it.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes or no?

Dobbin, we had an opportunity to discuss this question at length, but you weren't interested. You only want to use coined stamped labels to support your ideological position that has nothing to do with deescalation of hostilities and genuine agenda of peace.

Which for you means sanctions and isolation.

I really admire that comment you made about lying in another thread.

Canada has been there for aid and recognition for both sides. Practical action.

Not when it refused to recognise democratically elected government. Nor when it declared diplomatic blocade of it. But certainly did nothing about onging expansion of settlements, since Day 1 and for decades. That disbalance is very obvious, however hard you try to pretend it does not exist.

We have gone over this many times before. You just ignore them.

Really? I can't recall ever hearing those, so could you be so kind as to remind me (and everybody)?

To MB:

We already discussed the "talking" point at some length. Talking while continuing acts of hostility behind partners' back is hardly meaningful. There's been no real peace dialogue yet, and both sides are responsible that it did not happen. Until we find courage to admit it, and insist on cessation of all hostilities and by all sides, the problem won't be wished away. and

And on the second point, by all international standards these settlements, now to the extent of some 10% of Israels' population, are fully and unquestionnably illegal. There's also little doubt that continuiation of this policy that's been in place since Day 1, is an act of hostility and agression. Why do we (i.e. Canada's two largest parties) continue to support the side that is continuously and methodically involved in perpetration of acts of agression, and what does it do to our proclaimed goal of achieving peace, are the questions I'd like to raise here.

[jdobbin]

I thought your principal objection was "propaganda by Hamas"? If it was the genuine concern for the efficiency of the mission, then there would be some evidence of attempts to make it work, e.g by insisting on visiting certain sites (from the blog, I don't see any restriction on who to talk with, or particulars of itinerary). However your party has summarily refused the opportunity to find out facts for themselves, and therefore a credible position as an agent of peace. Just like your only ally in this decision, Harper's Conservatives. And I don't think it to be a coincidence.

You don't get it. Hamas escorted the mission throughout. There was no unescorted or unapproved visits.

I noticed a lot of facts, and one MP does not speak for the party, so how should we call this yet another little misinterpretation?

Since she is representing her party on this matter, she does speak for her party.

Pointing out obvious facts, "hostility"? Seeing only what you want to see, peace? Truth is lie? War is peace?

Way to go. Now you're fully conditioned to vote the new Liberals!

Focusing solely on Israel is where your hostility is revealed.

Dobbin, we had an opportunity to discuss this question at length, but you weren't interested. You only want to use coined stamped labels to support your ideological position that has nothing to do with deescalation of hostilities and genuine agenda of peace.

You have never answered the question. I have asked many times. Yes or no. Simple. Let's hear it.

I really admire that comment you made about lying in another thread.

So you never said anything about sanctions and isolation? You certainly talked about sanctions. Aren't they concrete enough for you? You have talked about diplomatic action? You don't want anymore talk? What do you want? War? Or something passive such as diplomatic withdrawal?

Not when it refused to recognise democratically elected government. Nor when it declared diplomatic blocade of it. But certainly did nothing about onging expansion of settlements, since Day 1 and for decades. That disbalance is very obvious, however hard you try to pretend it does not exist.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Canada continues to the aid the people.

Really? I can't recall ever hearing those, so could you be so kind as to remind me (and everybody)?

Because Israel comes to the table and Hamas does not.

[jbg]

I've said this many times. Whoever has the Jewish vote wins the election. The Jews have a lot of power in business and media and know a lot of powerful people who they can influence.

I'm speaking of the elite Jews not the type my grandparents were.

Then why did Harper win the last two elections?

[myata]

You don't get it. Hamas escorted the mission throughout. There was no unescorted or unapproved visits.

Yet they seem to be able to speak to many people and see many sites. How is it not a first hand information? For your party now though, ideological optics are more important than finding out the truth first hand.

Since she is representing her party on this matter, she does speak for her party.

