Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[myata]

It is her MP website.

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?

Of course, Liberal MPs cannot have their own opinions and that's no doubt why you can't imagine the possibility of an individual, even MP, speaking for themselves.

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

Why repeat stale arguments, Dobbin? We already found out that for every moved settler in that project, three new ones were added. That is how your convoluted measure of "sucess" catering entirely to the interests of your friendly party.

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

You really can make excellent comments about lies, it all depends on context, I guess. But it does sound like your arguments are wearing thin, as they were for the major part of this discussion. Really, you can't argue to be an agent of peace, in all honesty, and standy by as a major form agression is being perpetrated, without as much as noticing it? That is a fact, and short of burying it into ground, just like other facts you'd rather not existed, there's very little you can do to counter it.

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.

But you're OK dealing with people who are involved in the form of agression, correct? That is obviously not a position of a peace agent. That is all I'm interested in, in this discussion. Ideological branding, argumentations created to support predefined position (by ideology, of course), selective visions, and such - are entirely yours.

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

Not really, at least not in the act. There's military, financial and diplomatic assistance flowing disproportionally to one side. There're oath of eternal friendship and allegiance. All despite the fact it's been involved in major acts of agression. And of course, there're sanctions, accusations and isolation applied selectively on the other side. I think it's yet another case when your vision is drastically different from what's going on in reality.

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

Poor memory, I see. How about you try to figure out yourself what I said and did not. It's all here.

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

I can't comment on every bizzare idea you come up with.

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.

Dobbin, I said it already so many times in this very thread, but I understand that being stuck in the corner with nothing to say to support your failing position, you really have little choice but to pretend that nothing happened ad infinitum, in the hope that the opponent would give.

1. State clearly and officially the principles of deescalation. Maintain that Canada's position toward the parties involved will be in line with their following the agenda of deescalation

2. Call attention to acts of agression, regardless which side involved.

3. Official diplomatic reaction to acts of agression.

4. Economic response to acts of agression (against governments and / or private interests alike)

5. Diplomatic isolation in case of severe and persistent violations of agenda of deescalation.

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

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.

No, I just can't and won't comment on every bizzare statement you come up with, until you demonstrate that it has some relation to the topic being discussed.

[jdobbin]

Of course, Liberal MPs cannot have their own opinions and that's no doubt why you can't imagine the possibility of an individual, even MP, speaking for themselves.

If they travel on government business and are reporting on MP websites and are the spokesman for their party on the issue, it is not just a private trip and private comments.

Why repeat stale arguments, Dobbin? We already found out that for every moved settler in that project, three new ones were added. That is how your convoluted measure of "sucess" catering entirely to the interests of your friendly party.

Because you just don't get it each time it is said. You want it all done even though all parties have indicated step by step is the path they want to take. It is just they are not the steps you want to take.

You really can make excellent comments about lies, it all depends on context, I guess. But it does sound like your arguments are wearing thin, as they were for the major part of this discussion. Really, you can't argue to be an agent of peace, in all honesty, and standy by as a major form agression is being perpetrated, without as much as noticing it? That is a fact, and short of burying it into ground, just like other facts you'd rather not existed, there's very little you can do to counter it.

Your hostility to Israel means no one regards you as a principled and unpartisan agent of peace.

But you're OK dealing with people who are involved in the form of agression, correct? That is obviously not a position of a peace agent. That is all I'm interested in, in this discussion. Ideological branding, argumentations created to support predefined position (by ideology, of course), selective visions, and such - are entirely yours.

Yes, we realize that you are loath to brand anyone a terrorist. That is your ideology.

Not really, at least not in the act. There's military, financial and diplomatic assistance flowing disproportionally to one side. There're oath of eternal friendship and allegiance. All despite the fact it's been involved in major acts of agression. And of course, there're sanctions, accusations and isolation applied selectively on the other side. I think it's yet another case when your vision is drastically different from what's going on in reality.

One side doesn't use women and children as bombs, advocate for the removal of the entire population and refuses to talk.

You just don't get that.

