Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[jdobbin]

OK, thanks for clarification, that pretty much concludes the logical part of this discussion. There's no logical arguments against "I believe". By extension, should we also assume your belief in the "engagement" strategy, despite all the clear signs in reality of its successes so far?

I have shown you where there was success. You refused to see it.

You have not shown me how your disengagement will work. I have never seen it work. Examples?

What was said is "same role as in N.Ireland", please read carefully.

I disagree. We were asked in Northern Ireland even though we hadn't actually been disengaged.

Then shouldn't we be able to see those "conditions and questions" in reality, not only your saying so?

Already done so but you didn't accept them.

Sorry, a bit slower, collapse of S.U. has weakend opposition to SA regime and that caused it (the regime) to abandon apartheid? Am I the only one noticing a slight jump of logic here? In any case, this isn't really relevant to the discussion.

You brought up South Africa and how sanctions worked. They didn't.

Change happened there for other reasons.

Yet we all know the result. It happened after sanctions were deployed, and even more importantly, clear unambiguous condemnation of apartheid around the world, not during "productive engagement" or whatever, decades. Another case of stretching the reality to my vision of how it should be (have been)?

None of it worked. Ever.

It was disengagement and it didn't influence South Africa no matter how much we pat ourselves on the back for it.

No surprise, many of us see only what they want to see.

Since you haven't shown me anything, I didn't see anything.

[myata]

I have shown you where there was success. You refused to see it.

No, that simply isn't true. If we saw actual reduction of illegal settlements in all occupied territories, I would applaud and commend you. I said as much myself, haven't I, "progress = reward", but it must be real progress, not some smoke screens.

You have not shown me how your disengagement will work. I have never seen it work. Examples?

But we've seen how "engagement" doesn't. Is it sane to continue doing the same old thing that obviously doesn't work ad infinitum, until one day one miraculous moment it might? Is that what you do at home?

Already done so but you didn't accept them.

No, you haven't! One thing that simply does not exist in this thread is the real referenced examples of clear unambiguous and strong official (by party or country) condemnation of inacceptable actions such as excess violence, in military operations, construction of settlements, violation of human rigths. If you show me otherwise, I promise to eat something bad. And if you can still find such examples, and post them here, it would be very educational, and everybody will be thankful.

Change happened there for other reasons.

None of it worked. Ever.

It was disengagement and it didn't influence South Africa no matter how much we pat ourselves on the back for it.

Since you haven't shown me anything, I didn't see anything.

This needs no further comments. Very convincing indeed.

[jdobbin]

No, that simply isn't true. If we saw actual reduction of illegal settlements in all occupied territories, I would applaud and commend you. I said as much myself, haven't I, "progress = reward", but it must be real progress, not some smoke screens.

You say smokescreens but the plan all along was to end settlements in one place, turn over the land and then begin the process again. The progress=reward is what the plan was all about. The reward for the Isrealis was peace and the reward for the Palestinians was land.

But we've seen how "engagement" doesn't. Is it sane to continue doing the same old thing that obviously doesn't work ad infinitum, until one day one miraculous moment it might? Is that what you do at home?

And disengagement never works.

Here's what I see happening. Canada criticizes Palestinian and Israeli violence. They introduce trade sanctions and diplomatic sanctions and keep escalating it if there is no progress. All relations cut if nothing happens. We then depend on the countries involved to work out the issue themselves. Then we jump in again if there is progress? I'm sorry if that doesn't sound very influential.

As I see it, it looks like disengagement will likely result in Canada not involved at all. And you think Canada would be asked to help later on as a honest broker?

The focus is now on the West Bank and we can see that from all governments now. Our engagement this far means we can keep the issue in the spotlight.

No, you haven't! One thing that simply does not exist in this thread is the real referenced examples of clear unambiguous and strong official (by party or country) condemnation of inacceptable actions such as excess violence, in military operations, construction of settlements, violation of human rigths. If you show me otherwise, I promise to eat something bad. And if you can still find such examples, and post them here, it would be very educational, and everybody will be thankful.