No Dobbin, you are mistaken here, anybody can write a blog without implication for a wider group of people they associate with. It's called "freedom of thought", thing becoming increasingly rare in the Harper's party, and by extension, the new Liberal, built on its model. Without doubt, the principal cause of your confusion.

Focusing solely on Israel is where your hostility is revealed.

You comment about lying in that other thread was really well spoken.

You have never answered the question. I have asked many times. Yes or no. Simple. Let's hear it.

I tried to explain awhile back that the question isn't as simple as you think, but you weren't interested maybe because ideological stamps to whitewash the dirty business of your friendly party is all you want to see and hear.

So you never said anything about sanctions and isolation? You certainly talked about sanctions. Aren't they concrete enough for you? You have talked about diplomatic action? You don't want anymore talk? What do you want? War? Or something passive such as diplomatic withdrawal?

Of course I did. As an option in the array of possible measures to ensure balanced and even handed approach, with a goal to achieve cessation of all hostilities, not only those you care to notice. I just don't like your creative interpretations and simplifications.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Canada continues to the aid the people.

I'm waiting (maybe without hope) for you to get tired of popping up that obvious ruse. The question was, why you did nothing about obviously hostile and agressive behavior of your friendly party, which certainly worked long ways to enhance popularity of extreme groups like the same Hamas.

Because Israel comes to the table and Hamas does not.

Oh that one, indeed. But haven't we established that "table" that results in one side (your friendly side btw) dealing behind the back of their partner (with you entirely unconcerned) has nothing to do with genuine peace negotiations?

Negotiations require some level of trust. Trust cannot exist while major hostilities are going on. Massive annexation of land is an act of hostility and agression.

Therefore, the "table" you keep citing is not the real peace table. The sides continue to exchange acts of agression. And you excuse, apologise and by extension, and absolute inaction, tacitly support the acts of agression perpetrated even as we speak, by your friendly side.

[jdobbin]

Yet they seem to be able to speak to many people and see many sites. How is it not a first hand information? For your party now though, ideological optics are more important than finding out the truth first hand.

Maybe first knowledge about some in Hamas but not actually with a variety of people not approved by them.

It like a political visit to North Korea. We just can't expect to see a true first hand account of the place. In the meantime, the visit puffs up the leader.

No Dobbin, you are mistaken here, anybody can write a blog without implication for a wider group of people they associate with. It's called "freedom of thought", thing becoming increasingly rare in the Harper's party, and by extension, the new Liberal, built on its model. Without doubt, the principal cause of your confusion.

She is the spokesman for the NDP on this issue. Her comments in the blog are her reports in the capacity of doing her job and it is exactly what she reports back to Parliament. I think that is where you confusion is.

You comment about lying in that other thread was really well spoken.

Exactly, and that is why I am pointing out the truth in your complete hostility towards Israel.

I tried to explain awhile back that the question isn't as simple as you think, but you weren't interested maybe because ideological stamps to whitewash the dirty business of your friendly party is all you want to see and hear.

And I said you expect simple answers from others and won't give them yourself. If you can't answer whether they are a terrorist organization, it is probably because you are unable to say that about anyone without qualification.

Of course I did. As an option in the array of possible measures to ensure balanced and even handed approach, with a goal to achieve cessation of all hostilities, not only those you care to notice. I just don't like your creative interpretations and simplifications.

Unilateralism is what I said. It means Canada setting the standard over someone else's conflict.

It is what used to happen in colonial times.

You seemed confident that Canada's sanctions would be effective and that we would know exactly what steps should take place and what we should reward and what we should punish.

I'm waiting (maybe without hope) for you to get tired of popping up that obvious ruse. The question was, why you did nothing about obviously hostile and agressive behavior of your friendly party, which certainly worked long ways to enhance popularity of extreme groups like the same Hamas.

Because Israel negotiates. Hamas doesn't.

Your position is that this is Israel's fault.

Oh that one, indeed. But haven't we established that "table" that results in one side (your friendly side btw) dealing behind the back of their partner (with you entirely unconcerned) has nothing to do with genuine peace negotiations?

