Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[myata]

Do you get that if it was only hers, it wouldn't be on her MPs website ..

Why wouldn't it, Dobbin? Because as a (Liberal) MP, you turn off your brain for the term of your appointment?

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

Nobody calls me 'c.... Naaaah, still not convinced

[jdobbin]

Why wouldn't it, Dobbin? Because as a (Liberal) MP, you turn off your brain for the term of your appointment?

Because it is her notes from her blog that she uses in her Parliamentary committee reports. It is what she uses as spokesman for her party on the issue.

You keep thinking this is some sort of private trip.

Nobody calls me 'c.... Naaaah, still not convinced

You don't believe in the existence of Israel since it is a form of aggression.

[myata]

Because it is her notes from her blog that she uses in her Parliamentary committee reports. It is what she uses as spokesman for her party on the issue.

Well, then you should have referenced the reports she provides to the committee, and not the blog. Unless in your party, all your opinions, public statements (and maybe even thoughts?) become the property of the party the day you sign up.

You keep thinking this is some sort of private trip.

You don't believe in the existence of Israel since it is a form of aggression.

Please keep telling me what I'm thinking and believe. It's very captivating (but also, hilarious). Only perhaps, for the sake of other possible readers of this thread, you could be so kind as to find another venue for that? Assuming that you have nothing else of substance to contribute here?

[jdobbin]

Well, then you should have referenced the reports she provides to the committee, and not the blog. Unless in your party, all your opinions, public statements (and maybe even thoughts?) become the property of the party the day you sign up.

I have referenced them. You must have missed them.

Please keep telling me what I'm thinking and believe. It's very captivating (but also, hilarious). Only perhaps, for the sake of other possible readers of this thread, you could be so kind as to find another venue for that? Assuming that you have nothing else of substance to contribute here?

Just that you won't answer a simple question.

[myata]

I have referenced them. You must have missed them.

Well Dobbin, you certainly referenced the blog (in post #1153, and again in 1174), but I see no references to the reports. Could it be that once again, you have confused (oops!) the meanings of two simple words, "mentioning" and "referencing"?

Just that you won't answer a simple question.

I'm sorry for failing to satisfy your curiosity, but I can't attempt to answer every question that can be asked in this wide world.

[jdobbin]

Well Dobbin, you certainly referenced the blog (in post #1153, and again in 1174), but I see no references to the reports. Could it be that once again, you have confused (oops!) the meanings of two simple words, "mentioning" and "referencing"?

They are there. Keep looking. Her previous statements are listed from Hansard in her blog. There is also her letter to the prime minister on Gaza.

In short, there are reports of her Parliamentary job with speeches direct from Hansard.

This isn't a private blog. It is a Parliamentary site that shows what she is doing in her job as critic for the NDP.

I'm sorry for failing to satisfy your curiosity, but I can't attempt to answer every question that can be asked in this wide world.

How childish you are. It is a simple question that deserves a simple answer.

[myata]

In short, there are reports of her Parliamentary job with speeches direct from Hansard.

OK, you're saying that MP cannot post a quote from their speeches, or links to them, in their own blogs?

This isn't a private blog. It is a Parliamentary site that shows what she is doing in her job as critic for the NDP.

OK, this statement is actually factually verifiable, except I'm not willing to spend any more of my time on it. If you can demonstrate that there's a legal or formal in any other way, requirement for an MP's blog to represent the official position of the party, I'll admit that you're correct and take my words back. Otherwise, ie. if there isn't any such requirement, we'll have live with yet another confused misunderstanding on your part, OK?

How childish you are. It is a simple question that deserves a simple answer.

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Still, I cannot undertake to answer every question that can be asked, for reason or without, in this very wide world, sorry about that.

[jdobbin]

OK, you're saying that MP cannot post a quote from their speeches, or links to them, in their own blogs?

I am saying that they are indistinguishable on her Parliamentary website.

OK, this statement is actually factually verifiable, except I'm not willing to spend any more of my time on it. If you can demonstrate that there's a legal or formal in any other way, requirement for an MP's blog to represent the official position of the party, I'll admit that you're correct and take my words back. Otherwise, ie. if there isn't any such requirement, we'll have live with yet another confused misunderstanding on your part, OK?

I believe that you are the one that is confused. We have her statements in the House alongside her letters to the PM alongside information from her trip. It is all in her role as MP and as critic.

I don't see her talking about her family or giving restaurant reviews. It is work related in the same way a letter coming to your door is.