I believe Ignatieff's condemnation at Qana was the example. Eat something bad now, please.

This needs no further comments. Very convincing indeed.

You said South Africa sanctions worked. They didn't. Very convincing.

Edited July 2, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

You say smokescreens but the plan all along was to end settlements in one place, turn over the land and then begin the process again. The progress=reward is what the plan was all about. The reward for the Isrealis was peace and the reward for the Palestinians was land.

But the settlements have grown in the meanwhile, just as they did during the earlier "peace" (Oslo) accord. Can you see the trend, Gobbin? Whatever happens, however it turns, the settlements always grow. And you want to call it progress? And reward it? Now you can get an idea why they're growing. And who's being "conductive" to it.

Here's what I see happening. Canada criticizes Palestinian and Israeli violence. They introduce trade sanctions and diplomatic sanctions and keep escalating it if there is no progress. All relations cut if nothing happens. We then depend on the countries involved to work out the issue themselves. Then we jump in again if there is progress? I'm sorry if that doesn't sound very influential.

Why do you want to be "influential", for influence's sake, or to achieve the result (peace)? Looks like the former, if you see possiblity of progress as an unwanted event, all because you weren't directly involved. If removing lopsided foreign support would give parties strong incentive to seek genuine approaches to peace, everybody will benefit. When they are ready, they'll look for a trusted mediator, the role we would be much more likely to play if we maintained balanced, impartial and just position.

As I see it, it looks like disengagement will likely result in Canada not involved at all. And you think Canada would be asked to help later on as a honest broker?

See above. And define your objectives clearly, please: "help" for help's sake, or actual progress toward peace? I'd say if progress happens without Canada's direct involvement, is lot better than not happening at all (as now, ie. under friendly engagement), you think otherwise?

The focus is now on the West Bank and we can see that from all governments now. Our engagement this far means we can keep the issue in the spotlight.

I can't recall any practical confirmation to that (from Canada; please don't cite Obama), maybe I'm missing something?

I believe Ignatieff's condemnation at Qana was the example. Eat something bad now, please.

Of course. I'll eat exactly one crumb of something bad, in the exact proportion of the official reaction to the events transpiring on near daily basis in the territories.

You said South Africa sanctions worked. They didn't. Very convincing.

Well, with no desire to sidetrack in that new direction, what we do know for sure is that "productive engagement" did not work there. That much is a fact.

Edited July 2, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

But the settlements have grown in the meanwhile, just as they did during the earlier "peace" (Oslo) accord. Can you see the trend, Gobbin? Whatever happens, however it turns, the settlements always grow. And you want to call it progress? And reward it? Now you can get an idea why they're growing. And who's being "conductive" to it.

The focus is now on the West Bank. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it.

Why do you want to be "influential", for influence's sake, or to achieve the result (peace)? Looks like the former, if you see possiblity of progress as an unwanted event, all because you weren't directly involved. If removing lopsided foreign support would give parties strong incentive to seek genuine approaches to peace, everybody will benefit. When they are ready, they'll look for a trusted mediator, the role we would be much more likely to play if we maintained balanced, impartial and just position.

Why do you want to be disengaged if we end up having to deal with the end result of refugees and an escalation into other areas as a result?

I have seen no evidence that a disengaged mediator has ever had a role in Middle Eastern conflict.

See above. And define your objectives clearly, please: "help" for help's sake, or actual progress toward peace? I'd say if progress happens without Canada's direct involvement, is lot better than not happening at all (as now, ie. under friendly engagement), you think otherwise?

I believe I have stated that Canada disengaging is not likely to help.

I can't recall any practical confirmation to that (from Canada; please don't cite Obama), maybe I'm missing something?

Lawrence Cannon said that the settlements were illegal in May and has pushed for an end to expansion.

http://www.canada.com/News/Expansion+Israe...9305/story.html

Israel's expansion of settlements into Palestinian territory is an "illegal move" that undermines Middle East peace, says Canada's foreign affairs minister.

The Liberals stated the same thing that week in meetings with the Palestinian Authority in Ottawa.

The focus is on the West Bank.