Negotiations require some level of trust. Trust cannot exist while major hostilities are going on. Massive annexation of land is an act of hostility and agression.

Therefore, the "table" you keep citing is not the real peace table. The sides continue to exchange acts of agression. And you excuse, apologise and by extension, and absolute inaction, tacitly support the acts of agression perpetrated even as we speak, by your friendly side.

Yes, we know your idea of massive annexation is the entire state of Israel. Once Israelis leave, they can have peace.

[Mr.Canada]

Then why did Harper win the last two elections?

Quite obvious Patches. He must have had said "Jewish" support.

[Moonbox]

Oh that one, indeed. But haven't we established that "table" that results in one side (your friendly side btw) dealing behind the back of their partner (with you entirely unconcerned) has nothing to do with genuine peace negotiations?

Negotiations require some level of trust. Trust cannot exist while major hostilities are going on. Massive annexation of land is an act of hostility and agression.

Therefore, the "table" you keep citing is not the real peace table. The sides continue to exchange acts of agression. And you excuse, apologise and by extension, and absolute inaction, tacitly support the acts of agression perpetrated even as we speak, by your friendly side.

Your concept of the whole area is so twisted it's not even funny. You're talking about annexation of lands as illegal but first, the territory was taken in a conflict of self-defence, there is no sovereign authority to revert the territory to, and nobody is forcing the Jews to move there nor are they forcing the Arab people there out. The legal 'borders' that we speak of were never recognized by the Arabs in the area and they continue to refuse to recognize them. It's stupid BEYOND my understanding for the Arabs to cry foul over Israeli settlers building homes on the other side of the 'border' that the Arabs refused to recognize in the first place.

As far as the 'table' is concerned you're similarly delusioned. You've somehow decided on behalf of the whole area that massive unilateral concessions from the Israeli side are somehow going to end the violence when the other side is CLEARLY stating that it will NOT.

In any realistic, intelligent and rational world, a desire to at least TALK is the FOUNDATION of a peace process/negotiation. By refusing to even TALK about peace the other side is making it EXPLICITLY clear that they do not have any intention or desire for peace and thus they are unwilling to act on and commit to peace. Talk is easier than action and if the mere thought of peaceful dialogue revolts the other side, only an idiot would suggest they're ready for it.

The absolute BOTTOM LINE on the situation is that Israelis are living in the area and nobody has the ability to remove them. They're not willing to move. If they wanted to they could vastly expand their territory. If Israel's enemies want peace they're going to have to at least accept this very stark reality and show a willingness to talk.

Myata you can fuss and cry all you want about the make-believe 'borders' that a bunch of bureaucrats in Europe ordained decades ago and that nobody in the area recognized. The reality, however, is that this is just something convenient Hamas and people like yourself use to justify a commitment of violence made decades ago against Israel. IF IF IF Israel's enemies were to recognize Israel's right to exist if, say, they withdrew from the West Bank and if they were to commit to peace, maybe THEN this would be a worthwhile argument. The notion hasn't even come up, however.

It's childish, stupid, and incredibly biased to suggest that Israel should remove hundreds of thousands of Israelis from settlements they freely chose to move to simply on the basis that people like yourself are offended by the notion. Israel has nothing to expect to gain from doing so, unless its enemies were to ACTUALLY enter a meaningful dialogue of peace.

[myata]

Maybe first knowledge about some in Hamas but not actually with a variety of people not approved by them.

It like a political visit to North Korea. We just can't expect to see a true first hand account of the place. In the meantime, the visit puffs up the leader.

Everybody interviewed was a supporter of Hamas? Are you just saying that, or have some evidence?

You can certainly see more than from you chair here, and if you deliberately limit your vision, it also limits your chances of making informed decisions. But informed decisions is not what the current Liberal position is about, is it?

She is the spokesman for the NDP on this issue. Her comments in the blog are her reports in the capacity of doing her job and it is exactly what she reports back to Parliament. I think that is where you confusion is.