And your argument that Israel should be punished with sanctions for just existing is a non-starter.

Poor memory, I see. How about you try to figure out yourself what I said and did not. It's all here.

I stand by this statement.

I can't comment on every bizzare idea you come up with.

Dodge.

Dobbin, I said it already so many times in this very thread, but I understand that being stuck in the corner with nothing to say to support your failing position, you really have little choice but to pretend that nothing happened ad infinitum, in the hope that the opponent would give.

1. State clearly and officially the principles of deescalation. Maintain that Canada's position toward the parties involved will be in line with their following the agenda of deescalation

2. Call attention to acts of agression, regardless which side involved.

3. Official diplomatic reaction to acts of agression.

4. Economic response to acts of agression (against governments and / or private interests alike)

5. Diplomatic isolation in case of severe and persistent violations of agenda of deescalation.

Clear principles where we judge what steps should be taken unilaterally? This is your failing position.

No, I just can't and won't comment on every bizzare statement you come up with, until you demonstrate that it has some relation to the topic being discussed.

Well, clear it up then. Do you support the existence of the Israeli state? Yes or no?

[jbg]

Dobbin, I said it already so many times in this very thread, but I understand that being stuck in the corner with nothing to say to support your failing position, you really have little choice but to pretend that nothing happened ad infinitum, in the hope that the opponent would give.

1. State clearly and officially the principles of deescalation. Maintain that Canada's position toward the parties involved will be in line with their following the agenda of deescalation

2. Call attention to acts of agression, regardless which side involved.

3. Official diplomatic reaction to acts of agression.

4. Economic response to acts of agression (against governments and / or private interests alike)

5. Diplomatic isolation in case of severe and persistent violations of agenda of deescalation.

1. De-escalation means suicide for Israel given the "sneak attack" nature of the Arabs' attacks. Out of uniform, targeting civilians etc.

2 -4. The Arab governments always disclaim ownership of the suicide attacks. What you're asking is that Canada "call attention" to the actions of a dead suicide attacker, and simultaneously "call attention" to the actions of a democratic government, that is Israel's, which is responsive to international and press opinion.

5. Again, that disproportionately targets Israel. Shadowy groups of "fighters" don't maintain embassies. Your points are fatuous and ridiculous.

No, I just can't and won't comment on every bizzare statement you come up with, until you demonstrate that it has some relation to the topic being discussed.

Calling something "bizarre" doesn't make it so. You seem to want to dance around jdobbin's points.

[Mr.Canada]

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?

It isn't about the general Jewish population. I've said this before. The influence lies with the elite Jews, the ones with power and are mega rich. These Jews have very little to no contact with the everyday Jew you'd see walking on Bathurst for example.

[jbg]

It isn't about the general Jewish population. I've said this before. The influence lies with the elite Jews, the ones with power and are mega rich. These Jews have very little to no contact with the everyday Jew you'd see walking on Bathurst for example.

Explain.

I've been to Toronto and Montreal but have no idea what any "Bathurst" is like, unless you're referring to Bathurst Inlet, Nunavut (link). I don't know how large its Jewish population is or its economic profile.

[Mr.Canada]

Explain.

I've been to Toronto and Montreal but have no idea what any "Bathurst" is like, unless you're referring to Bathurst Inlet, Nunavut (link). I don't know how large its Jewish population is or its economic profile.

North section of Bathurst street is largely a Jewish area, bagel shoppes, deli's, temple, etc

Houses up there start at around 400k - about 600k. These are middle class homes for the most part.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[jbg]

North section of Bathurst street is largely a Jewish area, bagel shoppes, deli's, temple, etc

Houses up there start at around 400k - about 600k. These are middle class homes for the most part.

And basically you're saying that the likes of Bronfman don't mix with the "Bathurst" type?

I hope you understand I was kidding with the reference to Arctic Bathurst Inlet.

[myata]

If they travel on government business and are reporting on MP websites and are the spokesman for their party on the issue, it is not just a private trip and private comments.