Of course. I'll eat exactly one crumb of something bad, in the exact proportion of the official reaction to the events transpiring on near daily basis in the territories.

You asked for an example and now back away?

Well, with no desire to sidetrack in that new direction, what we do know for sure is that "productive engagement" did not work there. That much is a fact.

Since you raised the issue of South Africa, I figure it is germane.

We did not help in South Africa. It was the end of the violence on the part of the ANC that led the way and that came from losing Soviet support.

[myata]

The focus is now on the West Bank. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it.

You don't have to repeat it, just admit the obvious fact that friendly engagement has failed to halt the expansion of settelement, which was going on while the strategy was in place for over two decades and still continues as we speak. You future plans and strategems neither change nor negate the actual situation now.

Why do you want to be disengaged if we end up having to deal with the end result of refugees and an escalation into other areas as a result?

No comments as you're obviously pulling things out of thin air. How can one seriously discuss some imaginary situations, can I fill any number of threads with those, instantly. Here's one, aliens decided to lend their support and superior technology to Palestinians, what we gonna do now?!!!

I have seen no evidence that a disengaged mediator has ever had a role in Middle Eastern conflict.

But you see much that "engaged" one(s) don't succeed. And so? Should we press on with the one that "has role", but no result? Or maybe try something different, for a change?

I believe I have stated that Canada disengaging is not likely to help.

I know you did, but you also left out all argumentation to that (other than your belief) that makes it just that, a statement. Without no relevance to this discussion (your private beliefs is your own affair and I'm not inclined to discuss them in any way)

Lawrence Cannon said that the settlements were illegal in May and has pushed for an end to expansion.

http://www.canada.com/News/Expansion+Israe...9305/story.html

The Liberals stated the same thing that week in meetings with the Palestinian Authority in Ottawa.

You asked for an example and now back away?

I do not back away from anything. I said making the statements should be the first step. If talking by itself proves ineffective in bringing real result, as it hasn't been in the past, there must be other real measures to make sure that everybody understand that we mean what we're saying. And so far, talking and stating has certainly failed to bring real, actual results, as news of further expansion arrive on a regular basis (certainly there's been a few after May). What do we want, the statements, or the real, actual result? And what do we have to show, in real, actual terms, for two decades of engagement?

We did not help in South Africa. It was the end of the violence on the part of the ANC that led the way and that came from losing Soviet support.

I see. Foolish ANC has started all the trouble inspired by Soviets, while SA regime was willing to drop the apartheid all along. Such a misunderstanding, right off Shakespeare!

Edited July 2, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

You don't have to repeat it, just admit the obvious fact that friendly engagement has failed to halt the expansion of settelement, which was going on while the strategy was in place for over two decades and still continues as we speak. You future plans and strategems neither change nor negate the actual situation now.

It did end the settlement in Gaza which is what was intended even if you don't want to admit that.

No comments as you're obviously pulling things out of thin air. How can one seriously discuss some imaginary situations, can I fill any number of threads with those, instantly. Here's one, aliens decided to lend their support and superior technology to Palestinians, what we gonna do now?!!!

I don't have to dicuss imaginary situations. We have seen it happen every time there is an escalation.

But you see much that "engaged" one(s) don't succeed. And so? Should we press on with the one that "has role", but no result? Or maybe try something different, for a change?

It did get results.

I know you did, but you also left out all argumentation to that (other than your belief) that makes it just that, a statement. Without no relevance to this discussion (your private beliefs is your own affair and I'm not inclined to discuss them in any way)

You've shown no examples which disengagement did help so I don't know that you argument that it will work is supported at all.

I do not back away from anything. I said making the statements should be the first step. If talking by itself proves ineffective in bringing real result, as it hasn't been in the past, there must be other real measures to make sure that everybody understand that we mean what we're saying. And so far, talking and stating has certainly failed to bring real, actual results, as news of further expansion arrive on a regular basis (certainly there's been a few after May). What do we want, the statements, or the real, actual result? And what do we have to show, in real, actual terms, for two decades of engagement?

Now you are just moving the goal posts.