She is a thinking individual entitled to present her opinion anywhere she deems necessary. That does not make her blog the official posion of the party. The possibily that one can be a member of a party, even an official, and still have an independent opinion obviously escapes you. Probably for already pointed reason.

Exactly, and that is why I am pointing out the truth in your complete hostility towards Israel.

If merely pointing obvious facts is "hostility", than your truth is a lie, Dobbin, and your peace is war, obviously.

And I said you expect simple answers from others and won't give them yourself. If you can't answer whether they are a terrorist organization, it is probably because you are unable to say that about anyone without qualification.

You may have said that, but it in no way means that that is what I expect. I expect acts consistent with pronouncements and declared principles. It may not be easy, but it's the only way to real peace.

Unilateralism is what I said. It means Canada setting the standard over someone else's conflict.

It is what used to happen in colonial times.

Ha-ha, you're really funny here. So it's perfectly OK (nothing "colonial", really!) to vote to give a part of somebody land to someone else, but a big fat No-No to have one's own policy based on principle and justice, is it? Just because we cannot be "colonial", we simply have to accept your one sided, hypocritical approach that has nothing to do with peace for the obvious reason that it's all about catering to the interests of your friendly party?

You seemed confident that Canada's sanctions would be effective and that we would know exactly what steps should take place and what we should reward and what we should punish.

Long before such sanctions had to be put in place (if ever), we would have already created trust and respect with our balanced and principled position, not to mention the benefit of deescalating all hostilities by, correct, exposing them regardless of what side is involved.

Because Israel negotiates. Hamas doesn't. Your position is that this is Israel's fault.

I already explained that it's just a creative wording. There's no meaning in "negotiating" while continuing acts of hostility and agression. As a friend, and self declared agent of peace it would be your responsibility to bring it to the attention of your friendly party, and make them understand that you mean it. The responsibility that was obviosly, and miserably, failed.

Yes, we know your idea of massive annexation is the entire state of Israel. Once Israelis leave, they can have peace.

I already said that addressing historical roots of the conflict wouldn't really belong in this discussion, and sorry I can't get what you're trying to gain by pulling it in, over and again? Even if you'd deny that the way in which the state has been established was a major factor in creating the conflict (I wouldn't be surprised one bit, as there's been multiple instances of your denying facts in this very thread), we'll have to address somewhere else.

[jdobbin]

Everybody interviewed was a supporter of Hamas? Are you just saying that, or have some evidence?

You can certainly see more than from you chair here, and if you deliberately limit your vision, it also limits your chances of making informed decisions. But informed decisions is not what the current Liberal position is about, is it?

I'm saying everyone there knew that any spoken opposition against Hamas would pay dearly as witnessed by attacks Hamas engaged in all of August.

She is a thinking individual entitled to present her opinion anywhere she deems necessary. That does not make her blog the official posion of the party. The possibily that one can be a member of a party, even an official, and still have an independent opinion obviously escapes you. Probably for already pointed reason.

She is the spokesman for the party on the issue. This wasn't a private trip to the region. You keep forgetting that.

If merely pointing obvious facts is "hostility", than your truth is a lie, Dobbin, and your peace is war, obviously.

Your facts are what is in question.

You may have said that, but it in no way means that that is what I expect. I expect acts consistent with pronouncements and declared principles. It may not be easy, but it's the only way to real peace.

You end up not saying anything. Is Hamas a terrorist organization? And don't say it is complicated or that you have explained it. You never have.

Ha-ha, you're really funny here. So it's perfectly OK (nothing "colonial", really!) to vote to give a part of somebody land to someone else, but a big fat No-No to have one's own policy based on principle and justice, is it? Just because we cannot be "colonial", we simply have to accept your one sided, hypocritical approach that has nothing to do with peace for the obvious reason that it's all about catering to the interests of your friendly party?

Answer the question: Do you want Canada to make unilateral decisions on what they decide the issues are in the region?

Long before such sanctions had to be put in place (if ever), we would have already created trust and respect with our balanced and principled position, not to mention the benefit of deescalating all hostilities by, correct, exposing them regardless of what side is involved.