OK, I understand, we should read it as you have no proof that the blog represents the official position of the party, but have to insist on bending that line because otherwise it would look (the opposite of smart) just like any number of other times you were pushing obviously and demonstratably false statements and interpretations.

Because you just don't get it each time it is said. You want it all done even though all parties have indicated step by step is the path they want to take. It is just they are not the steps you want to take.

Wrong again, I'm getting the facts that actually happened in this reality. Perhaps you aren't getting that one of the sides is using the pretext of these pseudo peace negotiations to strengthen its hold on the occupied lands? And why would it be that you perisistently fail to "get it"? Could it be because of less than enthusiastic will to observe the events which would not fit into the frame dictated by your ideology?

Your hostility to Israel means no one regards you as a principled and unpartisan agent of peace.

I really liked your comment about lying.

Yes, we realize that you are loath to brand anyone a terrorist. That is your ideology.

I never "loathed" to call things their own names, to which there's any number of proof in this very discussion, but I also see very clearly how some dearly wish to use ideological cliches to cover up their otherwise undefendable positions, and that certainly would have nothing to do with working for peace.

One side doesn't use women and children as bombs, advocate for the removal of the entire population and refuses to talk.

What do you call then putting women and children into settlements in the occupied lands? Or perhaps, your ideological vision filters successfully eliminated that part of reality?

And your argument that Israel should be punished with sanctions for just existing is a non-starter.

Of course, you should have started with that, and we wouldn't have this discussion. There's no way you're going to do anything real about your friendly side's persistent violations, and that is a very clear demonstration of how convoluted your claim to peaceful involvement is, and how it has nothing at all with the genuine peace, and everything - with prompting your friendly party in whatever project they happen to be involved in.

Of course I said (very many times) that policies should be applied regardless of which side is involved, but you conveniently left it out, or could be misunderstood?? because the whole idea of principle and fainess would be so foreign to your ideological stance?

I stand by this statement.

Of course, do you have any other choice? Have you ever admitted being wrong, even when factually proven so, in ths discussion?

Dodge.

No, simply a refusal to comment on something that has no relevance to the discussion. Applying proper names to events goes a long way to understanding them. Enjoy.

Clear principles where we judge what steps should be taken unilaterally? This is your failing position.

Where we apply our policies in accordance with the progress made toward deescalation and peace, based on principle and fairness, rather than ideological association. Could it be that you see it as "failing" because you find the ideas of "principle" and "fairness" very foreign, and perhaps, directly opposite to your ideology of "me or mine can do no wrong"?

Well, clear it up then. Do you support the existence of the Israeli state? Yes or no?

We have already been here, and I see no point in repeating what I already said, as it'll serve no purpose other than playing into your ploys. You obviously have exhausted all rational arguments, and just trying to brand the opponent with one of your cliches, as a last resort to discount their arguments (along with any inconvenient facts).

[jdobbin]

OK, I understand, we should read it as you have no proof that the blog represents the official position of the party, but have to insist on bending that line because otherwise it would look (the opposite of smart) just like any number of other times you were pushing obviously and demonstratably false statements and interpretations.

Please. It her MP's blog. She is the spokesman for the party on the issue. I have seen no difference on what she says in the blog compared to her work in committee for the NDP in Parliament. Stop acting like you think she was on some sort of private trip and the comments aren't related to her government job.

Wrong again, I'm getting the facts that actually happened in this reality. Perhaps you aren't getting that one of the sides is using the pretext of these pseudo peace negotiations to strengthen its hold on the occupied lands? And why would it be that you perisistently fail to "get it"? Could it be because of less than enthusiastic will to observe the events which would not fit into the frame dictated by your ideology?

Wrong again on your part.

I really liked your comment about lying.

You should attempt the truth a few times.

I never "loathed" to call things their own names, to which there's any number of proof in this very discussion, but I also see very clearly how some dearly wish to use ideological cliches to cover up their otherwise undefendable positions, and that certainly would have nothing to do with working for peace.

Dodge again.

What do you call then putting women and children into settlements in the occupied lands? Or perhaps, your ideological vision filters successfully eliminated that part of reality?

Another dodge.