I see. Foolish ANC has started all the truble inspired by Soviets, while SA regime was willing to drop the apartheid all along. Such a misunderstanding, right off Shakespeare!

I think my meaning was clear: The South Africans were not affected by sanctions while they believed they faced a violent outcome from the ANC.

[Bonam]

I think my meaning was clear: The South Africans were not affected by sanctions while they believed they faced a violent outcome from the ANC.

They were pretty much right to fear a violent outcome. Since the change, South Africa has implemented the BEP, which disenfranchises whites based on race. It has also purposefully looked the other way while criminal gangs have ambushed and killed thousands of white farmers. Many whites have since fled the country.

[normanchateau]

Furthermore it really helps when the media is for all practical purposes under the control of pro Israel jews... CBC being owned by the rabinovitches is a close...

CBC owned and controlled by pro-Israeli JEWS?

Rabinovitch was appointed CBC President by Chretien. Is this your evidence that the CBC is owned and controlled by pro-Israeli Jews?

Harper replaced him with Hubert Lacroix, the current CBC President. Is Lacroix a pro-Israeli Jew?

[gordiecanuk]

Why the fixation on Israel anyway? There are plenty of conflicts around the world, and Canada's Jewish population isn't that big...we have about twice as many Muslims in this country. In fact we probably have about as many members of the Jewish faith as Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

Why the fixation on Israel anyway? There are plenty of conflicts around the world, and Canada's Jewish population isn't that big...we have about twice as many Muslims in this country. In fact we probably have about as many members of the Jewish faith as Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists.

That's pretty naive.

[normanchateau]

francophone quebec people don't own ...TD bank...

You mean all those TD common shares are owned by Jews? I wonder why they allowed me to buy TD shares.

[normanchateau]

The liberals record on standing by Israel is terrible, the Tories is excellent.

Talk is cheap and that includes a professional politician's stand on Israel. Harper's stand on Afghanistan had long been that he would never cut-and-run. But last year, in the midst of an election campaign with a majority of Canadians, especially Quebecois, opposing Canada's Afghanistan involvement, he suddenly announced that he would cut-and-run and bizarrely even went on US television to tell Americans why the Afghanistan insurgency will never be defeated.

[myata]

It did end the settlement in Gaza which is what was intended even if you don't want to admit that.

No I admit it freely, but for me moving settlements out of a strategically useless piece of land somewhere else is not a "result", not for twenty or so years of talking and stating and restating.

And now it's your turn, Dobbin, so: in over two decades we've been "engaged", has it resulted in actual halt and reduction of settlements in ALL occupied territories?

Yes or no, Dobbin, as only one can be true?

Do you call it a "result" and maybe, also "success"?

I don't have to dicuss imaginary situations. We have seen it happen every time there is an escalation.

Indeed. So is our "engagement" reducing escalation, or maybe flaming them up? Because somebody somewhere who's not at all interested in "peace" can just press ahead with new plans, constructions, military actions, because they know the worth of the talk, but the real, practical, material support would keep coming?

It did get results.

You can repeat it forever, and yet it won't remove one new illegal settlers home from the ground. If you call continuous expansion of settlements a "result", it only makes it very clear what your objectives were all along.

You've shown no examples which disengagement did help so I don't know that you argument that it will work is supported at all.

So let's round it up, you're stuck with a strategy that has obviously failed in more that two decades of trial, and your only idea is, I'm gonna keep doing this because you haven't proven that something different will work. Maybe you find it smart, if so, you could try similar approach in everything you do, could make you a genius!

BTW I did provide logical argumentation for conditional disengament, (remember, incentive to seek dialog to factions that weren't interested because they know the support would keep coming despite all the stating and restating), so it is supported indeed, enough at least to try it for a change. If in two decades it fails to bring real, practical results, unlike you I'll freely admit that I was wrong.

Now you are just moving the goal posts.