I believe that is what we have done. You say that isn't enough though. You want action.

And by the way, both sides have said they trust Canada

I already explained that it's just a creative wording. There's no meaning in "negotiating" while continuing acts of hostility and agression. As a friend, and self declared agent of peace it would be your responsibility to bring it to the attention of your friendly party, and make them understand that you mean it. The responsibility that was obviosly, and miserably, failed.

That is baloney and you know it. You are saying no talks unless Israelis leave the region?

I already said that addressing historical roots of the conflict wouldn't really belong in this discussion, and sorry I can't get what you're trying to gain by pulling it in, over and again? Even if you'd deny that the way in which the state has been established was a major factor in creating the conflict (I wouldn't be surprised one bit, as there's been multiple instances of your denying facts in this very thread), we'll have to address somewhere else.

Your avoidance of the very existence of Israel is troubling, especially if you believe it is aggression and that there can be no negotiation as long as it is there.

[myata]

I'm saying everyone there knew that any spoken opposition against Hamas would pay dearly as witnessed by attacks Hamas engaged in all of August.

I thought that fighting episode was entirely unrelated to the visit of parliamentarians (against Islamic church or something, ally of Al Quaeda Guardian: Hamas destroys Al Quaeda group in Gaza), so it may be another creative "extension" on your part. However I couldn't bother to get involved in yet another case of separating truths from another interpretations.

She is the spokesman for the party on the issue. This wasn't a private trip to the region. You keep forgetting that.

No, it still does not make her private blog the official statement by the party, unless it explicitly says so. I know, hard to imagine, when one's every word (and maybe even thought) has to be dictated by the supreme leader.

Your facts are what is in question.

Yes that's your safe fallback position (if you can make your words match the reality, question the reality) we already know it all too well.

You end up not saying anything. Is Hamas a terrorist organization? And don't say it is complicated or that you have explained it. You never have.

Hamas was involved in agressive and terrorist activities before its election in government, just as many Israeli leaders were before establishment of their state. This situation had to be reevaluated following their democratic election. This is of course not the way of ideology based policies, like yours would be a very good example. In there, principles only stretch as far as they serve their purpose, and can be discarded on demand if they get in the way. Hence, "bad" democracies, and good ones, "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" and so on.

Answer the question: Do you want Canada to make unilateral decisions on what they decide the issues are in the region?

Of course not, and I can't understand where you're getting all these ideas? I only want Canada to apply its own principles (peace and justice) to its own policies, period. Now, has it been made clear enough, so that we can avoid any possibility of confusions or misinterpretations in the future?

I believe that is what we have done. You say that isn't enough though. You want action.

That summarises it very nicely, thank you for honesty. Indeed, your position has been all, 100% pure talk.

That is baloney and you know it. You are saying no talks unless Israelis leave the region?

That was such an apt comment, you know the one about lying, in that other thread.

Your avoidance of the very existence of Israel is troubling, especially if you believe it is aggression and that there can be no negotiation as long as it is there.

Indeed it was.

[jdobbin]

I thought that fighting episode was entirely unrelated to the visit of parliamentarians (against Islamic church or something, ally of Al Quaeda Guardian: Hamas destroys Al Quaeda group in Gaza), so it may be another creative "extension" on your part. However I couldn't bother to get involved in yet another case of separating truths from another interpretations.

There was no fighting at the time the trip was arranged and yet Hamas controlled the time in the territory and where they went.

I don't believe even the NDP wished to talk to al Qaeda but then you never know. For you, they are probably just another group that should be engaged even if they are likely to kill you.

There others politically though who could have been spoken to but not so easy to speak freely when Hamas handlers are around.

No, it still does not make her private blog the official statement by the party, unless it explicitly says so. I know, hard to imagine, when one's every word (and maybe even thought) has to be dictated by the supreme leader.

She isn't the leader. She is spokesman for the party on the issue of Gaza though. This is not her private blog. It is her report as a Member of Parliament for the NDP.