Of course, you should have started with that, and we wouldn't have this discussion. There's no way you're going to do anything real about your friendly side's persistent violations, and that is a very clear demonstration of how convoluted your claim to peaceful involvement is, and how it has nothing at all with the genuine peace, and everything - with prompting your friendly party in whatever project they happen to be involved in.

Of course I said (very many times) that policies should be applied regardless of which side is involved, but you conveniently left it out, or could be misunderstood?? because the whole idea of principle and fainess would be so foreign to your ideological stance?

You have said Israel simply being a state is aggression. I can't you being happy with anything but their removal.

Of course, do you have any other choice? Have you ever admitted being wrong, even when factually proven so, in ths discussion?

You have never factually been right in this discussion.

No, simply a refusal to comment on something that has no relevance to the discussion. Applying proper names to events goes a long way to understanding them. Enjoy.

Another dodge.

Where we apply our policies in accordance with the progress made toward deescalation and peace, based on principle and fairness, rather than ideological association. Could it be that you see it as "failing" because you find the ideas of "principle" and "fairness" very foreign, and perhaps, directly opposite to your ideology of "me or mine can do no wrong"?

Your colonialism was rejected decades ago. I can't believe you are bringing it back.

We have already been here, and I see no point in repeating what I already said, as it'll serve no purpose other than playing into your ploys. You obviously have exhausted all rational arguments, and just trying to brand the opponent with one of your cliches, as a last resort to discount their arguments (along with any inconvenient facts).

You have never answered it. Never. You have exhausted all moral argument but not even admitting the Israel's right to exist.

[myata]

Please. It her MP's blog. She is the spokesman for the party on the issue. I have seen no difference on what she says in the blog compared to her work in committee for the NDP in Parliament. Stop acting like you think she was on some sort of private trip and the comments aren't related to her government job.

Wow. Do you really believe that an individual cannot have their own opinion, which they can also express in public, other than that their job would dictate? Or just pretending it to hang onto yet another obviously wrong, undefendable statement?

Wrong again on your part.

You should attempt the truth a few times.

Dodge again.

Another dodge.

You have said Israel simply being a state is aggression. I can't you being happy with anything but their removal.

You have never factually been right in this discussion.

Another dodge.

Your colonialism was rejected decades ago. I can't believe you are bringing it back.

The arguments are really running thin here, have you noticed that? On the other hand, there isn't really much that can be done in this situations, facts stacked so obviously against your position. Short of admitting it, and maybe making some changes, but that would be such a long call!

You have never answered it. Never. You have exhausted all moral argument but not even admitting the Israel's right to exist.

I did thought I shouldn't have bothered to, as very obviously the question has nothing to do with the discussion. You're out of all meaningful arguments now, and just desperately looking for a way to brand your opponent with an ideological stamp that would also (in your view) discredit their arguments, and any inconvenient facts, that is your strategy now, correct, Dobbin?

[jdobbin]

Wow. Do you really believe that an individual cannot have their own opinion, which they can also express in public, other than that their job would dictate? Or just pretending it to hang onto yet another obviously wrong, undefendable statement?

Wow, do you actually believe she was on a private trip and that her views on the blog don't come from the party spokesman on the issue?

The arguments are really running thin here, have you noticed that? On the other hand, there isn't really much that can be done in this situations, facts stacked so obviously against your position. Short of admitting it, and maybe making some changes, but that would be such a long call!

Once again dodging and weaving but not answering.

I did thought I shouldn't have bothered to, as very obviously the question has nothing to do with the discussion. You're out of all meaningful arguments now, and just desperately looking for a way to brand your opponent with an ideological stamp that would also (in your view) discredit their arguments, and any inconvenient facts, that is your strategy now, correct, Dobbin?

You didn't. Never have. Or else other people here would not be asking.

You bob and weave but won't answer. It is a simple yes or no question and you won't answer it. Come on. Is that painful to do it?

[myata]

Wow, do you actually believe she was on a private trip and that her views on the blog don't come from the party spokesman on the issue?