Not at all, as you can easily find out by rereading the original post (if interested, of course). Consistent and strong adn clear official position was only the first step. BTW it is the "official statements" that has to be issues persistengly, in a "strong and clear" manner, so some of your examples wouldn't qualify. To mention that there's been more settlement expansion announcements since May, and where are those statements, clear and unambigous? One'd thing that after two decades of continuous, ongoing expansion, the time for mild chiding has long passed, but not you, Dobbin? That is because you want to see the real actual results, no doubt.

Why the fixation on Israel anyway? There are plenty of conflicts around the world, and Canada's Jewish population isn't that big...we have about twice as many Muslims in this country. In fact we probably have about as many members of the Jewish faith as Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists.

If I understand Dobbin's position correctly, we have to be involved to turn things for the better (as that is our nature), but because we cann only be involved in a certain way, like giving unconditional support to one side, that makes us a great mediator in the eventual resolution, and also brings great results such as making our friendly party move settlements around, while continuously expanding them, which in itself goes a long way to calm down the conflict and reduce future escalations (which would be catastrophically enormous, if we were to withdraw our positive influence).

Edited July 3, 2009 by myata

[normanchateau]

The liberals record on standing by Israel is terrible, the Tories is excellent.

How does Ignatieff's stance differ from Harper's?

[jdobbin]

No I admit it freely, but for me moving settlements out of a strategically useless piece of land somewhere else is not a "result", not for twenty or so years of talking and stating and restating.

It wasn't strategically useless to Israel. They fought years to keep building there.

And now it's your turn, Dobbin, so: in over two decades we've been "engaged", has it resulted in actual halt and reduction of settlements in ALL occupied territories?

As I said, the focus was on Gaza as part of the roadmap and then the West Bank was to follow.

Yes or no, Dobbin, as only one can be true?

Do you call it a "result" and maybe, also "success"?

Yes, it has been a success in reducing settlements. It ended them in Gaza.

I know you want them ended everywhere immediately but the roadmap was set up to run in steps.

Indeed. So is our "engagement" reducing escalation, or maybe flaming them up? Because somebody somewhere who's not at all interested in "peace" can just press ahead with new plans, constructions, military actions, because they know the worth of the talk, but the real, practical, material support would keep coming?

Escalation increased by the election of Hamas and the the Israelis building in the West Bank.

It is why the focus is now on the West Bank and keeping Hamas from launching attacks into Israel.

You can repeat it forever, and yet it won't remove one new illegal settlers home from the ground. If you call continuous expansion of settlements a "result", it only makes it very clear what your objectives were all along.

You can repeat forever that you want all settlements gone but it was a step by step process from the beginning.

So let's round it up, you're stuck with a strategy that has obviously failed in more that two decades of trial, and your only idea is, I'm gonna keep doing this because you haven't proven that something different will work. Maybe you find it smart, if so, you could try similar approach in everything you do, could make you a genius!

Let's round up what you want: Disengagement and no involvement with either side.

BTW I did provide logical argumentation for conditional disengament, (remember, incentive to seek dialog to factions that weren't interested because they know the support would keep coming despite all the stating and restating), so it is supported indeed, enough at least to try it for a change. If in two decades it fails to bring real, practical results, unlike you I'll freely admit that I was wrong.

There are already incentives in place to encourage behaviour. It is why the roadmap was set up in the first place.

Not at all, as you can easily find out by rereading the original post (if interested, of course). Consistent and strong adn clear official position was only the first step. BTW it is the "official statements" that has to be issues persistengly, in a "strong and clear" manner, so some of your examples wouldn't qualify. To mention that there's been more settlement expansion announcements since May, and where are those statements, clear and unambigous? One'd thing that after two decades of continuous, ongoing expansion, the time for mild chiding has long passed, but not you, Dobbin? That is because you want to see the real actual results, no doubt.

You are obviously upset about the position. You don't think we have done enough and think that by doing less, we will get results.

If I understand Dobbin's position correctly, we have to be involved to turn things for the better (as that is our nature), but because we cann only be involved in a certain way, like giving unconditional support to one side, that makes us a great mediator in the eventual resolution, and also brings great results such as making our friendly party move settlements around, while continuously expanding them, which in itself goes a long way to calm down the conflict and reduce future escalations (which would be catastrophically enormous, if we were to withdraw our positive influence).