Yes that's your safe fallback position (if you can make your words match the reality, question the reality) we already know it all too well.

It is 100% reality. You don't answer direct questions on the subject of Hamas and terrorism from me or anyone else that has asked here. Why is that?

Hamas was involved in agressive and terrorist activities before its election in government, just as many Israeli leaders were before establishment of their state. This situation had to be reevaluated following their democratic election. This is of course not the way of ideology based policies, like yours would be a very good example. In there, principles only stretch as far as they serve their purpose, and can be discarded on demand if they get in the way. Hence, "bad" democracies, and good ones, "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" and so on.

So terrorism in your view is trumped by getting elected? So your view before the election was that were terrorists and we don't engage with terrorists but as soon as they were elected, we deal with them?

Um, no. That isn't how we dealt with the IRA. It isn't how the world dealt with Israeli terrorists either.

Of course not, and I can't understand where you're getting all these ideas? I only want Canada to apply its own principles (peace and justice) to its own policies, period. Now, has it been made clear enough, so that we can avoid any possibility of confusions or misinterpretations in the future?

Canada's principles pushed on to other countries? And how do we decide all this? You believe Israel as a country is a form of aggression. You have said they should apologize but then complain that action needs to take place. Well, we know what action that Hamas wants: The removal of Israelis from the land.

So: Are you going to impose that on Palestinians? Isn't that a form of aggression?

There are so many holes in your thinking that you can drive a truck through them.

That summarises it very nicely, thank you for honesty. Indeed, your position has been all, 100% pure talk.

Which is why I say you want Canada to act unilaterally and set the terms ourselves. I call that colonialism.

That was such an apt comment, you know the one about lying, in that other thread.

Well, answer the question: Do you believe Israelis have to leave the region for their top be peace? Is their mere presence a form of aggression?

Indeed it was.

And still is, according to your words.

[myata]

There was no fighting at the time the trip was arranged and yet Hamas controlled the time in the territory and where they went.

There others politically though who could have been spoken to but not so easy to speak freely when Hamas handlers are around.

She isn't the leader. She is spokesman for the party on the issue of Gaza though. This is not her private blog. It is her report as a Member of Parliament for the NDP.

There's nothing on that site that states it being anything but a blog of an individual who also happens to be an MP. Are you making things up again, Dobbin?

It is 100% reality. You don't answer direct questions on the subject of Hamas and terrorism from me or anyone else that has asked here. Why is that?

The expansion of settlements is a fact. Attacks by Hamas are also a fact. "Terrorism" is not a fact, it's a label, brand name.

You called me "hostile" to Israel because I'm drawing attention to ongoing expansion of settlements. Then you questioned whether it's a fact. And now, of course, you're confusing and distracting.

So terrorism in your view is trumped by getting elected? So your view before the election was that were terrorists and we don't engage with terrorists but as soon as they were elected, we deal with them?

Um, no. That isn't how we dealt with the IRA. It isn't how the world dealt with Israeli terrorists either.

Certainly, things change, do they? They changed in Israel itself, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, anywhere people start actively looking for solutions for real peace, as opposed to ideological cliches to continue with their ideologically predetermined policies.

Canada's principles pushed on to other countries? And how do we decide all this?

Not on other countries, but its own policies with respect to those countries. We can do that no? Unless, in your new Liberal view we can only confine ourselves to proudly following in another's tracks? Wherever they would lead us?

You believe Israel as a country is a form of aggression.

Reading my mind for me, again, Dobbin? Let me tell you that I really like your comment, the other one, about lying.

You have said they should apologize but then complain that action needs to take place. Well, we know what action that Hamas wants: The removal of Israelis from the land.

So: Are you going to impose that on Palestinians? Isn't that a form of aggression?

There are so many holes in your thinking that you can drive a truck through them.

I'm afraid that only you can interpret that kind of convoluted text, it's entirely your creation, I've nothing to do with it, and I cannot comment other than by advising to seek some form of assistence.