Wow, wow and wow! Believe it or not (tough as it could be, I know) an independent individual can actually have, and express, an opinion outside of their job. As well as any official contributions they make in their appointed roles. And of course, a responsible participant in a discussion would not attempt to substitute one for another.

You didn't. Never have. Or else other people here would not be asking.

You bob and weave but won't answer. It is a simple yes or no question and you won't answer it. Come on. Is that painful to do it?

No, I did, and I dare you to find it, if you can; big serious hint: right here, in this very thread. Though I now see that I shouldn't have, because it has nothing to do with the discussion, and only plays into your (pretty thin, by now) hopes of discovering something / anything you could label as ideological taboo, and thus discount the arguments and facts you have no rational response to, whatsoever.

[jbg]

Well, clear it up then. Do you support the existence of the Israeli state? Yes or no?

We have already been here, and I see no point in repeating what I already said, as it'll serve no purpose other than playing into your ploys. You obviously have exhausted all rational arguments, and just trying to brand the opponent with one of your cliches, as a last resort to discount their arguments (along with any inconvenient facts).

I want the answer to jdobbin's rather well-taken question, without the need to scroll through tons of detritus. Can you repeat your answer?

Thanks in advance, but I doubt you will.

[Moonbox]

No, I did, and I dare you to find it, if you can; big serious hint: right here, in this very thread. Though I now see that I shouldn't have, because it has nothing to do with the discussion, and only plays into your (pretty thin, by now) hopes of discovering something / anything you could label as ideological taboo, and thus discount the arguments and facts you have no rational response to, whatsoever.

You didn't. Your argument the whole time has been as insubstantial as a fart. You've done nothing but prattle on about how unfairly everyone is to Hamas etc yet you've danced around the very simple fact that they don't want peace, are saying they don't want peace and are offering nothing to the West or Israel. In return you think massive concessions from Israel are both wise and justified.

[myata]

We have already been here, and I see no point in repeating what I already said, as it'll serve no purpose other than playing into your ploys. You obviously have exhausted all rational arguments, and just trying to brand the opponent with one of your cliches, as a last resort to discount their arguments (along with any inconvenient facts).

I want the answer to jdobbin's rather well-taken question, without the need to scroll through tons of detritus. Can you repeat your answer?

Thanks in advance, but I doubt you will.

First of all, thank you for a thoughtful post. I'll certainly consider satisfying your interest perhaps even in a positive light, if only you would kindly oblige us (myself and other potential readers of this thread) by opening another topic with the appropriate title and in the appropriate section of these forums. Thank you.

To MB:

Well you haven't given much substance to respond to really, you see, words like "fart" or "prattle", powerful as they can be in reinforcing your own conviction in your own righteousness, hardly convey any useful meaning to other participants in the discussion. We don't need much persuasion in that the mentioned faction until recently did not show significant interest in peace negotiations, my point however has been all along that the other side, in the light of its persistent agressive policies cannot qualify as an angel of peace either. And in the reality of two (or more) hostile parties involved in ongoing hostilities toward each other, the best hope for peace would be for outsiders to avoid taking sides and cheering for any one party, instead making deescalation the priority. Deescalation means reduction in impact and eventual cessation of all major hostilities. And of course, it simply isn't possible (as an obvious logical self contradiction), if one type of hostility, agression is considered anaphema and taboo to be sanctioned and terminated on the spot, while another - an acceptable and even useful trading instrument. Without understanding that quite simple equation, I'm afraid all further "peaceful" efforts in the aforementioned direction would be destined for no less spectacular failures than they have experienced so far.

I think I already explained this though, and I think I did it more than once. So, barring any novel arguments, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to spare any more repetitions.

[Moonbox]

Myata I never said one side is blameless. They're both bad. What I find questionable in your argument is the notion that Israelis should make massive, enormously expensive and life-changing concessions/withdrawls as peaceful 'gestures' in the interest merely of appeasement and de-escalation. You cannot demand one side make these sort of concessions when the other side is refusing to offer even talk of peace.

The notion that the settlements are 'illegal' is at BEST shakey.