You keep saying unconditional support but even the Palestinians don't think that is what out position is. In fact, they thanked us for our help and assistance and asked for our continued involvement.

The focus now is on the West Bank. Canada has called the building illegal and there is a fair amount of Israelis as well who think the move is provocative.

Canada and other nations are urging Israel to get back to the roadmap that was outlined previously. You want us to disengage but it is unlikely to have as much influence as pressuring Israel as we are now. When Israelis believe the settlements are a security issue, they dig their heels in.

Much like how South Africa was not going to let sanctions concern it so long as they thought they were in danger, the Israelis won't let disengagement or sanctions influence it. What does influence it is the promise of peace.

[myata]

Here's the details on settlements: Wikipedia: Israeli settlements

Some actual data (excerpts from above):

1993:

Total: 281,800 (end of Cold War)

2004:

Gaza: 7,800

Total: 441,165

2006:

Gaza: 0

Total: 470,562 (and near 70% increase over the 1993)

There you go, Dobbin, notice the addition of healthy 30,000 (i.e. close to 10% in only couple of years), all the while you were running around proclaiming great "results". Indeed your strategy seems to be working (i.e there's actual, measurable difference that some may call "result" or even "progress", depending on their - and yours, correct?, point of view).

I don't think there should be any doubts by now which way your strategy is heading, nor there's any need for more words, the numbers speak for themselves very clearly. You can enjoy that nice and smiley view in your telescope, that's certainly your right, but, again, as the facts clearly show, it has little to do with the reality. Just as that seemingly genuine concernt for wordly peace.

To NC:

In all honestly I don't see any (real practical difference).

Edited July 3, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

I don't think there should be any doubts by now which way your strategy is heading, nor there's any need for more words, the numbers speak for themselves very clearly. You can enjoy that nice and smiley view in your telescope, that's certainly your right, but, again, as the facts clearly show, it has little to do with the reality. Just as that seemingly genuine concernt for wordly peace.

The facts do speak for themselves. Zero settlers in Gaza now. The focus is on the West Bank now.

[punked]

The facts do speak for themselves. Zero settlers in Gaza now. The focus is on the West Bank now.

That is only becuase their is no room in Gaza though. It is one of the most highly populated areas in the world. No one wants to live their.

[jdobbin]

That is only becuase their is no room in Gaza though. It is one of the most highly populated areas in the world. No one wants to live their.

Someone wanted to live there because they fought tooth and nail to stay when Israeli troops pulled them out of their houses and bulldozed them as part of the deal.

[punked]

Someone wanted to live there because they fought tooth and nail to stay when Israeli troops pulled them out of their houses and bulldozed them as part of the deal.

Yes because they had all the good farm land in Gaza. It cost about 1.5 billion to move those people now there are about 50-60 times that amount in the West Bank and they are planted firmer then Gaza. You are looking at 50-100 billion dollars to move them.

[myata]

Yeah, we know, dog ate my homework, but my focus is now squarely on.. wouldn't be much else to add, eh?

Your problem is that you mix the reality (no homework, ever continuing expansion of settlements, etc) with your mental state ("focus is now"). You see, the latter does not necessarily change the former, or we would all be living in our own private paradises.

Yet the facts, numbers, speak for themselves, again:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004: 440 K

2006: 470 K (and more added since, even in this week's news)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now try to say something that will change the facts, the actual state reality. Till then, I don't think there would be mch point in this discussion, as it's been proven to you with facts that your strategy is bankrupt, and you simply choose to ignore reality and refuse to admit it.

[normanchateau]

Funny how the party that stridently pro a certain country suddenly gains almost universal support from a certain ethnic group

What's your evidence for "almost universal support"? Let's see the numbers.

[gordiecanuk]

I doubt they're battling for Jewish votes, less than .25% of the elctorate...a more logical assumption is that they're looking to get positive news and editorial coverage in CanWest media properties.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

What's your evidence for "almost universal support"? Let's see the numbers.

It's common knowledge, thank you.