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Still, I cannot undertake to answer every question that can be asked, for reason or without, in this very wide world, sorry about that.

I'm not surprised since it would reveal a great deal about where you actually stand on the whole issue.

If Israel is actually aggression merely for being a state then options about what to do about it go back to its founding. In other words, can peace only happen if Israel ceases to be?

[jbg]

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.

Another dodge?

I cannot open a thread specifically to ask you a question since the House Rules do not permit opening threads about posters.

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.

MB does not make excessive use of those terms.

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.

I think this position is disigenuous in view of the Arab advantage in population.

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.

No.

If people keep asking you its because you keep dodging and weaving.

Edited September 4, 2009 by jbg

[myata]

Well, this position, fresh from today's news, is certainly very ingenuous:

BBC: Netanuahu to back more settlement construction.

Let's attempt to translate it into plain English:

- I'm going to continue my acts of hostility and agression till it suits my immediate needs;

- I may suspend them temporarily to extract consessions from you that suit my needs (on trade, tourism, etc)

- I can resume my acts of agression when and as I see fit.

There's a word for that kind of behaviour in English, and it certainly isn't "peace". No, the word is "blackmail". And it is very obvious that our pseudo peaceful policies so far have ignored, condoned, and given tacit support to this form of blackmail, by failing (and possibly, conscioiusly refusing) to clearly identify, condemn, and react to these obvious acts of agression. Following that, all ostensibly peaceful talk can be safely discarded as the smokescreen for yet another remote project by the democratic coalition/gang, at least up until it decides to show some act to match its professions.

[Moonbox]

First off, you misquoted and have it that Jdobbin said all of this instead of me. I'm probably one of the last people he'd want to quote. Anyways....

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.

The distinction must be made because we're not rationalizing in a vacuum. Your argument is rational only so long as you ignore the practical consequences of what you are suggesting. You're saying that the ONLY way that even basic dialogue gets established is that Israel evacuate hundreds of thousands of settlers and dismantle entire communities at ENORMOUS cost for absolutely no tangible or likely benefit to themselves.

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 absolutely false. Negotiations ALWAYS come first before violence and aggression is stopped. The basic and very first step is that both sides agree to talk. There is NOTHING that prevents both sides from talking while 'aggression' is committed. To suggest as much is foolishness, not logic.

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.

Okay let's get right back to the principles of 'logic' shall we?

The overall goal of the peace process should be the end of aggression and violence correct?

You're saying that the peace process and dialogue cannot commence until the conflict is deescalated and the aggression stops right?

Follow this thought through and the only conclusion we can make by reading your post is that peace talks and dialogue cannot start until the aggression from both sides has ended, both sides have what they want, and we ultimately have peace. Do you see the problem with that?

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.

De-escalation of aggression is the GOAL of peace talks, not the prerequisite. If Israel is going to abandon it's settlements across the make believe 'borders', you have to show them they'd gain something by doing so. Some guarantees of peace and safety might do the trick. If, however, they're still going to have all their neighbours financing, committing and vowing the same violence afterwards AND they're going to have hundreds of thousands of homeless evacuees, logic and a basic understanding of human nature would suggest they shouldn't.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Moonbox

[jbg]

There's a word for that kind of behaviour in English, and it certainly isn't "peace". No, the word is "blackmail".

Until the Arabs recognize Israel as a Jewish state, they're going to continue creating "facts on the ground". No reason why they shouldn't.

[myata]

I'm not surprised since it would reveal a great deal about where you actually stand on the whole issue.

If Israel is actually aggression merely for being a state then options about what to do about it go back to its founding. In other words, can peace only happen if Israel ceases to be?

No, it only reveals (much of already known) about your incurably biased view on the issue. Of course you're free to keep musing about your own creative interpretations of something that has been stated clearly like a hundred of times, it's really the only "argument" you'd have left at this time.

To JBG:

Yes, I understand, thanks for openness and honesty. And so, one side will continue to use obvious agression to extract concession they need, and Dobbin would continue to call it "peace" and look the other way, peacefully. Let's guess when and how it will bring us actual peace. It took Dobbin's advocated plan two decades to grow illegal settlements near twofold. By all looks (and reports from the groung), the path of "successes" would continue.

[jdobbin]

No, it only reveals (much of already known) about your incurably biased view on the issue. Of course you're free to keep musing about your own creative interpretations of something that has been stated clearly like a hundred of times, it's really the only "argument" you'd have left at this time.