Like you, I'm going to try and let this thread die now but I'd be happy to continue on another thread if one shows up.

[jdobbin]

Wow, wow and wow! Believe it or not (tough as it could be, I know) an independent individual can actually have, and express, an opinion outside of their job. As well as any official contributions they make in their appointed roles. And of course, a responsible participant in a discussion would not attempt to substitute one for another.

Wow, wow, wow. You don't seem to get this was a Parliamentary trip where she wrote about her findings on her parliamentary blog on her parliamentary website in her role as parliamentary critic.

No, I did, and I dare you to find it, if you can; big serious hint: right here, in this very thread. Though I now see that I shouldn't have, because it has nothing to do with the discussion, and only plays into your (pretty thin, by now) hopes of discovering something / anything you could label as ideological taboo, and thus discount the arguments and facts you have no rational response to, whatsoever.

It isn't. It never was. I doubt it ever will be.

Stop acting the coward and answer the question. Is it really that hard? What are you afraid of?

[myata]

Myata I never said one side is blameless. They're both bad. What I find questionable in your argument is the notion that Israelis should make massive, enormously expensive and life-changing concessions/withdrawls as peaceful 'gestures' in the interest merely of appeasement and de-escalation. You cannot demand one side make these sort of concessions when the other side is refusing to offer even talk of peace.

No, I'll try to explain again. They aren't concessions, but obvious acts of hostility and agression that have to cease before any serious talk of peace could begin. Just like attacks by militants. Militants consider attacks on Israel as their privilege due to historic origins of conflict. Isreal sees construction of settlements as theirs. If you identify one, but not the other, as a "concessions", you're taking sides. The path of peace lies in explaining and persuading both parties to abandon all forms of agression, not apologising any one. Taking sides and double vision is only contributing to mistrust and continuation of conflict.

The notion that the settlements are 'illegal' is at BEST shakey.

They are almost universally recognised as such. But in the final analysis, everything is "shaky" in this world, if that's what you mean. The question is where one wants to draw the line.

[jdobbin]

Militants consider attacks on Israel as their privilege due to historic origins of conflict.

It is because they believe that Israel as a state is aggression.

So, if we follow your principles Israel has to cease to exist as a state to end the aggression.

[myata]

Wow, wow, wow. You don't seem to get this was a Parliamentary trip where she wrote about her findings on her parliamentary blog on her parliamentary website in her role as parliamentary critic.

And yes, she still can write what she likes into her private blog. And no, that still does not make the blog the official position of the party. That is the way it is, with free, independent individuals, Dobbin. Believe it or not.

It isn't. It never was. I doubt it ever will be.

Stop acting the coward and answer the question. Is it really that hard? What are you afraid of?

But it was, I promise you. If you convince me, make me really want it (spend these 5 minutes of my time), I could even take you to the place. But no, I won't! Just because. (no, really, because it's gotten nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, does it?)

[jdobbin]

And yes, she still can write what she likes into her private blog. And no, that still does not make the blog the official position of the party. That is the way it is, with free, independent individuals, Dobbin. Believe it or not.

I don't believe it since her reports to committee based on her parliamentary trip as an MP are the same ones we see on her blog. She isn't making a private trip. She is reporting as an MP. Do you get it?

But it was, I promise you. If you convince me, make me really want it (spend these 5 minutes of my time), I could even take you to the place. But no, I won't! Just because. (no, really, because it's gotten nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, does it?)

It wasn't. If it was, you would be showing a link to it.

It has everything to do with it since you have said Israel as a state is a form of aggression.

[Moonbox]

No, I'll try to explain again. They aren't concessions, but obvious acts of hostility and agression that have to cease before any serious talk of peace could begin. Just like attacks by militants. Militants consider attacks on Israel as their privilege due to historic origins of conflict. Isreal sees construction of settlements as theirs. If you identify one, but not the other, as a "concessions", you're taking sides.