Which is why I say you want Canada to act unilaterally and set the terms ourselves. I call that colonialism.

Canada exercising its principles in its own policies, "colonialism"? Wow! I hope it's your own opinion and Ignatieff isn't going to spill anything of the sort in public, it might very well be the end of his political career.

Well, answer the question: Do you believe Israelis have to leave the region for their top be peace? Is their mere presence a form of aggression?

Why would I want to answer anything so (opposite to smart) and bizzare as that?

And still is, according to your words.

No, it's only your limitless imagination.

[Moonbox]

Myata like I said on page 78:

How can the settlements be 'illegal' when Israel's neighbours themselves are refusing to recognise the borders the settlements are 'apparently' crossing? Are we saying that what the lines a bunch of European bureaucrats ordained on paper more important than the actual borders people in the area acknowledge?

You can't refuse the border and then cry foul when the other side crosses it. Either you're ignoring this point when I write it or you're just trying to avoid it.

You similarly can't demand Israel make real and tangible concessions based on this locally unrecognized 'legality' when the other side is refusing even to TALK. Talk is cheaper than action and it's idiotic to demand action when the other side is refusing even words.

You've got such a twisted and childish view on things here I'm face palming at almost every sentence you write.

[jdobbin]

There's nothing on that site that states it being anything but a blog of an individual who also happens to be an MP. Are you making things up again, Dobbin?

It is her MP website.

http://www.libbydavies.ca/

She did not travel to the Middle east as an individual. Are you making things up? That all she is writing is a private account of a private trip?

The expansion of settlements is a fact.

The departure from land and removal of settlers is also a fact.

Attacks by Hamas are also a fact. "Terrorism" is not a fact, it's a label, brand name.

It factually describes the type of attack made.

You called me "hostile" to Israel because I'm drawing attention to ongoing expansion of settlements. Then you questioned whether it's a fact. And now, of course, you're confusing and distracting.

Your focus in this forum has been Israel. You are hostile to the state of Israel even existing. Is that not a fact?

Certainly, things change, do they? They changed in Israel itself, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, anywhere people start actively looking for solutions for real peace, as opposed to ideological cliches to continue with their ideologically predetermined policies.

We don't deal with people who have not denounced terrorism. Hamas does not negotiate. They have rejected negotiating and used attacks to push Israelis out of the Middle East.

Not on other countries, but its own policies with respect to those countries. We can do that no? Unless, in your new Liberal view we can only confine ourselves to proudly following in another's tracks? Wherever they would lead us?

We support the two sides coming to their own solutions. You keep indicating that we will judge those solutions unilaterally.

Reading my mind for me, again, Dobbin? Let me tell you that I really like your comment, the other one, about lying.

You have said Israel should apologize for existing because the state is a form of aggression. Or did you not say that.

I'm afraid that only you can interpret that kind of convoluted text, it's entirely your creation, I've nothing to do with it, and I cannot comment other than by advising to seek some form of assistence.

Is Israel as a state a form of aggression? Yes or no? Stop dodging.

Canada exercising its principles in its own policies, "colonialism"? Wow! I hope it's your own opinion and Ignatieff isn't going to spill anything of the sort in public, it might very well be the end of his political career.

Imposing Canadian solutions on others is colonialism.

What do you call your unilateral approach? You are so vague about it.

Given your view that Israel should face Canada's principles, what do you have in mind? Sanctions? And if those don't work? Isolation? And if that doesn't work? Military options?

Come on. Don't be shy.

Why would I want to answer anything so (opposite to smart) and bizzare as that?

Why? Because if you can't even acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist as a state, you are taking sides.

No, it's only your limitless imagination.

It is vagueness that is the complete dodge. Trying to find out what you think of Israel existing as a state should be a simple answer.

[jbg]

Quite obvious Patches. He must have had said "Jewish" support.

How many predominantly Jewish ridings did the CPC capture in either election? Or for that matter how many did the PCPC capture other than during the Mulroney virtual sweep elections?