To JBG:

Yes, I understand, thanks for openness and honesty. And so, one side will continue to use obvious agression to extract concession they need, and Dobbin would continue to call it "peace" and look the other way, peacefully. Let's guess when and how it will bring us actual peace. It took Dobbin's advocated plan two decades to grow illegal settlements near twofold. By all looks (and reports from the groung), the path of "successes" would continue.

Your personalization of the topic is quite amazing. I find it hard to believe that you act like such a boor where people actually know you.

[myata]

Your personalization of the topic is quite amazing.

It'd certainly help me to work on my attitudes, if you haven't forgot to explain exactly what part of my statement you call 'personalization'?

That your position on the conflict is severely biased toward one side? I think it was sufficiently demonstrated by factual evidence.

Or that your certain musings have nothing to do with the actual position that's been stated clearly so many times? I think that should be pretty obvious too, to anybody who'd bother to read and understand what is stated.

And, nobody could deny the fact, that till now, nothing, zero, of real practical act has been done about the expansion of settlements, and you yourself stated that such act wouldn't be wise. Wouldn't it mean that your position would remain unchanged, and nothing will be done again, and again, while settlements continue to grow, as they do even now?

And of course, the 70% increase in illegal settlements (and counting, daily) is also a fact of reality, rather than "personalization".

So could it be that this complain is in fact a way to reconcile the idea (of "peace" and "good" what we do) with the reality that wouldn't really match it - by blaming the messenger for "personalization"?

[jdobbin]

It'd certainly help me to work on my attitudes, if you haven't forgot to explain exactly what part of my statement you call 'personalization'?

Everyone of your posts seems to focus on me. It really is extreme.

[Moonbox]

And, nobody could deny the fact, that till now, nothing, zero, of real practical act has been done about the expansion of settlements, and you yourself stated that such act wouldn't be wise. Wouldn't it mean that your position would remain unchanged, and nothing will be done again, and again, while settlements continue to grow, as they do even now?

And of course, the 70% increase in illegal settlements (and counting, daily) is also a fact of reality, rather than "personalization".

So could it be that this complain is in fact a way to reconcile the idea (of "peace" and "good" what we do) with the reality that wouldn't really match it - by blaming the messenger for "personalization"?

You've failed, once again, to explain why Israel should have ANY interest in dismantling the settlements. ZERO. None.

Go back to my post in page 81 of this thread and let's examine your broken logic and reasoning on the subject shall we?

Edited September 8, 2009 by Moonbox

[GostHacked]

You've failed, once again, to explain why Israel should have ANY interest in dismantling the settlements. ZERO. None.

Go back to my post in page 81 of this thread and let's examine your broken logic and reasoning on the subject shall we?

Recently, the US and Germany have made it clear that this is not helping any kind fo peace process. The fact that the US usually votes and backs Israel in an overwhelmingly amount of items, the US says this is a step back and there can't be a good solution to a two state resolution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8241247.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ettlements.html

But the Israeli leader was reported to have told a cabinet meeting on Sunday: "I have no intention to construct new settlements, but it makes no sense to ask us not to answer to the needs of natural growth and to stop all construction."

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are one of the major stumbling blocks in the Middle East peace process, which Mr Obama has vowed to push forward despite a new largely Right-wing government in Israel that backs settlements.

This expansion is not about peace at all. Seems the Israelis just simply need more land to live on. I wonder why the Palestinians have a problem with these internationally and UN condemned expanstionist actions.

Like I said, there will be no two state solution. One or the other is going to get driven into the sea. Looking at the borders over the past 50 years ... the only one that has grown has been Israel.

[myata]

First off, you misquoted and have it that Jdobbin said all of this instead of me. I'm probably one of the last people he'd want to quote. Anyways....

Apologies, it must have been cut and paste error.

The distinction must be made because we're not rationalizing in a vacuum. Your argument is rational only so long as you ignore the practical consequences of what you are suggesting. You're saying that the ONLY way that even basic dialogue gets established is that Israel evacuate hundreds of thousands of settlers and dismantle entire communities at ENORMOUS cost for absolutely no tangible or likely benefit to themselves.