This is really my point about your argument. I'll apologize for my use of the words 'fart' and 'prattle' but what you're presenting is an almost philisophical approach that ignores the realities of the situation and the various interests of the affected parties. You're dumbing it down to the point where no distinction is made between various forms of aggression. You're also making the assumption that what YOU and the UN think should be the standards and terms of the conflict are what the Israelis and their enemies are thinking. Clearly this is not the case and thus you have to take a more pragmatic and realistic view to any negotiations and go from there. This is where it seems you really fail in your approach to the conflict. It's almost like you're refusing the concept of negotiations outright and that Israel and its enemies should just automatically accept what you and the UN think is right.

Any approach to the peace process MUST be a negotiation.

The fundamentals of ANY successful negotiation, be it for peace or for business, is the concept of mutual benefit. Both parties have to feel like they have something to gain in the peace process otherwise nothing is ever going to happen.

They are almost universally recognised as such. But in the final analysis, everything is "shaky" in this world, if that's what you mean. The question is where one wants to draw the line.

Universally recognized means nothing if the people in the area don't recognize the borders themselves.

[myata]

I don't believe it since her reports to committee based on her parliamentary trip as an MP are the same ones we see on her blog. She isn't making a private trip. She is reporting as an MP. Do you get it?

And her blog is hers, and not of her party. Did you get that, finally?

It wasn't. If it was, you would be showing a link to it.

It has everything to do with it since you have said Israel as a state is a form of aggression.

Naaah, won't be showing just because I don't feel like it (you didn't convince me, because of course I never sad that, and it has no relevance to the topic of this discussion).

[jdobbin]

And her blog is hers, and not of her party. Did you get that, finally?

Do you get that if it was only hers, it wouldn't be on her MPs website and mirror her reports to the committee?

Naaah, won't be showing just because I don't feel like it (you didn't convince me, because of course I never sad that, and it has no relevance to the topic of this discussion).

That's because it isn't there. Coward.

[myata]

This is really my point about your argument. I'll apologize for my use of the words 'fart' and 'prattle' but what you're presenting is an almost philisophical approach that ignores the realities of the situation and the various interests of the affected parties. You're dumbing it down to the point where no distinction is made between various forms of aggression.

Why such a distinction should be made, though? I gave you a rational argument, that serious negotiations require some level of trust, and trust is not possible while sides are actively involved in acts of agression against each other. Therefore deescalation must precede all serious negotiations, and outsiders should convey this truth to all sides, untile they understand it.

You're also making the assumption that what YOU and the UN think should be the standards and terms of the conflict are what the Israelis and their enemies are thinking. Clearly this is not the case and thus you have to take a more pragmatic and realistic view to any negotiations and go from there.

No such assumptions. Only the pure logic, that no negotiations are possible while active fight is still in progress. First step is to stop the fight. That means all forms of fight, regardless of what sides is involved and for what (obviosly, strongly held) reason.

This is where it seems you really fail in your approach to the conflict. It's almost like you're refusing the concept of negotiations outright and that Israel and its enemies should just automatically accept what you and the UN think is right.

Any approach to the peace process MUST be a negotiation.

Not at all, the details of settlement could certainly be defined only by the sides involved in the conflict, in negotiations. However, before serious negotiations could even begin, all major hostilities have to cease.

Without deescalation, what kind of negotiations could there be? On the legitimate ways in which the sides could lop each other? The legitimate age of concent of settler vs suicide bomber?

If hostilities were to cease, it means that all forms of hostilities and agression have to cease. Yet we see and condemnt militant attacks, but it takes so much to make us even notice the agression in the form of expansion of illegal settlements.

The fundamentals of ANY successful negotiation, be it for peace or for business, is the concept of mutual benefit. Both parties have to feel like they have something to gain in the peace process otherwise nothing is ever going to happen.

Certainly, and that obvious benefit is peace and the chance of prosperity and life free of war and violence for all sides. It should not be and could not be allowing some parties to retain their agressive policies on a selective basis, as it breaks the trust and returns the conflict back to square one, i.e to active hostility, where no serious negotiations are possible.

Universally recognized means nothing if the people in the area don't recognize the borders themselves.

Indeed there's nothing universal, eternal and such on this Earth.