Well, that's an interesting argument. My agression should be allowed to continue, because stopping it would be too much cost - to me. Or because .. whatever. Maybe, because I don't want (to stop it) in the first place. That's a position of an agressive side, and of course, if it doesn't need peace and not preparted to make steps toward it, of which bringing to halt all major hostile and agressive acts is the first priority, then no peace is possible. The outsiders may attempt to convince hostile sides that pursuing peace is in their long term interest, or they could withdraw their support from all parties involved in hostilities, and let them come to that understanding on their own terms, but what they shouldn't do, in the way of practical work for peace, is to throw their support on any one side, ignoring their agressive behavior, or trying to rationalize or excuse it.

This is absolutely false. Negotiations ALWAYS come first before violence and aggression is stopped.

The basic and very first step is that both sides agree to talk. There is NOTHING that prevents both sides from talking while 'aggression' is committed. To suggest as much is foolishness, not logic.

Of course, it's not an iron and stone rule, simply a very logical conclusion that while stones and kicks are thrown around, there wouldn't be much room for sensible, responsible negotiations. Just what we see.

Okay let's get right back to the principles of 'logic' shall we?

The overall goal of the peace process should be the end of aggression and violence correct?

No that would be the starting point. The goal of process would be to create conditions where both sides could exist in peace and reasonable prosperity.

You're saying that the peace process and dialogue cannot commence until the conflict is deescalated and the aggression stops right?

Correct.

Follow this thought through and the only conclusion we can make by reading your post is that peace talks and dialogue cannot start until the aggression from both sides has ended, both sides have what they want, and we ultimately have peace. Do you see the problem with that?

No, of course not. Only by establishing a level of trust, parties can begin to believe that peaceful coexistence is possible. Such trust is hardly possible when sides are involved in active hostilities.

If Israel is going to abandon it's settlements across the make believe 'borders', you have to show them they'd gain something by doing so.

Some guarantees of peace and safety might do the trick. If, however, they're still going to have all their neighbours financing, committing and vowing the same violence afterwards AND they're going to have hundreds of thousands of homeless evacuees, logic and a basic understanding of human nature would suggest they shouldn't.

I certainly wouldn't argue with that, both sides would need to understand the advantages of peace, and outside parties could certainly play a part in it (I wouldn't disagree with guarantees of peace, within the borders). What is not the part for peace though, is persistently, glaringly failing to notice onging massive acts of agression as such. This behaviour only encourages factions bent on furthering conflict on both sides. If we cant' accomplish any genuine good there, the next best, and the right thing to do would be to withdraw our support from all sides which wouldn't abandon hostilities and agression, and let them figure it out on their own terms and in their own time.

Edited September 8, 2009 by myata

[jbg]

Your personalization of the topic is quite amazing. I find it hard to believe that you act like such a boor where people actually know you.

Canadian may not be his first language. And I don't know why he's praising me.

[jbg]

Like I said, there will be no two state solution. One or the other is going to get driven into the sea. Looking at the borders over the past 50 years ... the only one that has grown has been Israel.

If we give the Palestinians a state using Israeli real estate, how long until the Frankenstinians or some other group wants one for themselves?

[myata]

Everyone of your posts seems to focus on me. It really is extreme.

Not true, yet again. Unlike some of your own comments in this thread, they do not relate to your persona, and are focused exclusively on your advocated approach to the problem that is a very fine example of everything that is wrong with this pseudo peace process.

To JBG: you were praised for being honest and open in your support of clearly agressive policies of the side you chose to cheer for, unlike those other posters here who, for all practical ends, would act the same way, but at that would pretend that they are busy executing some kind of a critical peace mission.

As soon as these posters admit that in their vision, Canada's role should become that of unconditional support of one side in the conflict, I'll consider it as a clear and honest position and this discussion will be over. Individuals could then decide for themselves whether they'd want to vote for a party that hinges its position in the serious international affairs on electoral considerations of the moment, instead of long standing principles.

[jdobbin]

Not true, yet again. Unlike some of your own comments in this thread, they do not relate to your persona, and are focused exclusively on your advocated approach to the problem that is a very fine example of everything that is wrong with this pseudo peace process.

It is totally true. I can't think of anyone else in this thread who does more closely respond based on persona.

As for your advocated approach, I think we can safely say it is unilateralism and isolationism.

[myata]

Most certainly you can "say" almost anything, having it proved by fact and logical argument is an entirely different story, at which you have been much less successful, so far.

[jdobbin]

Most certainly you can "say" almost anything, having it proved by fact and logical argument is an entirely different story, at which you have been much less successful, so far.

I have been 100% successful in identifying you are someone who personalizes and who is wrong.